Don't get your point. Titanic sank in "nineteen twelve", Battle of Waterloo was "eighteen fifteen", surely saying "twenty thirteen" is following the precedent.
If anything the "two thousand and one" decade was the anomaly, given it was "nineteen o' one" a hundred years before. I think "twenty o' one" just sounded a bit weird.
People say ninteen-hundred in everyday use, they don;t say twenty-hundred (unless they're a really old hobbit) - "twenty thirteen" is either the score of a decent game of rugby, or an appalling game of basketball.
A couple more:
* The obvious double standards in football reporting in this country. Spurs signing Chadli "obviously" means Bale is leaving, yet Chelsea signing Schurrle doesn't mean Torres is leaving
* Russell Brand. He's not remotely funny, he's remarkably irritating, plus his attempt to say Sachsgate was all down to bias against the BBC - rather than Brand and Jonathan Ross being obnoxious ****s
* Soleros. Coating people's arms in melted fruit puree since Cthulhu-knows when
