« Marshall's House Today | Main | 'Cuba: A Grace of Spirit' »

Monday, 28 September 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

More interested in why your second cousin moved from Montana to Penn. I personally love Northern Penn, it's one of the most beautiful areas of the country, but seems like everyone is moving back to Colorado and Montana again (and by 'back', I mean it seems like the youngsters have the 'jones' for moving there again, like they did in the early 70's). Most of the people I know that moved out there in the 70's had to flee eventually because of lack of work, and social disconnection. I'd be interested in hearing why they made the move!

It's alright - you'll soon stop worrying about the cost of the printer paper... when you realise the cost of the ink.

Don't write a book. Very few people can read an entire book anymore. It's a lost skill. Instead, write a bunch of essays. It's easier for you to commit to, and because they would show up only intermittently on TOP, their apparition would be a surprise to readers, and everyone likes a surprise. Each essay will have achieved another purpose, which is to serve as advertising for future essays. And everyone likes anticipation. You could say that's what humans mostly do most of their lives, i.e., hope for more.

Then one day, after a number of such essays, you'll have enough material to make up a book, only you can call it a collection, which sounds classier, and carries with it the implication that the contents have already proven to be so good that they merit inclusion in a book, something you don't have with a new previously unread book.

You could blog up a book. Say a three pages a week. In a year, that would be a hundred and fifty pages.


PS. As I don't have a web page, I leave you my instagram handle. Only dogs. My poodles, in fact. instagram: mitsoukoomadchen

"...I purchased the P600, a box of 11x17-inch Canson Baryta Photographique paper (which features on the front of the box a photograph of a man who is worried about the high cost of the paper inside..."

It's good to hear you'll be another P600 evaluator, since I'm considering going that route too. I look forward to hearing your first-hand results description.

While you're at it, why not try some of this even-more-expensive paper:


I very much like its surface, color and (unlike the Canson you ordered) lack of optical brightening agents. Aardenburg is in the middle of a print fade test using the P600 and this paper. So far, so good.

Regarding the box you purchased: Have you checked out the aluminum boxes made by Pina Zangaro? They make one sized for 11x17 paper and while it's more expensive than the 13x19 you bought, it's not ridiculously so: http://www.amazon.com/Pina-Zangaro-Archival-Aluminum-Presentation/dp/B000JCUYSM/ref=sr_1_18?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1443459109&sr=1-18&keywords=pina+zangaro

FWIW, I've been using these to store my prints and am quite happy with them. They also make some presentation books that are quite nice as well.

Every once in a while you might do a blog post on one exercise to help us see better photographically.

Why does it have to be a book? You've written several books worth of material on TOP, you just did it a few pages at a time (or sometimes one page, or a half-page).

And, if it's not a book, it doesn't have to be as … well-researched and illustrated.

So, pick one of your subjects. Write a blog or two or four about it. Over a week or a month or four months. Rinse and repeat. In several years time, you'll have written your book. But we will have benefitted without having had to wait the several years. And you will have had more fun writing it.

"But what I had in mind would have to be a book."

Do you think it would be possible to distill some of this knowledge as a week-by-week challenge? Set it up as a category on TOP or a new blog entirely? I know I'd participate - heck, I'd probably even pay to do it as a year-long workshop.

Mike—I've eased my way back into running too. Having read a little on the subject lately, it seems that slow is a good approach. It can get you places. By which I mean: you can achieve things, even later in life. 15 years ago, I ran a lot. And at a reasonable pace. Now, the pace is gone. Age will do that. But what I *can* accomplish still is a distance. And a friend has talked me into a challenge: a 53-km ultra trail run through the hilly woods of Belgium next year. Pace isn't the only thing that diminishes with age. Sense too, it seems.

Hello, Mike.

What a wonderful life we glimpse here!

I could mention that there are precedents for the work of writing a book making for compelling blog content. Personally, though, I'm not too excited about the idea of another book of seeing exercises, or photography exercises, or for a blog about the writing of one, (especially if it crowds out the usual TOP content).

On the other hand, your thoughts about such exercises, and why and how certain exercises--whether your own or others'--work or don't work, are always fascinating. You've probably written a book's worth on that topic already. (In fact, I bet a sharp and sympathetic editor could put together a very interesting anthology without you having to work up much of a sweat. Come to think of it, having someone just properly tag your older posts would accomplish much.)

As for anything more ambitious--if and when you're ready to take that on, I'm sure you'll do it in fine style, and I'll enjoy following your progress, or waiting for the result.

Mike, "The", as well as "Online", need better centering relative to the top fleuron. I adjusted it to show what I mean, can send you the image if you want.

A suggestion for a way outta trubba... perhaps. What about writing about seeing and related exercises the modern way, blog style? Tiny crumbs of information at a time. An example here, another there. Wouldn't have to be organized, neither complete. I for one would be very pleased reading about this stuff, probably even more if it's not presented in a well organized and thorough manner. I've read my share of guide/exercise/study books and would very much welcome a more casual (and possibly chaotic) guide to "seeing through the lens".

Yet another plea, I guess, but I really believe there'd be a way to fit this to your format. I really like the way you write, and that's the way I'd love to see a guide written. One small piece at a time.

Also, the leading between The, Online and Photographer needs some adjusting, plus the bar at bottom is too narrow for the type, which itself is not very legible, and is vertically off. I'd have chosen a different typeface for Michael Johnson".

Yours critically,

Good for you, Mike, on each of these topics! (Except missing the blood moon. The clouds broke here just long enough at the right time for me to get a good look at it.)

Especially exercise. Personally, it's not among my favorite things to do. But I have followed a run / elliptical / basic strength regimen 3-4 times each week for 10+ years. Plus I walk nearly everywhere. The consequences of not exercising are far more repugnant than the inconvenience and strain.

Regarding the sign, I like the vision of it swinging in the breeze in front of your new home. But I have one tiny suggestion: shouldn't it read Michael Johnston, prop. ?

Please advise us how your experience with the Epson P-600 unfolds.

Final note - the shield is asymmetric - is it on purpose?

"You've got me right where you want me.

Right where I should be.



Others have already written that book. Not the one you would write, maybe better, maybe worse.

But they don't keep my favorite blog perking along.

A few thoughts generated by today’s post:
First, welcome to the real New York. Second, try to find a topographic map of New York, along with a map of railroad right-of-way in the state; you’ll learn a lot about why New York developed the way it did.
Next, be careful of your dogs when they’re outside. Coyotes like to lure domestic dogs away from their safe homes then kill ‘em and eat ‘em.
Before you get too excited about resuming running as exercise, look into bicycling. You have a natural wonderland to explore, and cycling is a non-impact exercise that can be as easy or difficult as you want it to be. And, if you think photographers are gear-heads, wait until you see the technology in modern light-weight bicycles.
Be sure to keep us up-to-date on your adventures with the Epson P600. I have an Epson Photo R2880; I read Ctein’s review of the P800; I, too, rushed out and bought a box of Canson Baryta Photographique paper (8.5x11 inch, though). Now, I have to warm my new Spyder5Pro monitor calibration thingee. More stuff!
Enjoy your autumn.

" ... now he's a brain-trauma rehab nurse."

I find this very interesting. Recently I spent way too much time in a hospital. And many of the nurses (RNs) were ex-IT and ex-other highly educated professions—and many of them were men. And not just any men, but men with a european background. While most of the MDs were Persian, Sikh and Asian.

The decor in the dining room looks somewhat Eggleston-like, probably just a coincidence. Your joy with the move to New Yawk comes through in nearly every post.

I like your new sign. It fits in well with the aesthetic of the blog. The misspelling of your last name makes me think of Bill Murray's character in Broken Flowers: Don Johnston.

Right! Keep blogging. And I'll keep entering B&H and Amazon through your links.

Beautiful picture of the table.

Why not serialise the "book" in blog format like David Vestal did with The Book of Craft in Camera 35?

Then everyone wins.


Shouldn't the sign for Chez TOP, being for the physical location, read The Offline Photographer?

Quick suggestion: leave the ".com" off the sign. It looks a bit awkward, and it is really unneeded. Anyone who sees the sign without knowing anything about T.O.P. beforehand will just Google it and wind up right here. Anyone who see the sign and already knows about T.O.P. certainly isn't going to be confused by the lack of a ".com" at the end. I think the sign will look much more elegant without it. And I've never thought of T.O.P. as "The Online Photographer [dot] com". I think of it as "The Online Photographer". And ultimately, I think of it as you, not a website.

Just my unsolicited 2 cents.

Quick question: is that your dining room picture above? It is outstanding!


Hmmm, the Online Photographer sign seems wonkily out of balance.

Is the "The" and the "Online" too far to the left of center? Or is it just me?

Drop the dangling .com: it looks ugly (starting with a period an' all). It's not needed as anyone who sticks "The Online Photographer" into a search engine will find you as first and second hits (on Google).

The lunar eclipse was good in Seattle though rather low in the sky. Lots of people out walking around in urban Capitol Hill to look at the moon. I'm impressed by who many come out around here to watch well announced sky phenomena.

Whew, Michael! Nice read to go along with my morning coffee.

Only one thing in it all leaves me thinking, that if you want to maintain your mode of fitness training during the coming winter "up there", you'll need snow shoes.

I've just put mine into mothballs for our imminent arrival of summer "down here"

Sincerest regards, Jim Roelofs

Mike, I've said it before, what makes TOP so good is that it explores what you find interesting! And you write about those topics and themes in your very own style. So while commenters may be at times upset or desirous of your presenting more on a particular topic.... stick to your guns! I would however go with an LED sign that you could change the message on from inside the house- just in case someone is honking their horn in the driveway and you want them to go away! :)

why r u decorating your NY home and have owned a couple of others that you did not decorate? If this picture is of your dining table, walls and artwork, I like it! thx

[Thanks! My dining area (part of the kitchen) and my picture, yes. Never decorated a house before because I never had enough money. This house is cheaper in almost every way than my place in Wisconsin, and it's small enough that I can decorate it "right" without spending too much money. Still being sensible though--the rug in the living room looks very nice, but it's a $100 Lowe's special. --Mike]

I've been wondering about that sign ... trying to make out the lettering on a recent picture you posted. And good for you on the walking. (I can't wait until I get my knee replaced (Oct 14th) and can get back to my walks.)

I'm looking forward to your impressions of the Epson P600. I just bought one from B&H, linked through from TOP. That and an LX100. So, what does that get you because of the link-through? 15 cents? A buck fifty? (You don't have to tell me.) (And btw, also used your Vitamix link to Amazon and bought one. There's another $0.50)

My name is Holst -- H-o-l-s-t. It is pronounced the way it is spelled and spelled the way it sounds. Nonetheless, I spell it out every time someone asks for it, because way too many people want to spell it Holtz. And that's despite the fact that there are more Holsts than Holtzs in the Minneapolis directory.

+1 on the Epson. Mine is on its way.
Be interested to hear your experiences with various paper.

Northlight Images do a good review of the P800 here


and they have paper reviews also.

The man on the paper box actually looks slightly more worried on the Australian stock (it's slightly more expensive here). I actually prefer the Platine Fibre Rag especially for B&W but the Baryta is also excellent.
Lovely lighting and colours on the dining setting photo too.
Even though the front sign is not quite my style it does seem very apropos for TOP. All these small steps are starting to add up I'm sure!

May I gently, gently offer a comment or two on that beautiful black & white sign that is your darling without offending?

I'm no expert on fonts, but something about the font style is closer to the Old West or Midwest than to Upstate New York and the Northeast, where you live now. You may wish to peruse signs from, say, Vermont online or check with an expert on fonts.

Also, the word "Photographer" is really crowding up against the edge.

We moved from busy Stockholm, Sweden, to a small house about 5 miles away from the nearest town. We don't have coyotes around here but right now the deers make a lot of noise night time. Share your feeling about getting visitors. It is nice.

Nice sign. But I would drop the ".com". It is not necessary in my opinion.

Yer man is saying, "It costs $2.50 a sheet! And that's before you calculate the cost of the ink you're going to apply!"

But it's a nice paper, you just have to be judicious in using it.

Your shingle:

The Online Photographer

is all that is required. Most will know how to find the site in the myriad confusion that is e-commerce
these days.

I agree with Joel Becker's thinking there: of course such arguments are no less sound, for also being arbitrary and subjective matters of opinion... (grin)

Agree wholeheartedly with Joel about leaving the .com off the sign. Or put the url all on one line in a smaller font at the bottom.

I totally agree with Joel. No need for the .com on your sign. In my youth when I was quite active in calligraphy and lettering, I designed hand carved, gold leaf house signs for clients. A sign should be very simple with a minimum of intricate detail. Legibility from a distance is important so you have to eliminate all the little frills that might look nice if you were designing something for a book page. Keep it simple:)


I agree with Joel Becker - I was okay with everything until I hit the ".com" - and winced.

Maybe the full web address in small lettering as an underline to your (correctly spelled) name?

"...What do other people think of the ".com" on the sign?..."

This other person thinks it's perfect just the way you configured it.

I agree with Joel that the .com looks like an after thought on the sign. Maybe just have the website address fully written out at the bottom in smaller font? Something to separate the address from "The Online Photographer", like putting your name in between the two?

But then again you are primarily an online business, so perhaps it's needed? Either way it looks a bit awkward in the image above. My $.02.

"What do other people think of the ".com" on the sign? There's still time to change it."

The name says it all:
The "Online" Photographer.

And you'd have more space for your name.


I couldn't agree more with Joel Becker. I think the ".com" looks awful on what is otherwise a very attractive sign. (I actually left a comment to that effect yesterday, but since it hasn't appeared yet, I assume the TypePad Gods decided to smite it for some reason.)

Personally, I would vote that you leave the web address off entirely, and just leave the name.

Best regards,

I like the .com part of the sign. Sure, it's 90's retro, but to me it fits in with the whole "I like it and it works, so why change it" look of TOP.

I like the ".com" on the sign. It looks a little silly when it's the sign for a brick-and-mortar business, but that's not what you are. Putting the full URL instead would add clutter.

If it is an outdoor sign, and looking kind of old-style-ish, nobody will know it is a site if you leave the dot com out.

I think Joel's comment is on target for situations when people say things such as "and visit my site at blah blah dot com"

Regarding your nice sign, I agree with Joel completely. Place your web address below your name in type equal to or a shade smaller than your name - and all on one line!

Regarding the sign, I think Joel Becker has a point. The dotcom isn't really necessary as "The Online Photographer" put into Google produces a page of links to you. Unless Google is biassing my searches because they know I read the blog :( .


I agree with Joel Becker. I love the design of the sign. It just fits, but I'd remove ".com" from the name and include the entire web address in smaller font near the bottom.

Although it's not quite a fair comparison, my wife and I have an artist friend who graciously gifted us one of her originals many years ago. I still love the painting, but am constantly distracted by the fact that she included ".com" after her signature on the work.

Since The Online Photographer is almost entirely on the net (the clue is in the name), I think that the .com should stay. I do think though that the background is a little dark; the whole sign looks a little low in contrast. If the background was a lighter grey that was just dark enough to not be mistaken for a dull white, the whole thing would have a bit more punch.

I agree with Joel. Most, if not all folks who visit the World Headquarters know your "other identity" and are frequent visitors to your website.
You can provide the info to the few visitors who are not familiar with your website.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the Baryta Photographique, once you start printing on it. I like the color and tonal range of the paper, but I'm really put off by the "sparkly" surface texture—the B&W series I'm working on right now is very dark, and the sparkles are very distracting.

I've gone through lots of different papers, and I'm still not close to finding the ideal surface; something similar to air-dried Portriga would fit the bill perfectly...

I agree with Mr Becker. The com seems to dangle there.
A smaller TOP.com below would be appropriate.
Nature Lover DBA Bopbop

I agree with Joel Becker about the .com thing, looks totally out of place and there's no need for it.

I'd also love to see your vision exercises distilled post by post along many months.

My two pence would be to add the entire web address in one line at the bottom of the sign as Joel suggested.

I had the same thought -- the .com is just jarring in an otherwise well laid out concept.

I just did a Google search for the phrase "The Online Photographer" and the first hit was this site, and the second hit was your old site.

So, frankly, I can't see where anyone that uses Google these days to find sites they go to every day by typing in the search bar (instead of using bookmarks -- what an antiquated notion!) will end up missing finding your site(s).

In short, leave the .com out. No one will miss it.

I'm with Joel Baker about the .com on the sign. It's out of place in my opinion as it looks like an afterthought - especially as it starts with a dot.
One solution might be to keep the blog name and your name on the sign but with the bottom of the sign squared off. Then another smaller sign hanging just below with a straight top and the former curved bottom bit at the bottom. This extra hanging sign could then say theonlinephotographer.com in one line as there would now be room for it.
Splitting the sign in two preserves the visual and cultural integrity of both sections.
Hope you can follow that!

the online photographer.com?
I'd drop the .com as your sign is incorrect anyway for the url reads theonlinephotographer.typepad.com


Re: suggestions of weekly tidbits building up to a book. Remember, "The Count of Monte Cristo" was written as a serial story for a newspaper over two years.

Dear Mike,
-Definitively leave the ".com" away. I'm sure that by now most people know that "online" means in the web. You just have to make sure "The Online Photographer" is the first search result in major search engines (you have to anyway).
-Very nice wall color.
-It's "À votre santé", not the same spelling as in "À la vôtre".

Re the sign. The dangling ".com" just looks bad. If you want to include the web address put it as a one liner under yor name.

Given the amount of material you've posted over the years, Trubba is out of line big time.


Lose the ".com" on the sign. The "Online" part of your name tells the reader that you are web based. The ".com" is redundant and looks lousy graphically in my not so humble opinion (I tend to have strong feelings about things like this).

Re: your sign -- no need for the ".com". People will just enter the name into their browser and get to the site.

Or -- you could put a QR code so folks could just scan it and go straight to the site...

Joel Becker's remark about the ".com" on your sign rethink my initial positive position on it being included like that. I really have to say that I still like it. It's a "sign" of the times.

Lose the ".com" from the sign. The name of your enterprise is "The Online Photographer."

And besides, it's not even your actual URL!

>> What do other people think of the ".com" on the sign?

I prefer the sign without the .com part.

I agree with the website at the bottom.

I agree with Joel on the sign. Also, when you put up the sign you are telling all in the town that you are running a business from your home, in some locales that is a no-no.

.com on the bottom looks awful, seriously.

Do not include the .com line. It was the first, very strong, thought I had looking at the sign, before noting that I was not alone. It isn't useful--anyone who types 'the online photographer' into a browser won't have the least difficulty finding it without the com. And it is ugly--breaks the rhythm of the shape of the words, and adds a superfluous type size.
I wouldn't have said anything since you wrote you liked it, but since you ask, absolutely not.

I think your online critic is right. It looks more high tone, read 'professional', if your sign has just the title, The Online Photographer, and your name. For what it's worth, I think even leaving the web address off entirely is a good idea. After all, we are all able to 'run the Google', as the aged father of a friend puts it, and the title invites just that. A little reticence shows becoming modesty in a highly accomplished artist/artisan.

I for one agree the .COM should not be where it is on the sign. Just a smaller web address line below your name. I also support the ongoing essay concept. I fondly remember watching for your columns on LuLa.

I think your sign is nice, but the ".com" on a separate line does not look balanced to me. How about something like this:

Michael Johnston -- inside black label as shown
www.theonlinephotographer.com -- small text


> ...with a 'T,'" as everyone named Johnston always has to say.

Man, even scrolling casually down without paying too much attention, that missing "T" leapt out and smashed me in the face.

Peace and all that,
Dean Johnston

* in as much as something nonexistent can leap or smash

I'm compelled to agree with Joel Becker. Keep the URL to a single line and make it subordinate to the overall design. It simply doesn't stand on it's own legs, on it's own line. I'd make "The" the same size to make the three words uniformly important as the brand (when we think of The Online Photographer, we don't stress any of those words over the others in identifying you, and by consequence they are all uniformly important) and use the URL at the very bottom to reinforce the brand, repetition is a good thing in advertising. It aids in memory retention.

I posted a comment yesterday that didn't make it but it said something like:

Leave off the .com on that sign -- it looks really awful.

And is it just me but is "The" and "Online" not centered on the sign? They seem to be a little to the left. "Photographer" seems centered.

Or is it just the capitol letters adding more "weight" on the left side?

I am trying to choose between the P600 and the P800. The size of the P600 is adequate for my needs and it is less expensive to purchase, but it looks to me like the ink would be substantially more expensive over the long haul, more than offsetting the difference in price. Am I looking at this wrong? Any thoughts on this?

I agree with Joel Becker: leave the ".com" off the sign. I really like it, otherwise.

So you think you got "trubba"? Consider all us photographers who know they need to know more and have no way to get the knowledge. I don't mean technical data to make good exposures - that is usually available. Its in the ability to evaluate and edit the images. I've always been something of a 'techie'. Going from film to digital was fun, easy, and expanded my range. ISO 12000! WOW! But like many others, I still have difficulty evaluating and editing my images. What I like, isn't necessarily what others like. Luckily since I'm not a pro, its not a major issue. I don't have a client to please. Still, my experience with "expert" evaluators - mostly amateurs, but some professionals - has been less than stellar. I've heard lots of 'blivits"(10 lbs of horse manure in a 5 lb bag), spouting with little meaning, or relationship to the content or composition of the image. And I'm not talking about evaluation of my images. This isn't a personal rant. It is a plea for some posts addressing these issues in depth, that can give some of us better understanding of these issues. Hopefully, enough of us can persuade you to do some (and yes, some of us can still read more than 'tweet' length, even long, detailed content books.)

I like your shingle. Hang it out sans [dot]com.

I'd definitely forego the '.com' on the sign. If someone is curious they will just Google the name anyway. Most folks go straight to Google and search even though if they know the address. In fact I often get to watch folks type fully qualified URLs into a Google search field. They don't know anywhere else to type. Trying to tell them about the address bar is a thankless task.

"Eclipsed eclipse: I was very disappointed last night."

You're disappointed. I was looking forward to photographing the blood moon from here in Perth, Western Australia, and the Earth rotated just at the wrong time. I waited, but no luck.

I would leave the ".com" off your sign. Devoting one line to ".com" looks awful. The name Online Photographer also implies that it is a website, so in that regard the ".com" is superfluous.

Without the ".com" it is a great looking, even classy, sign.

I also love the decor of your dining room. Good job!

Put me down as another vote for you doing visual exercise essays which maybe someday become a book too.

On the sign, I would:
- Remove the decoration at the top and move T/O/P/.com up.
- add parenthesis around the .com. Not full height of capital letters, just slightly larger than the .com letters that they surround.
- add decoration between (.com) and your name.
- remove the black box, and add one line below your name
Michael Johnston

I'm with Joel on the sign. With other online entities do we (or they) talk about facebook/twitter/flickr/instagram dot com or just simply facebook et al?

I'd drop it from the title and just include it as a smaller web address.


Lose the .com
Or just re-do the whole thing in a different style.
I believe I'm not alone in really disliking "ye olde" style modern b.s.


Hi Mike,

Only since you asked, I'd second leaving off the ".com." The banner at the top of the page doesn't include it, making it more of an address than part of the name. It's not going to help anyone find your site, "online" is already in there.



I'm afraid I'm with Joel Becker and agree entirely that the .com should be removed and the whole address put at the bottom as that strikes me as much more elegant.

Whilst writing, I would also recommend Canson's Etching Rag if you like more texture in your matt prints. It's my favourite.

Mike, I think you should drop the dot com. If someone treks so deep into coyote country that they can see the sign, then they have a different site visit in mind ;-)

Drop the ".com". We would have visited in August when we went through the area...but were ahead of you by a week . Next time...

Of course you probably should get around to actually fixing the URLs and architecture of your website... if not for your audience's benefit or your own ease of use, then for security reasons alone. Sooner or later you're going to get attacked by hackers and possibly loose everything or pay through the nose/spend countless hours to recover.

Also I think you would find affinity with one of the local resurgent letterpress artisans... seems like they would be a good fit with your personality and aesthetics... and they would have better judgment with regards to typography. Try Tony at http://www.typehigh.com in ROC.

I've often wondered about the inability of photographers to understand simple, good graphic design... and vice versa. I can think of a lot of photo magazines riddled with lousy type and I used to edit what I'd shot otherwise intelligent design clients lest they consistently pick the very worst shot out of a take.

Sorry to be such a nag but seriously, you gotta get the site straightened out.

On the topic of winter exorcise. Cross country skiing is low impact and good exorcise. Go old school with wood skis, pine tar and waxes for different snow conditions. This setup is more versatile than waxless skis.

Re: "Just do it"

When asked how I did in a "race" I say that I came in ahead of the million or so people who didn't enter.

"Yes, it's an open question how long my knees will hold out ... "

People have told me many times over many years/decades that running (especially on pavement) will ruin my knees. Hasn't happened yet and I quit pushing 60 a few years ago.

You're doing the right thing. Get outside and get moving. The only thing running may have over walking is it takes less time.

I suppose if you are going to have the .com you might as well go all the way and do something like putting at the bottom in parentheses

(all one word .com)

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007