Where's Dana's hair at??

In news about me, I had a great meeting at work today. First, I let someone else give "our" weekly update, but the fact was, I could have done it -- it was all stuff I knew. So that was good. Then, someone else was talking about someone in a different company who had done something fairly stupid, but she said, "But she's brand new -- I think she's only been there six weeks." I feel incredibly on top of things, all things considered.

I saw the pictures of Dana's hair! I have no idea why it worked for me. Maybe you had to be logged in to lj?

ETA:

Where's Dana's hair at??

Deleted now. I'm sure she'll repost later with working links.

I am very sad that I missed Dana's hair pic.

My new temp office actually has some advantages over the old one. It will probably have several more, once I am forced to tear the vocal cords out of my neighbor, who likes to talk very loudly on the phone, and calls the people he is talking to "dude" a lot. (this is the same paralegal who has problems conveying assignments in a timely fashion.)

So I have someone who wrote a pretty good paper, but whose references page contains the information that she searched for the subject on Yahoo, clicked on a bunch of links, and gathered information from various sites. How do I concisely but clearly explain why that's not really enough of a bibliography, even for such an informal paper?

Dana, when you go to wring out your hair, be prepared for it to end abruptly so you don't do what I did and nearly fall down in the shower and walk around with aching shoulders and a banged elbow for several days. (want to see pictures too!)

"Wow! What did you do to your elbow?!" I washed my hair.

I'm a big dork. The lights in the stairwell aren't on. So I go down and fiddle with the timer. After much fiddling, I ascertain it must be electrical beyond my talents, because the breaker keeps popping. Which I'll tell the office and they'll look at me like I have three heads because I tinkered. Ah well.

Typo, as I read that, I was reminded that in NM elections, if it is determined to be a tie, the tie breaker can be ANY method the parties (or the governing org, I don't recall) agree to. This came up in the 2000 elections. I found it...well, I pictured old west gunslingers if you must know, because it's so typical of my home state.

I am about to eat a Libido Burrito.

Should I be scared?

So I have someone who wrote a pretty good paper, but whose references page contains the information that she searched for the subject on Yahoo, clicked on a bunch of links, and gathered information from various sites. How do I concisely but clearly explain why that's not really enough of a bibliography, even for such an informal paper?

This is not a case of simply using on-line sources? She just did a yahoo search and that is all she said? She did not even list individual sources?

Er, yes. That's one of those worst name ever things.

She just did a yahoo search and that is all she said? She did not even list individual sources?

'swhat I'm saying. Mind you, many of them didn't include reference pages at all (despite it being clear in the instructions and in my corrections to their rough drafts).

Emily, maybe provide an example of what you're looking for?