If you watch this All-American Rejects video carefully, you will see in the intro -- very briefly -- a can of HO-ZOF, albeit in a different package. Man, where was this stuff when I really needed it? I searched the net six ways to Sunday and the image to the right is the only one I could find.

Many of you have read Jeneane Sessum's blog, Allied, for years now. But probably far fewer of you know what she sounds like. So here's what she sounds like...

Clearly, there's a story that goes with that sound clip (which I received as an emailed v-mail via Google Talk), but forget about that. It's far too complicated to explain. However, a recent post on her site did inspire me to go off and start generating various random official looking seals, one of which seems very damn close to apropos here...

And then there was this one...

And finally, using the same date, the unvarnished truth...

Well, that's actually a little varnished, as I only drank heavily from '67 to '84. Then I got sober. And now, as you know, I make every effort to behave responsibly.

But the point of this is to say: Thanks, Jeneane! Every time I take your advice or adopt one of your many heavy-hitter A-list blogging tricks, I realize I can simply laugh off my deep anxieties about website monetization. Because it ain't gonna happen in this lifetime anyway.

Oliver Widder of Hamburg, Germany, posted this cartoon with the caption:

Christopher Locke, Dave Winer and Robert Scoble faced the problem to decide whether the New New Internet event is real or a parody. What does that say about Web 2.0?

The bit from Dave Winer reads:

I've heard the New New Internet described as a fantastic Web 2.0 parody site, and it is that, but it also is (apparently) a real conference, whose purpose appears to be meta-meta. In other words, it purports to teach you to have meta-excitement, or excitement about people getting excited. I guess that's only if the people putting it on are actually excited themselves, but with headlines like: "An All-Star Cast of Web 2.0 Players Will Descend on Tyson's Corner," how could you doubt that they were genuinely faking excitement?

I feel your pain.

Recent posts by Tara, Shelley, Jeneane, Denise, and Madame Levy -- though all are not talking about "the same thing" (whatever that is) -- make it painfully clear that there is still a terrible divide and disconnect between men and women in this medium -- as in, we hasten to add, all media preceding it. Men tend to avoid speculation as to why this might be the case. The reason for this avoidance is simple: if they plan on getting any ever again, they better not be wrong. And for most men, the potential for being wrong is just too high to justify the risk.

In our own case, the sad fact is that we've gotten too old to care. Today, our grasp of sex is only tenuous, as a fast fading if still fond memory. Therefore, if we are wrong about the following double handful of guesses as to why men and women can't seem to see eye to eye, then sue us; you can no longer cut us off -- any more than you could get Texas crude out of a rutabaga.

Are these pairings based on stereotypes? Well, of course. They don't necessarily hold for non-traditional gender roles, and as you will see in the last couple of items, they can often be interestingly reversed. We propose this brief list merely as a beginning in what we hope will become a new dialogue between the sexes. Please feel free to blog your own additions...