This is perhaps the oddest video in honor of the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, in which James Bond–played by actor Daniel Craig–puts on a dress.

No, really.

It’s worthwhile to note all the dire statistics for women today, although I am not sure this is the best way to illustrate the issue.

Well, you only live twice:

Here is one of the oddest videos out on the Web right now.

It’s a six-minute ad for a Norwegian television talk show called “Gylne Tider” in which a strange collection of some very whatever-happened-to celebrities lip-synch to the Beatles’ “Let It Be.”

There is former James Bond, Roger Moore; former George Costanza, Jason Alexander; former skating thug Tonya Harding.

And many, many more:

One way to fix that: Turn the entire homepage into a giant ad. Like this one for Fox’s newest iteration of “Night At The Museum” (click to enlarge):

Web sites like News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace have been turning their homepages into giant ads for quite some time, and in some cases it’s been very effective. But as far as I know, this is the first time a search engine has tried it. I’ve got a query (get it?) into the Ask folks and will report back when I hear from them.

UPDATE: Ask spokesguy Nicholas Graham tells me that this isn’t the first time the search engine has offered up its homepage for takeovers. Ask has done it a couple times for charitable causes and it did the same thing last November for “Quantum of Solace,” the most recent James Bond flick. In the case of both that movie and the new “Night at the Museum,” Ask doesn’t get paid for the ad–instead, it gets an in-kind payment via mentions in the films.

Here’s a screenshot of the last takeover Ask did, in April, for Autism Speaks. In that case, the takeover ads also featured hot spots (the boxed question marks) that turned into questions when users moused over them (click to enlarge).

What’s in a name?

Well, a lot, actually, and BoomTown supposes it would be just like those Pacific Northwest types at Microsoft to name the new version of its search service “Bing,” presumably after the cherry that is a big product in the company’s home state.

That moniker is one of many being bandied about in a group the software giant could be considering for the big relaunch of its search service, which the company has been prepping.

Microsoft’s search service is currently called–zzzzz–Live Search.

“All About Microsoft” crack blogger Mary-Jo Foley of ZDNet recently wrote about the Bing name, which is registered to the company, as well as “Hook” and the one that Microsoft is using now as its test name, Kumo.

Kumo means “cloud” and “spider” in Japanese, which seems a wee bit esoteric.

Today, paidContent.org dropped “Sift” into the mix, although it seems to be related to mobile phones, along with “Swivel.”

I, for one, am feeling both like flour and getting dizzy at the thought of those names.

Foley at ZDnet feels the same, noting today in a post:

“(Would Microsoft be crazy enough to trademark its general Web search engine and its search engine for mobile with two different names, say Bing and Sift? As Windows Live has shown, truth can be stranger than fiction….)”

Microsoft (MSFT), of course, is keeping the name for its search service under tight wraps, but it is obviously going to be spending a shipload of money on its branding in another attempt to catch market leaders Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

Microsoft has been recently talking to Yahoo about a search partnership deal, although they are likely both to keep their brands and search products in any event.

Nonetheless, execs and minions in the know laugh at me loudly when I ask them to leak it to me.

(Note to anyone at Microsoft: Pretty please, someone leak it to me, even if it’s in the form of a memo from the leaky cauldron that is Yahoo.)

I doubt someone will, though. “It’s like Fort Knox secret,” said one Softie source, referring to the Kentucky fortress where the largest amount of the United States gold reserves are stored.

Hey, if Auric Goldfinger, OddJob and Pussy Galore could get into Fort Knox in that most excellent James Bond film, I can certainly find out the name of Microsoft’s search service!

Personally, I like Bing, and cherries from Washington state are indeed tasty (and coming soon too!)

According to the Heart of Washington Web site, its state’s cherries rate. Some fun factoids:

- Washington State produces more than 50 percent of all the sweet cherries in the United States.
- The Rainier cherry, which is yellow with a red blush, was made from a cross between two dark red cherries, the Van and Bing.
- Americans eat approximately 2.6 pounds of cherries per year.
- There are approximately 53 pitted cherries in one pound of cherries.
- The Bing cherry, which all cherries are measured against, was first developed in 1874 in Milwaukie, Ore.
- The Bing cherry was named after one of Seth Lewelling’s workers. The Bing cherry was developed by Seth Lewelling.
- Washington cherries are shipped around the world; the top three foreign markets are Canada, Taiwan and Japan.
- In 2001, there were 29,000 acres of sweet cherries in the state.
- The Washington cherry season begins in late May with some product seen at farmer’s markets. Commercial shipping begins around June 5, and will continue until mid-August. The peak of the season runs from June 20 to Aug. 1.

Plus, if Microsoft uses Bing, they could also rebrand their MSN online service, “Bada” and their email product, “Boom.”

Then, they can get Tony Soprano as their spokesman with the motto: “Bada Bing, Bada Boom, Notta Bada Algorithm!”

Or better still: “If you use Google, we’ll whack you!”

Now, that’s more like it.

[UPDATED: With added information about range of product discussions.]

In this digital era’s version of “Spy Vs. Spy,” Microsoft and Google find themselves in yet another sharp-elbowed battle to be the one to strike some kind of commercial search deal or product partnership with Twitter, many sources with knowledge of the situation said, as they also jockey for position to evaluate the potential of the much-hyped microblogging start-up.

After last week’s explosive rumor that Google was in “late-stage” talks to acquire Twitter, which BoomTown reported was wildly premature, I set out to try to sort out exactly what was going on.

As I found out, there was a lot–mostly much talking related to possible product and distribution partnerships, centered around Google or Microsoft, especially around a deal to become the one to exclusively deliver search or other similar services to Twitter properties.

The reason for the interest? Many think Twitter’s real-time search of its 140-character “tweets” posted by users on the service will become the next great battlefield in search. Google currently dominates the general search market, with third-place Microsoft struggling to get more share.

But how to do that is in flux, as past efforts at various third-party search arrangements have had mixed success for both Google and Microsoft. Both companies and also Twitter are trying to figure out new ways to do such deals.

On top of that, it is also unclear if Twitter wants to strike a deal purely to get a payment from either Microsoft or Google, as others have done. Twitter management has indicated that they are much more interested in growth and distribution over a revenue focus.

Twitter Co-founder Biz Stone said as much on the start-up’s Web site recently, as well as in many media interviews, noting that it will begin experimenting with its own business ideas this year.

In other words, the talks Twitter is having with both Google and Microsoft could also lead exactly nowhere too.

Along with the commercial talks, both Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) are also trying to figure out if Twitter is simply one of the many shooting stars that are far more typical in Silicon Valley or if it is sea-change start-up worth pursuing and paying up big-time to acquire.

“As impressive as what Twitter has done, we are all overexcited,” said one source. “And so it’s hard to figure out the right thing to do with all the pressure to do something.”

Thus, while an offer for Twitter from Microsoft, Google or a plethora of other players–from News Corp. (NWS) to Yahoo (YHOO) to Cisco (CSCO) to Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL to big telcos–could come at any time, said many sources, only a huge price would lead to an acquisition, especially since the growth of the service has been accelerating more rapidly in recent months than has been reported publicly.

This all makes for dicey times at Twitter, which sits at the center of all this noise, trying to build a company, while also being fully cognizant that trying to engineer a massive buyout could be its best outcome.

Further complicating the situation: The fact that Twitter co-founder and CEO Evan Williams–who has already sold one company, Blogger, to Google and eventually left after a lackluster experience, a common one of many entrepreneurs who sell out early to large companies–is less interested in selling out than in growing the company.

But without the kind of control of the company’s fate–which allowed Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to effectively block similar buyout pressures early in its history–Twitter’s founders also might not get the last word in the event of an unusually attractive offer.

While a $500 million stock-and-cash one from Facebook last fall was turned away by Twitter due to worry about the social-networking site’s market valuation, the massing interest is overwhelming and forcing it to make some clear decisions about it path.

“When you are in a situation like Twitter is in, you have to wonder if this is the high-water mark and it is time to sell out or if you are underestimating yourself badly by even considering that,” said one Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has been in a similar spot in the past. “It can be very hard to think straight.”

Indeed, all the attention is both distracting and slightly surreal for its top execs and small 30-person staff in San Francisco, said many sources close to the situation, especially the mass of media that resulted due to that now-discounted rumor that Twitter was poised to be sold off for a giant pile of money.

In fact, Twitter has its hands full enough scaling its recent surge in growth and keeping the service humming along (it has had tech snafus in the past).

But for Google and Microsoft, this geopolitical one-upsmanship by the Internet’s two most important companies is quite familiar, and they have not hesitated to jump into the Twitter tempest.

If that sounds a lot like the two-month fire drill in 2007 that resulted when Microsoft and Google competed to see who could sidle up closest to then-belle-of-the-Silicon-Valley-ball Facebook, you are exactly right.

After much huffing and puffing back and forth and this way and that way, it resulted in a Microsoft “win,” which gave it the distinct honor of forking over $240 million to own 1.6 percent of Facebook at an astonishing $15 billion valuation.

Even as Facebook has grown quickly in size since then–to 200 million users, as announced yesterday–its valuation has dropped to $3 billion to $5 billion.

Microsoft had previously struck an search ad deal in the U.S. with Facebook in which it paid a guaranteed revenue to Facebook and later also did a deal to do some of the search on the site.

Such kinds of deals have become common for both Google and Microsoft in recent years. Google struck one with News Corp. social-networking site MySpace, as well as with AOL (which will also soon come up for renewal).

And Microsoft grabbed the right to pay Digg a guaranteed fee in another online ad deal. And the pair also fought more recently over a mobile search distribution deal with the wireless unit of Verizon (VZ).

And so it goes now with Twitter.

No partnership deal has been made as yet, of course, since such a thing would say a lot about Twitter’s future, since the prospect of marriage overhangs such a choice, which is also–in essence, a declaration of allegiance in the cold war between Google and Microsoft.

If that also sounds like a plot of a James Bond movie, with geeks armed with algorithms instead of gadgety weaponry, you’re also exactly right.

More, obviously, to come…

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

To clear things up, I’ve put together a basic Twitter guide that explains how to use it, Twitter lingo, privacy options, mobile applications that can be used with the service and problems that it has. Let’s get started.

Twitter limits social-networking updates to 140 characters or less. The service is surprisingly useful, but leaves room for improvement.

What is it? In short, Twitter is a free social-networking tool that keeps people connected with one another and with sources of information. Twitter users submit updates about whatever they’re currently doing, and these updates cannot exceed 140 text-based characters.

Lingo: Twitter is the name of the service. The term twittering describes the activity of updating a Twitter account. A tweet is an individual Twitter update. Twitterers are people who use the service.

Followers, not Friends: Social-networking sites like Facebook and MySpace use the term “friend” to refer to people who are connected with one another, but Twitterers can simply follow one another’s messages by finding a person’s username and selecting a “Follow” option. This alerts the person that you’re following them, and they can reciprocally choose to follow you, or not.

Why use it? While some people primarily use Twitter to post updates about their activities or comments on the news, I use the service more as a follower, allowing me to see quick snippets of news as it occurs. Most tweets are written by real people, while others, such as updates from news organizations that you’ve selected, are automatically generated. Many tweets include the addresses of Web sites with relevant articles that tell readers more on a topic.

Where is it? Twitter works on your Web browser at Twitter.com, where user updates appear in a simple list form as they are submitted. After you’ve signed up and started following other people, those people’s updates, or tweets, will appear when you log onto Twitter.com using a username and password.

Twitter also works on mobile phones, where the 140-character limit allows messages to be sent and received via SMS text messaging. Tweets can also be sent and received via email. Users with smartphones like BlackBerrys or iPhones can use one of the many popular mobile applications for accessing Twitter, which offer much richer options than simple SMS does; I’ll get into these later.

Privacy: Unlike other social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter isn’t focused on holding and sharing personal information about its members. Indeed, the service operates with a majority (80%, according to the company) of users opting to keep their updates public, that is, follow-able by anyone, without permission. This openness encourages people to follow one another or to see who others are already following, and then follow the same people.

However, users can opt to protect their updates, meaning they must grant permission for others to follow them. If you’d like to sign up for Twitter, but aren’t comfortable putting your first and/or last name on the site, you don’t have to; instead, just tell others your username.

Twitter Page Personalization: Each user has a Twitter page showing all of his or her updates, or tweets. (Mine is twitter.com/kabster728, and you can follow me.) This page also shows the number of people a user follows, how many people follow her and how many total updates she has posted.

Twitterers can customize their Twitter page by uploading a photo to be used as the background. The icon representing each user can also be personalized, and this is important because it appears beside that person’s tweets on Twitter.com, where followers recognize and appreciate its familiarity. Some people, including me, use pictures of themselves as their icons, while others use random shots.

Apps/Clients: Twitter works on any browser, and will also work on a mobile browser. If you have a mobile device like the BlackBerry or iPhone, you can jazz up the experience by downloading a third-party app like TwitterFon, TwitterBerry, Tweetie or Twitteriffic. Twittervision, another mobile app, plots points on maps to show where tweets originated. Desktop clients also abound, including Twhirl and TweetDeck. Twitterfeed will set your blog to automatically post content to Twitter.

@Replies, Direct Messages: Each tweet that appears in your Twitter feed can be replied to using a shortcut arrow that appears beside the tweet, and these responses to tweets are called @Replies. So if JoeSchmo tweets to say he saw the new James Bond movie and hated it, you can reply to this with a tweet of your own that says, “@JoeSchmo I still adore Daniel Craig.” These @Replies appear for everyone to see, and must start with @ plus the username of whomever you’re responding to.

Direct Messages differ from @Replies because they can be sent only between people who are following one another. These messages aren’t posted publicly. They appear on your Twitter.com page in a right-side section labeled Direct Messages and will also be sent to your mobile device if you have one registered with Twitter.

Favorites: If you read a tweet that you really like, you can save it as a favorite by selecting a small star beside the tweet, thus adding it to a Favorites section on your homepage. Anyone can see anyone else’s Favorites, regardless of whether or not they’re following one another.

Problems: Twitter’s bare-bones approach gets to the point quickly, displaying tweets in a simple, quick-read format. But the site is lacking in many areas. It used to enable searching for people on Twitter, but that capability is currently down. Now, to search for friends on Twitter, you must upload your email contacts from a Web-based mail service. The company says it plans to have people-search working again by the end of the year. Meanwhile, search.twitter.com enables keyword or location searches.

Twitter lacks the ability to sort tweets according to what the user wants. If I just want to see tweets from real people and not those that are automatically generated, I’m out of luck. Same goes if I want to keep certain friends’ tweets in a prominent place on my homepage; Twitter has no way of doing this.

Twitter users aren’t notified when someone responds to their tweet with an @Reply. I recently happened to look at @Replies on my Twitter homepage and found three from people who follow me (I don’t follow them).

If you’re adding a Web address to a tweet and the characters in the URL take up too much space, Twitter will automatically use TinyURL behind the scenes to shrink your long link into a shorter one when you post your tweet. But this works only if you have enough remaining characters in your tweet to fit the long version of your link. A built-in TinyURL converter on the page would help immensely.

Twitter says it’s working to make @Replies more effective. It also says it plans to do more with filtering and sorting, so that the Twitter interface is more useful. In the meantime, Twitter does a good job of giving people simplified news about others and the world around them. If you’re often in a rush, Twitter can be a great resource for fast information.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

• Email us at mossbergsolution@wsj.com. Find this and other columns and videos online free at the All Things Digital Web site: http://walt.allthingsd.com

When sources at Microsoft last week told BoomTown that it was going to use Carl Icahn as a kind of messenger for a new ad search proposal, I thought: Uh-oh.

And tonight, like clockwork, Yahoo (YHOO) rejected Microsoft’s (MSFT) latest bid to buy its search and advertising search business, which was delivered in conjunction with the billionaire activist investor, who is waging a proxy fight against the company.

Why? Well, it’s kind of like sending Pepé Le Pew to a garden party.

Sources tell me the bid included a $20 billion ad search revenue guarantee over 10 years, as well as other small improvements on Microsoft’s previous proposal.

Still, Yahoo turned up its nose at it.

“This odd and opportunistic alliance of Microsoft and Carl Icahn has anything but the interests of Yahoo!’s stockholders in mind,” said Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock in a statement.

He added later: “After negotiating among themselves without the involvement of Yahoo!, Carl Icahn and Microsoft presented us with a ‘take it or leave it’ proposal under which we would be required to restructure the Company, hand over to Microsoft Yahoo!’s valuable search business and to Carl Icahn the rest of the Company, giving us less than 24 hours to respond.”

Actually, this new bid–made Friday with that 24-hour expiration date, which makes Microsoft and Icahn sound like the evil villains in James Bond movies–was similar to its last one, but definitely sweeter.

But, as it was described in the Yahoo statement, the bid also added Icahn into the mix by giving him control over the rest of Yahoo–which includes its powerful suite of communications and content assets–via a new board.

Presumably, Icahn would then turn around and merge into either News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace or Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL. (News Corp is the owner of Dow Jones and of this Web site.)

Thus, Yahoo agreed to disagree, noting it was willing to sell the company for the $33 once offered by Microsoft in its now-dead takeover bid (which, of course, they must say).

“It is ludicrous to think that our Board could accept such a proposal,” Bostock said in the statement. “While this type of erratic and unpredictable behavior is consistent with what we have come to expect from Microsoft, we will not be bludgeoned into a transaction that is not in the best interests of our stockholders.”

This strong sentiment should not come as a surprise for anyone who has talked to Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang lately.

In a conversation I had with him, I came away with one single impression about how he felt about Icahn.

And that would be complete and utter disdain. Plus one.

“I think handing over the company to Carl Icahn for the express purpose of hoping he can negotiate a complex deal with Microsoft is a big mistake for shareholders,” Yang said to me.

The Yahoo statement tonight went further.

“The major component of the overall value per share asserted by Microsoft/Icahn would be in Yahoo!’s remaining nonsearch businesses, which would be overseen by Mr. Icahn’s slate of directors, which has virtually no working knowledge of Yahoo!’s businesses,” it said.

Translation: Icahn is a Luddite.

And, even more, Yang is perhaps even more offended that Microsoft has hooked up with Icahn in its efforts to oust him and Yahoo’s board, considering the move to be a very dirty trick.

“[Microsoft's] motivations are suspect and there is simply no good reason to think they will actually show up at the end of the day,” said Yang in our conversation.

Another source close to Yahoo was even more clear: “This is a company with some dignity,” the source said. “And we would rather go down fighting than turn the keys over to people who will ruin it.”

For its part, Microsoft is just as completely exasperated with Yang and Yahoo’s board and feels it can move against it without its cooperation.

“It’s just impossible to deal with the Yahoo board or Yang,” said one source at Microsoft. “They have no intention of negotiating, so we’re just going to do what we have to do.”

While some might call it all corporate theater, these are very real feelings on all sides.

The August 1 board meeting is suddenly looking very, very ugly, as Yahoo, Microsoft and Icahn become more entrenched than ever.

And with only 20 days to go until it takes place near Yahoo’s HQ in Sunnyvale, Ca. and bad feelings all around, there’s not a lot time to work things out to everyone’s satisfaction, even though they all should.

Thus, it might actually fall to shareholders, who are irked at Yang and the Yahoo board, but who also don’t really trust Icahn and would have to hold their noses to vote for him.

Here’s an easier way to understand this situation now: It stinks.

But no! And, unless Microsoft (MSFT) mercifully steps in and forks over $34 a share to rebid for all of Yahoo, it’s likely this playground-level of fighting will go on until Aug. 1.

Why? Because that’s when Yahoo will hold its annual meeting, which is where Icahn’s proxy fight against the company will presumably come to a head.

Thus, it’ll be a long, hot, tit-for-tat summer and I expect my 3-year-old son–who can break out into “Kung Fu Panda” hiii-yah dementia at any moment–will be behaving better than this pair in the three months ahead.

I can’t believe that BoomTown is saying this–given that we hoped and prayed for the day when Yahoo would finally emerge from its year-long cone of silence and start talking.

As it turns out, those were the days, my friend.

Because the back-and-forth between Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock and Icahn has all the annoyance of two cats howling at each other in the alley in the middle of the night and none of the suspense.

Let’s be clear: This is mostly Icahn’s poison-pen war, trying to whip up a big dish of shareholder ire, in order to increase his threat and, of course, the possibility of a big payday for himself.

Does BoomTown imagine Icahn cares one little bit about the employees of Yahoo or the best course of action for the company?

Not even one teeny-weeny little bit. And yet, he must drone on.

Like yesterday, when Icahn fired off another of his increasingly fanciful missives on the same basic theme: Yahoo is run by idiots.

Previously, he had focused on Yahoo’s botching of the Microsoft takeover fight, the evils of the generous severance plan Yahoo put in place and then on his intention to oust Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang.

Now, Icahn is moving onto a golden oldie with an accusation that Yahoo let Google (GOOG) clean its clock over the last few years.

What? You’re kidding! Actually, even the not-so-swift Jo from “The Facts of Life” would have caught onto that fact of tech life long, long ago.

Nonetheless, Icahn blusters: “I ask again what your great ‘plan’ has been over the last few years. … Why did you permit Google to leave you in the dust?”

Previously, he had meandered into spy-versus-spy territory with this gem: “Until now, I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies. I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board.”

Cue the 10-second countdown of the nuclear missile aimed at New York, as Yang strokes his white Persian cat malevolently!

Which is why it is perplexing that Yahoo chooses to so quickly engage with Icahn by answering such dopiness.

But Bostock did with the seriousness of a righteous preacher, when he stated primly last week: “Conspicuously absent from your letter is any credible plan for Yahoo other than a repetition of your insistence that the company should sell itself to Microsoft. Indeed, your stated view that ‘the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft’ demonstrates that you have no other plan and causes one to wonder what exactly would happen to our company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo.”

Well, it is a good point, but hardly one that makes me cheer for the Yahoo side to win.

And then again yesterday, in a letter to shareholders about the upcoming annual meeting, Yahoo gave this limp defense for not backing Icahn, without including new ideas of why its incumbent board deserved a second chance:

“Given Microsoft’s stated position of not wanting to acquire Yahoo, the election of Mr. Icahn’s slate could result in substantial erosion of stockholder value.”

Apparently, there is one thing the pair do seem to agree on, and so do I: A substantial erosion of shareholder value seems inevitable as this caterwauling continues.

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock lashed out against Icahn late yesterday, claiming the activist investor’s recent allegations about the company’s mismanagement “seriously manipulates the facts.” In a fiery public letter, Bostock decried Icahn’s attack as one based on “a series of unsubstantiated allegations from a complaint filed in a Delaware court, which grossly misstate the very clear record and position established by the Yahoo Board.” And noting Microsoft’s apparent disinterest in renewing merger talks, he said Icahn is mistaken in his belief that Microsoft (MSFT) still wants a deal. “I know you are aware that we have reached out to Microsoft proactively and met with them many times in the last several weeks,” Bostock wrote. “During this period, their message to us and to the markets has been and remains that they are not interested in pursuing a full acquisition of Yahoo.”

Sadly, Bostock notes, Icahn seems to be under the impression that somehow Microsoft will come back to the negotiating table for a full acquisition of Yahoo. But assuming it doesn’t, what then? “Conspicuously absent from your letter is any credible plan for Yahoo other than a repetition of your insistence that the company should sell itself to Microsoft,” Bostock wrote. “Indeed, your stated view that ‘the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft’ demonstrates that you have no other plan and causes one to wonder what exactly would happen to our company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo.”

Zing … Of course, the irony of Bostock’s parting shot is that it could also be said of Yahoo and its current board. What’s their big plan … other than refusing a buyout offer that put a 62% premium on the company’s share price?

Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock lashed out against Icahn late yesterday, claiming the activist investor’s recent allegations about the company’s mismanagement “seriously manipulates the facts.” In a fiery public letter, Bostock decried Icahn’s attack as one based on “a series of unsubstantiated allegations from a complaint filed in a Delaware court, which grossly misstate the very clear record and position established by the Yahoo Board.” And noting Microsoft’s apparent disinterest in renewing merger talks, he said Icahn is mistaken in his belief that Microsoft (MSFT) still wants a deal. “I know you are aware that we have reached out to Microsoft proactively and met with them many times in the last several weeks,” Bostock wrote. “During this period, their message to us and to the markets has been and remains that they are not interested in pursuing a full acquisition of Yahoo.”

Sadly, Bostock notes, Icahn seems to be under the impression that somehow Microsoft will come back to the negotiating table for a full acquisition of Yahoo. But assuming it doesn’t, what then? “Conspicuously absent from your letter is any credible plan for Yahoo other than a repetition of your insistence that the company should sell itself to Microsoft,” Bostock wrote. “Indeed, your stated view that ‘the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft’ demonstrates that you have no other plan and causes one to wonder what exactly would happen to our company if you and your nominees were to take control of Yahoo.”

Zing … Of course, the irony of Bostock’s parting shot is that it could also be said of Yahoo and its current board. What’s their big plan … other than refusing a buyout offer that put a 62% premium on the company’s share price?

In yet another letter to Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock, the ever-grumpier billionaire investor, who is waging a proxy fight against Yahoo (YHOO) and seeking to oust Yang and crew, stepped up the volume to Crazy Eddie levels today.

It’s almost too juicy to require translation, as the veins practically pop out in Icahn’s letter from all the agita he seems to be experiencing over this botched takeover.

Icahn writes: Dear Mr. Bostock:

I have constantly complained about how far CEOs and boards will go in order to retain their jobs, yet even I am amazed at the length Jerry Yang and the Yahoo board have gone to in order to entrench their positions and keep shareholders from deciding if they wished to sell to Microsoft.

Translation: And I thought Dick Parsons of Time Warner (TWX) was a potted plant! But you guys make him look like the Road Runner, which is a very nice Warner Bros. brand, I might add.

Icahn wrote: According to details in a complaint that I became aware of yesterday (details Yahoo fought to keep under seal), Jerry Yang and a majority of the board went to inordinate lengths to sabotage a Microsoft bid.

The damage to Microsoft “is compounded by the fact that Yahoo’s thousands of engineers, known as ‘Technical Yahoos!,’ have detailed job responsibilities and qualifications.”

Translation: I am playing brain dead here, even though everyone and their grandmother knew exactly what Yang was doing at the time with that massive and costly severance plan.

But, with a little verbal foot-stamping and some grumbly sounds, I think it approximates an appropriately hysterical level of outrage and surprise.

Icahn wrote: Most importantly, Microsoft might never be able to trust a CEO and board who, while claiming to be negotiating in good faith, went behind their back and adopted a “plan,” which not only sabotages any Microsoft acquisition but went so far as to completely disable its own ability to rescind the “plan” as long as Microsoft’s offer remains pending.

In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for Microsoft or other companies to trust, work with and negotiate with a company that would go to these lengths.

Translation: Outrage! Foot-stamping! Grumbling! Acting like the once-thuggish Microsoft (MSFT) doesn’t actually admire this tactic by Yahoo in its secret heart of hearts.

And now, the piece de resistance, I compare Yang to Ernst Stavro Blofeld, as translated by Mike Myers’ Dr. Evil (One millllllliiiiioooooon dollars!).

What next from you evil-doers? A shark with a nuclear bomb attached in my lap pool? Painting me all gold and purple? Perhaps suspending me and a lovely disposable Bond girl high above a tank of piranhas?

But I am 0000000007, a billionaire’s secret agent number, so bring it on!

Icahn wrote: It is insulting to shareholders that Yahoo for the last month has told us that they are quite willing to negotiate a sale of the company to Microsoft and cannot understand why Microsoft has walked away.

Could this have been the problem?

Translation: I like the silly focus on “the plan,” don’t you? It sounds so sneaky and naughty.

Even though, truth be told, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer has publicly pointed to the ad outsourcing deal with its archrival Google (GOOG) that Yahoo is considering, as well as the price it is willing to pay, as the software giant’s main deal blockers.

Icahn writes: Even more deceitful are Yahoo’s actions toward its own employees, for whom you claimed to have set up the “plan.”

Management neglected to mention to these same employees that Microsoft in its proposals had earmarked $1.5 billion of retention incentives (representing over $100,000 per employee) meant to allay any employee concerns.

Translation: Again, “The Plan” sounds spooky, doesn’t it? M. Night Shyamalan is set to make a movie of it, just like “The Sixth Sense.” The tag line: “I see overcompensated geeks!”

Icahn wrote: Ironically, according to the complaint, this is not the first time that Yahoo has denied shareholders the opportunity of selling to Microsoft at a large premium.

An article in CNET News cited in the complaint sums it up by stating, “Yahoo may indeed agree to Microsoft’s [offer], but it will be over Jerry Yang’s dead body.”

Translation: Dead bodies! I smell a hit movie! Hello, Oscar!

I wonder if Michael Douglas should play me again?

Greed, by the way: Still good!

Wait, I am being distracted from the issue at hand, which is: Was the board and former CEO Terry Semel high not to accept that $40 a share last year?

Smoking, I might add, is very bad for your health.

Icahn wrote: I and many of your shareholders believe that the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long, if not short run, is to merge with Microsoft. However, because of HSR considerations, to complete a merger of this magnitude will take a period of time.

Therefore, the best chance to bring Microsoft and Yahoo together is to replace Yang and the current Yahoo board with a board that will negotiate in good faith with Microsoft and in whom Microsoft will have trust to operate the company during the long period between signing and closing.

Translation: Please step down now! No? Pretty please? (It was worth the try.)

Of course, Microsoft trusts me less than you to run the place, but let’s leave that pertinent point aside here, shall we?

Icahn wrote: You stated in a press release yesterday that, “Yahoo’s board of directors, including Jerry Yang, has been crystal clear that it would consider any proposal by Microsoft that was in the best interests of its shareholders.”

I understand how these actions are in the best interests of management and a board whose members each receive $40,000 per month for several days work, but it is hard for me to understand how these actions are in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Translation: To make my point, let me channel Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” here, with me playing Jack and Yang Tom Cruise:

Icahn: Ever served in a forward area?

Yang: No sir.

Icahn: Ever put your life in another man’s hands, ask him to put his life in yours?

Yang: No sir.

Icahn: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?

Yang: Yes sir.

Icahn: Are we clear?

Yang: Crystal.

Icahn wrote: However, despite your actions to date, there is still some possibility that you can resuscitate a Microsoft offer for the company.

I can only hope that you will finally do what is in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Translation: My “plan” is to say “the plan” as much as possible, until I drive everyone nuts and take their eye off the ball, which is getting more money for me in this digital briar patch, as the only “shareholder” that I actually care about.

I threw in the “one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist” dig, because I am not one in any way whatsoever and still have my secretary print out my emails.

By the way, what is this Facebook thingamajig people keep talking about as another Microsoft target? Do you have to be a rocket scientist to join it?

Icahn wrote: Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

Translation: Still as insincere as ever!

“Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies,” Icahn wrote, referring to Yahoo’s highly unusual severance plan that would have rewarded employees who left the company after a change in ownership. “I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board.”

Doomsday machines? James Bond movies? Did Yahoo appoint Richard Kiel to its board and not tell anyone?

Oh, and by the way, the name’s Icahn … Carl Icahn.

His letter follows.

Dear Mr. Bostock:

I have long been cynical about the effectiveness of many of the boards and CEOs in this country and as a result the inability of our companies to compete. I have constantly complained about how far CEOs and boards will go in order to retain their jobs, yet even I am amazed at the length Jerry Yang and the Yahoo board have gone to in order to entrench their positions and keep shareholders from deciding if they wished to sell to Microsoft.

According to details in a complaint that I became aware of yesterday (details Yahoo fought to keep under seal), Jerry Yang and a majority of the board went to inordinate lengths to sabotage a Microsoft bid. The complaint states: “Viewing employee retention as Microsoft’s Achilles heel, Yang engineered an ingenious defense creating huge incentives for a massive employee walkout in the aftermath of a change in control. The plan gives each of Yahoo’s 14,000 full-time employees the right to quit his or her job and pocket generous termination benefits at any time during the two years following a takeover, by claiming a ‘substantive adverse alteration’ in job duties or responsibilities.” The damage to Microsoft “is compounded by the fact that Yahoo’s thousands of engineers, known as ‘Technical Yahoos!,’ have detailed job responsibilities and qualifications.”

Most importantly, Microsoft might never be able to trust a CEO and board who, while claiming to be negotiating in good faith, went behind their back and adopted a “plan” which not only sabotages any Microsoft acquisition but went so far as to completely disable its own ability to rescind the “plan” as long as Microsoft’s offer remains pending. Until now I naively believed that self-destructive doomsday machines were fictional devices found only in James Bond movies. I never believed that anyone would actually create and activate one in real life. I guess I never knew about Yang and the Yahoo Board. In my opinion, it will be extremely difficult for Microsoft or other companies to trust, work with and negotiate with a company that would go to these lengths.

It is insulting to shareholders that Yahoo for the last month has told us that they are quite willing to negotiate a sale of the company to Microsoft and cannot understand why Microsoft has walked away. However, the board conveniently neglected to inform shareholders about the magnitude of the plan it installed which made it practically impossible for Microsoft to stay at the bargaining table. Could this have been the problem?

Even more deceitful are Yahoo’s actions toward its own employees, for whom you claimed to have set up the “plan”. Management neglected to mention to these same employees that Microsoft in its proposals had earmarked $1.5 billion of retention incentives (representing over $100,000 per employee) meant to allay any employee concerns.

Ironically, according to the complaint, this is not the first time that Yahoo has denied shareholders the opportunity of selling to Microsoft at a large premium. According to the complaint, in January 2007 Microsoft offered to purchase Yahoo at $40 per share but the company rejected that proposal. On January 31, 2008, Steve Ballmer emailed a letter to Jerry Yang and Roy Bostock making a new proposal of $31 per share. The letter recounts Microsoft’s prior efforts to acquire Yahoo and noted that Microsoft had given Yahoo time to implement business strategies designed to turn the company around. These strategies obviously didn’t work. The letter went on to state: “Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008.” Yahoo not only turned down this proposal but sabotaged it. An article in CNET News cited in the complaint sums it up by stating, “Yahoo may indeed agree to Microsoft’s [offer], but it will be over Jerry Yang’s dead body”.

I and many of your shareholders believe that the only way to salvage Yahoo in the long if not short run is to merge with Microsoft. However, because of HSR considerations, to complete a merger of this magnitude will take a period of time. Even if by some stretch of the imagination the Yahoo board finally determines to do the rational thing and sell the company, I fear that, in light of Yang and the board’s recent actions in response to Microsoft’s overtures, it may be too late to convince Microsoft to trust Yang and the current board to run the company during that period while Microsoft sits on the sidelines with $45 billion at risk. Therefore, the best chance to bring Microsoft and Yahoo together is to replace Yang and the current Yahoo board with a board that will negotiate in good faith with Microsoft and in whom Microsoft will have trust to operate the company during the long period between signing and closing.

You stated in a press release yesterday that, “Yahoo’s board of directors including Jerry Yang has been crystal clear that it would consider any proposal by Microsoft that was in the best interests of its shareholders.” However this is not crystal clear to me. You have allegedly turned down a $40 offer. You have turned down and sabotaged a $33 offer. Instead, you appear willing to negotiate an “alternative” deal that in my opinion will be worth less than $33 but will entrench the board and Jerry Yang. I understand how these actions are in the best interests of management and a board whose members each receive $40,000 per month for several days work, but it is hard for me to understand how these actions are in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

However, despite your actions to date, there is still some possibility that you can resuscitate a Microsoft offer for the company. The board can rescind the “severance plan” that is the largest impediment to a Microsoft deal. You currently can do this because Microsoft withdrew their bid 30 days ago. It is time for you to stop misleading your shareholders with respect to Microsoft. It has been reported today that when asked to talk about the Microsoft bid, Sue Decker indicated that Microsoft made an offer which Yahoo’s board didn’t feel was at an attractive enough price. However, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize there is a simple method to possibly achieve a higher price. Simply rescind the poison pill “severance plan”, which would free up approximately $2.4 billion and possibly even more which could be added to the bid. It is also time to admit to your shareholders that the severance plan was not done for your employees (who you conveniently neglected to inform that Microsoft had earmarked $1.5 billion in retention incentives for), but rather was done simply as an entrenchment device and to impede a Microsoft bid. If you are not completely disingenuous in your protestations concerning doing “the right thing” for shareholders, you should rescind the severance plan expeditiously and determine if Microsoft is still willing to purchase our company and thereby create a true competitor for Google. I can only hope that you will finally do what is in the “best interests of the shareholders.”

Sincerely yours,

CARL C. ICAHN

In others words, quantum levels of classiness above where we exist (although we’d kill for a Starbucks every 50 yards).

Some observations about Monaco’s main town of Monte-Carlo:

It is really scenic, with lovely parks, flower-draped buildings, charming windy streets and stunning views of the water.

Also there’s enough gilt here to choke a horse, and if you want to buy a $100,000 watch, you’re all set. Also a Bentley!

After a while though, the sheer Disney theme-park perfection of the place made me want to litter and spit.

Then, after another while, I half expected to see Julie Andrews and Anne Hathaway show up in a real-life version of the “The Princess Diaries.”

Then, a fine cup of espresso made me a little less grumpy.

Also, lots and lots and lots of surveillance cameras everywhere, as in other European cities. Thus, I decided not to litter or spit.

It goes without saying: I have no class.

Still, here is my video tour of Monaco, which is 100% Internet-free: