Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread Joshua Juran
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Denny wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 13:35 +0100, James Laver wrote: On 12 Oct 2009, at 13:32, Joshua Juran wrote: You obviously don't own a Sidekick. I'll give you reasons to hate your sidekick. See the nice big warning on http://forums.t-mobile.com/tmbl/? cate

Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread Denny
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 13:35 +0100, James Laver wrote: > On 12 Oct 2009, at 13:32, Joshua Juran wrote: > > > You obviously don't own a Sidekick. > > I'll give you reasons to hate your sidekick. > > See the nice big warning on > http://forums.t-mobile.com/tmbl/?category.id=Sidekick I think that

Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread James Laver
On 12 Oct 2009, at 13:32, Joshua Juran wrote: You obviously don't own a Sidekick. Josh P.S. Sorry for the delay, but I had deleted your email assuming it was spam (based on the the Subject). I'll give you reasons to hate your sidekick. See the nice big warning on http://forums.t-mobil

Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread Joshua Juran
On Oct 11, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Matthew King wrote: Open Office I'm especially looking at you now, you disease-ridden piece of fail. Even Microsoft, the kings of software hate, haven't managed as much fail as you. You obviously don't own a Sidekick. Josh P.S. Sorry for the delay, but I ha

Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread Matthew King
Matthew King writes: > To: Peter Corlett > Cc: We Hate Software Insert obligatory hates-software software hate even though the above was really my fault. I nearly did it again... Matthew -- I must take issue with the term "a mere child", for it has been my invariable experience that the co

Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread Matthew King
Peter Corlett writes: > On 11 Oct 2009, at 18:56, Matthew King wrote: >> Anything and everything which provides an unsorted and/or unsortable >> list of anything. > > That's a bit of an overly-broad complaint. > > By way of counterexample, readdir(3) does not sort, for what should be > very obvio

Re: Order

2009-10-12 Thread Peter Corlett
On 11 Oct 2009, at 18:56, Matthew King wrote: Anything and everything which provides an unsorted and/or unsortable list of anything. That's a bit of an overly-broad complaint. By way of counterexample, readdir(3) does not sort, for what should be very obvious reasons. OTOH, it's rather more

Order

2009-10-11 Thread Matthew King
Anything and everything which provides an unsorted and/or unsortable list of anything. I mean really. This problem was solved before computers. The amount of suck required for a modern machine to be so much worse than its replacement is unimaginable. Open Office I'm especially looking at you now,