And it does seem you and Nate have the right of it by "the letter of the law," so to speak, even if DK intended the two nouns to represent an integral unit as I understood them to do. I suppose it is not so much a case of subject/verb agreement as correctly identifying the plural or singular nature of the subject, since he clearly intended to use a singular verb for a singular subject but stated that subject in a plural form. It is still grammatically incorrect though, if only because his intent was not correctly understood generally or by accepted grammar rules of grammar, making me equally culpable for defending his diction on the same basis with which he employed it.