dec28.out for a scenic drive
dec29.au revoir aux etats-unis
dec30.the most northwest point
-
Pages
-
Categories
-
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
2 Comments
i agree! i would also like to see the reference 2.0 not be used in referring to people, places or things. i see a trend recently that everything new has to be 2.0. lame!!! just call it new and improved or come up with something else but 2.0 is over done.
what? i already bought you your xmas present- a black t-shirt with “web 2.0″ in white letters- so great,now i have to take it back! geesh, nick, where’s your sense of ‘fitting in’?
lol
oh, and i didn’t know you had a myspace page! is there a pic of you standing in front of ‘fantasy panties’ posted on it? lol
now, what if you and i started “web 3.0″- would that be ok? hey, sounds like a plan to me!