Notes’ problem is simple; it’s been engineered by programmers without ever once asking users what they need. That’s why administrators love it; they’ll code it and make it their own. But users don’t give a rip about that. They want to cut/move messages, delete or re-file messages without having to muck around with new menu commands.

Lotus needs a “simple mode” where it works just like 90% of the mail clients out there. They need to let users customize the shortcuts.

It still sucks. It still SUCKS!

I phoned the company before reading this blog. They suggested I get in touch with the post office - how helpful! I mentioned my financial circs etc but didn’t mention it being an unfair charge. I did, however, tell them that I would like the fee waived as I did not usually pay late and that I was a loyal customer. They said that I had already had a fee waived before. When I asked them about it, they said it was last April, proving my point that this does not happen regularly.

Now that I’ve read this blog, am I right in believing that I don’t have to pay the late fee due to it being unfair/disproportionate? This is a very big company, by the way, and all the statements are computerised.

When I didn’t get any luck with the first person I asked for someone senior and they put me through to a manager in another department. She did not want to waive the fee either. When I asked for the complaints department, she told me that her department was the one that dealth with complaints! She offered to put me through to the department that helps people with difficulty paying. (I didn’t accept as it’s not just about the difficulty, it’s the principle.) I asked if there was another departmnent who could deal with this and she said she would refer it on to Customer Care. I also asked for the address of Customer Care so that I could write to them if I choose to. They said that someone would contact me from Customer Care though.

1. The name. Johann has an obsession with the name “Nick”, “Nico”, “Niko.”

2. “Why do you think the guy is writing for the New York Times and being nominated for the Orwell Prize at the age of 25 or whatever if he is so rubbish?”
Unbelievably classic David Rose, who could not shut up about Johann’s Orwell Prize. Especiall that he was “the youngest nominated.” He kept trying to work it into the wiki article and brought it up in “debate” with others. And “Nick” ’s other comments reek of praise for Hari as well.

3. “as Hari’s stuff always is (except on Iraq, where his position is weird)” Classic David Rose. It’s just such an unnecessary thing to say…unless your main purpose is to “show” you are not Johann Hari. David Rose would always put in little comments like this to try to differentiate himself…the only problem was that they stood out. There was something unnatural, awkward, misplaced about them, something that hinted at design, hinting that the author is trying too hard for some ulterior purpose. And that purpose is to convince people he is not Johann Hari. The Iraq issue was something he frequently flagged up as if to shout “LOOK AT ME, I AM NOT JOHANN, I DISAGREE WITH HIS POSITION ON IRAQ, SO I CANNOT BE HIM.”

4. The frequent misspelling of Johann. Like the above, it just doesn’t look like an accident. Rather it looks like Johann Hari deliberately misspelling his own name out of the belief that this will convince people it is not him. And he doesn’t have the maturity or the ability to look at things objectively to realize that it sticks out like a sore thumb. That he is “protesting too much.” And of course we should wonder why “Nick” is extremely familiar with Johann’s articles and his prizes…and yet cannot spell his name? Mmm.

After writing all that, it’s not just “signs”, I’m convinced we’ve uncovered Johann’s earliest sockpuppeting so far.