"tries to keep up with"....is THAT what you think slipstick does??  I mean
really, do you think that a gregorian calendar is as crucial as US Holidays
for the majority of Outlok users?

I will Google, but I was checking here first to see if anyone had any
specific sources - and PLEASE dont send people on wild goose chases. Come
on, you promoted this site as if you knew it DID have what we were asking
about. Unless you have specific knowledge of content, you should say
"XYZ.com MAY have what you want, give it a try" -as opposed to "See xyz.com
and xyz.com/thisthattheotherpage.html"

"Whiny and petulant"? Oh please, you are being WAY too thin-skinned if you consider that I ask someone to check their sources before referring, as "whiny and petulant."  That Sue may have contributed so well and so often to this group is irrelevant to the moment,  and actually just makes it even MORE of a gaffe NOT to check the references before posting them as givens. Damn,  at least disclaim that "____.com MAY have the info you are seeking" Else one reaches a level similar to those who immediately forward Missing Children or Computer Virus emails without, say, checking hoaxkill.com.

As for "poorly written", I take umbrage. There may be one grammatical error ("as if you knew it did" could probably be better, but hey, it was written in a hurry) Other than that, it was pretty clean. Unlike a piece of your own, to be sure.
FTR, if you dont want to be accused of Poor Writing,  dont split your infinitives: "Sucks not to use Microsoft......."  rather than "Sucks to not use...."
More on that content in a while

So, goodness me, I deigned to request not to be sent on wild goose chases. (Notice I didnt say "to not be sent"? Or "to be not sent"?  "Not to be sent" is correct)

How dare I, huh? I wouldnt even have done THAT had there not been about 3 or 4 references to the site - but you know, someone - an "MVP" no less -   tells you three, four times that what you are looking for is located in a particular spot, well, you would tend to trust that they were speaking from experience, not guesswork. That one volunteers information for free does not relieve one of the the simple courtesy of being clear about what they speak, does it? Especially when they are touted as an "MVP"?
Elbow in the ribs?  Yeah, maybe.
"Derision"? Hardly.  
If you think those few lines were Derision, then you, Miss Milly, do not know of what you speak.

Ahhh me -  looks like this is One of Those Newsgroups where, if you DARE to critique one of The Regulars, one of their Groupies is bound to come out and flame you. (And yes, Miss Milly, "Whiny and petulant" DOES count as flaming)

BTW, Miss Milly, I DID use MS as the first place to look. And indeed, I saw the page you so kindly reference.
Unfortunately, there is a little caveat:
"This download works with the following Office applications: Outlook 2000"
I for one am not going to launch an executable when MS doesnt tell me it is compatible to my program.
And if you took the time to read the SUBJECT of this thread, your own credibility would be a little greater, and your sarcasm a little less dopey. Well, maybe...

Merry Christmas, Miss Milly
May your stockings get well stuffed and
I will leave it to YOU to decide whether you deserve them to be
;-)

I believe that the file format has changed. When I installed the update it
produced a file called "outlook.txt" . I still couldn't get the holidays to
update, until I saw a file called "outlook.hol" - if you rename the
"outlook.txt" file to outlook.hol" it should work.

Another problem I had was that after installing I got duplicates up to the
end of 2005, so you may need to edit the text file first (look for your
country e.g UK or US), or else afterwards go into "view/current view/active
appointments" and delete any duplicates.

I think it is time Microsoft updated their addin page to include an updated
file for the Outlook XP/2002 version.

Peter