The Proof -Reader Proves [the extent of his sorrow]
Desperation, E.X. 2006. Observation: This Book, Like Practically Everything Else In This Bibliography, Isn’t On the Reading List (Why The Hell Didn’t You Use the Reading List? It’s Not Hard. We’re Practically Giving Free Marks Away — Just Show Us You’ve Read The Stuff We Recognise And We’ll Bloody Pass You For It). No kind of Academic Journal, Really, and I’m Guessing You Got This Via Google Scholar and Sci-Hub, didn’t you? 55(1), pp.171–189 (although I note, as with every other reference in this bibliography, the quotation you’ve used comes from the very first of those pages. The first few sentences of the abstract, in fact. And, yeah, I realise I might be the only person checking that detail, because — heaven alone knows — your supervisors and examiners won’t. It does bother me that no-one questions whether this is really worth the time and the effort when no-one, precisely no-one, other than proof-readers *ever reads it*. What else might you be if you weren’t writing these references lists, eh? Not that that’s a question you’ll be asking yourself when you’ve paid me to do it. But I suppose I didn’t have to take the money).
Undistinguished-Author, A. and Magnificent-Nonentity, T.H.E. 2011. Special Report: The first thing you found when searching for this not terribly specific search term, but then they never taught you how to do a decent Google search on that course of yours, did they? Some news site that filches its articles from other news sites and might employ one bloke somewhere working out of his mother’s bedroom if it isn’t just algorithms now…it is just algorithms now, isn’t it? So, there you go, yet more words that aren’t being read by human eyes. Like the words I’m hiding in here that I sincerely doubt you’ll find, but there’s always some hope, isn’t there, that someone one day might employ their critical faculties against these impenetrable walls of text. Italics are the worst, I find. Who the hell wants to read italics? They’re like anti-words. These are anti-words. But I digress… [Online — because *of course* it is; when was the last time you went to the Uni library? I’d ask you to find it on a map but then you’d need help finding the city because, to the best of my knowledge, you’ve not been to an in-person lecture for over a year now. Not that they notice, these lecturers — I sympathise, I really do; if they can’t be bothered to notice you, why bother to show up?] [Accessed 7 April 2018…not all that suspiciously, two days before this document was sent to me; couldn’t you just make up a date?]. Available from: https://www.some-address-that-might-conceivably-have-been-live-when-this-was-accessed-for-the-essay-but-isn’t-accessible-anymore-Funny-that,-isn’t-it?-Almost-feels-deliberate-As-if-you-want-someone-to-haul-you-up-and-say-HEY-I’ve-seen-what-you’re-doing-there-don’t-think-you’re-getting-away-with-that-mush-now-do-it-properly, why don’t you?
Largely Pointless-Observation, A. 2011. The Proof Reader’s Sorrow. Inquiry and Insight — now, there’s a name for a journal. As if it’s trolling us both, when we ought to know that neither of those things have really been brought to bear on this work. I could provide you with an insight or two of my own but — again — you know I did my own PhD. And you know that I’m here now, spending hours of my time proof-reading instead of doing anything better with myself. So I’ve no doubt you can achieve your PhD, too, and perhaps you too can earn a few beans doing this sort of work in the years to come as you realise your studies have prepared you for precisely nothing in the world other than *more study*. Perhaps. Unlike your thesis, I’m going to have to leave you to come to a conclusion about that. 4(1), pp.60–81.
