Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
DOUBLE `0' NOTHING: A DECADE STILL NAMELESS
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
DOUBLE `0' NOTHING: A DECADE STILL NAMELESS
Do you wish to request the book?
DOUBLE `0' NOTHING: A DECADE STILL NAMELESS
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Newspaper Article
DOUBLE `0' NOTHING: A DECADE STILL NAMELESS
2001
Overview
A year and a half into the 2000s, it's clear that no single choice, terrible or otherwise, has emerged. These days, writers try to avoid the issue by simply not referring to the decade at all. For instance, in Kakutani's article comparing the 1980s and 2000s, she used the terms \"80's\" and \"1980's\" 10 times, while using \"2000's\" just once. Call this an unresolved issue that we'll have to deal with only for another nine years. Careful readers of the preceding paragraphs - - aren't you all! -- have noticed that, while [Michiko Kakutani] inserted apostrophes in \"2000's\" and \"'00's,\" I didn't. Kakutani's newspaper, the New York Times, quirkily insists on using apostrophes to indicate plural numbers, while most other publications leave out the apostrophes.
Publisher
Tribune Publishing Company, LLC
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.