The first statement you made in regards to sorting was different than the question you ask now. You said:
Originally posted by Sam Hobbs
Many people expect order from a binary tree without a sort ever being needed. It is very possible to create an array that is in a specified order without ever sorting it.
This statement is technically wrong because the act of inserting elements is where the sort occurs. If you want to confine the definition of sort to only doing a separate operation after insertion, then you must state that or the unconfined definition will rightly be assumed. If you had not mentioned creation in that statement, then maybe it would be ok, but by referring to the creation of the array not only do you fail to confine the definition to your version, but you imply the more inclusive definition.

However, later in that thread and now in this thread you ask if the statement, "a binary tree does not require a separate sort", is valid. Yes it is, because you specify that you are referring to only a specific type of sort - one that is separate.

That's just how I see it.