This image was lost some time after publication, but you can still view it here.

Damn, did someone grab a screencap? [See below.] Yesterday, TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington wrote in "The Flickr gunners" that photo sharing site SmugMug wasn't "Web 2.0" like competitors Flickr and BubbleShare. But he snipped that remark from his post after SmugMug's Don MacAskill noticed. The SmugMug CEO schooled Mike in a blog post, listing SmugMug's Web 2.0-ish qualities. Sez Don,

But maybe I just don't get this 'Web 2.0′ term. Maybe it's that we're a bootstrapped, self-funded, profitable-for-three years company, so we don't qualify for the name. Does it only apply to those companies without business models?

Aw, it's okay. Mike doesn't hate SmugMug for its personality. It's because SmugMug is black.

UPDATE: After the jump, a reader provides the smoking gun screenshot. (Or someone wasted a half hour faking it.)

TechCrunch says we're not 'Web 2.0′ [SmugMug blog]
The Flickr Gunners [TechCrunch]

This image was lost some time after publication.