I'm editing an article about a new drug, written by someone with a PharmD, who did not know what "FDA" stood for. (Her guess was Federal Drug Agency.) I am not making that up.

You know who else thinks it stands for Federal Drug Agency? KIDS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL.

Okay, they seriously want us to update our voicemail outgoing message with the date EVERY DAY? Seriously? This is coming down from the company president, but I can barely remember to fill in my weekly timesheet. That's *so* not happening.

OMG.

Office of Mutilated Grammar?

You know who else thinks it stands for Federal Drug Agency? KIDS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL.

This is a horribly written article. I hate when we get shit like this. If it weren't about a new drug, I'm sure we would have rejected it. In the abstract she says she used one set of search terms in MEDLINE, but in the article itself, she lists a whole other set of search terms she says she used.

Way to go, lady. I really trust your research.

Why was this not routed through the technical editor?

Because the technical editors keep getting laid off due to budget cuts?

t sorry, not closing the bitter tag any time soon

What if male superheroes were posed like Wonder Woman? [link]

Bless that artist, and bless you for linking it. It's the perfect rebuttal to the "but male superheroes have stylized bodies, tooo!" whine.

Ugh. I really cannot focus on this document with the noises around me. I wonder if I can go home and work there?

As well as everything else, I have to pull the "solutioning" out of the requirements. And that's going to require juggling.

pertinent to today's discussion:

captchas to keep idiots out of comment threads -

[link]

Good one, Frank. I sort of feel like I melted down some in the thread today. But it used to be worse, although I've never been a slammer.

When I worked for the Florida Dental Association sometimes we'd get calls for the Food and Drug Administration which often led to some confusing and interesting conversations.