Games and Humor Books

Not quite what I expected, especially as I made the MISTAKE of buying a 2006 calendar in January of 2007. The lyrics are not that funny or interesting. It's okay.

The cover says it all really, a parody of the Sodoku game that is filling the world. I for one find it rather grating to play, and feel the masses that play it in their coffee breaks at work, or on the train or even in the car, rather sad.

So I bought this little gem. I can now play the game without getting the grating feeling, as I am spelling out the humorous word SH*TEDOKU, as opposed to numbers 1-9. I can sit with a smile on my face in the train with my pencil, and my big brash yellow cover that reads ''Addictive. Fun. Sh*te.''

Yes, it is silly...and yes, it does give me immature pleasure in public.

This year you can party with the Simpsons like it's 1999! Literally! Because it looks to me like they simply reprinted the full size 1999 Simpsons wall calendar at the smaller mini-calendar size! The illustration for the month of January shows Grandpa being kicked out of the house by Homer dressed up as the 1998 Father Time, and Maggie dressed up as the 1999 Baby New Year. Couldn't they have at least updated the years???

The other problem with just reducing the 1999 full size calendar at this smaller size is that the text is very small. The Simpsons and Futurama calendars are full of information about dates and famous birthdays! This is great on the full size but the way it's reprinted here you can't read it unless you get very close.

Normally you can't go wrong with any Simpsons calendar if you are a fan, but if you have to choose one, go for the NEW full size wall calendar and not this smaller REPRINTED one from seven years ago!

This is a very clever book. Personally, I could not get my olives to make any audible noise (you take the pimento out of the middle and blow, right? Its not as easy as it sounds). There are plenty of other tricks here to make the book worth your while. This is particularly good as a gift for someone at work--it gives everyone at the office party something to do!

I guess I should've judged by the cover, but some modern pics would've been a good way to add variety.

I am a good fan of the Wonderword puzzles and fill them out in newspapers whenever I can spot them. This little mini calender in sturdy and contains all new wonderword categories that I have never seen before. My only gripe with this product is that I occasionly find small problems within the puzzle. Howevor, these problems are easy to spot. (i.e. one error was that there was a letter I instead of the letter L, which could cause some slip-ups within the puzzle.) Overall, I would suggest that those who enjoy Wonderwords purchase the Wonderword books instead of the calender for the simple reason that the books were probably edited more and conatin less slip-ups.

Maybe it's just that I've changed, but I felt like this calendar had a preachier tone than last year's. I still enjoy the artwork and I like to think in a SARK-like way for a bit each day, but I want more uplifting and less days that sound like they assume I need more comfort than I have.

This book is SO funny! One of the few books I have laughed out loud while reading.

It begins as I'd expect from Penn Jillette: a tongue-in-cheek romp with a dash of course language, and it's funny for those not offended. But by page 20 I realized that, yea verily, this is a serious treatise on cheating techniques.

Imagine all the card tricks that a career magician like Penn Jillette must know, and him focusing that expertise on cheating in a poker game. He's done us a favor in this age of unprecendented poker popularity by wising us up. I *agree* that it's disturbing, but one can take heart in something he points out: "You can't buy the practice." In other words, these techniques take a long time to perfect.

This is useful for vigilance. One can acknowledge that, yes Virginia, there ARE such things as "card mechanics" however rare, or one can hide one's head in the sand. When Barry Greenstein (BG) mentioned "a false shuffle and cut" I wondered how anyone could get away with such a thing! Well folks, here's how it's done. BG recommends being aware of losing when you think you should be winning. Penn actually gets into the nuts and bolts of how the cheater does it.

This also got me thinking about other ways cheating could occur in a casino (such as a modified ShuffleMaster). Disturbing, but good to have tucked away somewhere in one's awareness. There is a section on cheat-proofing your own home game, and the thickest (and crudest) glossary of poker slang I've seen to date.

You really have to wonder how a person like "Dickie Richards" could exist, or why, if he's fictional, anyone would think that a book by such a character would be funny.

The title is a lie - the book doesn't teach you how to cheat, and the author repeatedly says he has no friends. I have no idea where they got the "157 classic and crafty tricks" line from.

That Penn would put his name on this book is just more evidence that, as a thinker and a writer, he's a pretty good magician.

Unless you are thrilled by crude language don't bother,as this book really doesn't offer anything else. i read it as i am a penn + Teller fan but it was very disappointing.

It may well be that the real Penn Jillette is an admirable human being, a thoughtful, kind, generous and honorable man--honorable like Brutus and Cassius and all the rest, all, all honorable men. But I have never encountered the real Penn Jillette. I know only his odious public persona.

This is a book by Jillette (and some collaborator or other.) It is an odious book by an odious man about an odious man--odiousness cubed, in short. As I write this, the averaged rating assigned by the previous twelve Amazon reviewers is two-and-a-half stars. I am astonished that the book is so very highly regarded.

In his introduction, Jillette spins a little tale to the effect that the core of this book is a set of polished up anecdotes about the life and thoughts of a rootless, no-good, no-account, card-cheating grifter to whom Jillette (and his collaborator) have assigned the name "Dickie Richard," from material supplied in much rougher form by the said rootless, no-good, no-account, card-cheating grifter.

Now, because Jillette is a stage magician, a profession not notoriously devoted to telling the whole truth and nothing but, some readers may feel a disinclination to take him at his word. Among the twelve reviewers already posting on this site, five seem to have accepted the actual existence of Dickie Richard, four expressed varying degrees of dubiousness about his reality and three did not touch on the point. (Presumably, no ten-foot poles were conveniently available.)

Here is what Jillette says in his introduction to the book: "Dickie is as colorful as you can get. He is a totally fictitious character, talking large and cutting up jackpots (that's slang for `telling stories')." You have to give Jillette full credit here: those are weasel words worthy of a famous stage illusionist. By calling Dickie Richard "fictitious," does Jillette mean that he has no objective existence? Or does he mean that Dickie has completely wrapped himself in a covering of fictions and lies? Which, if either, is the truth? I don't know. On general principals, though, I don't trust Jillette. On anything. Ever.

Let's assume that Dickie is an out-and-out lie. If so, than for what reason has the odious Jillette inflicted his odious creation on us? Whatever the reason, I think it is safe to say that art had little or nothing to do with it. As for the financial reward, considering that I found my copy in the cut-rate, get-this-junk-outta-here section of a steroidal chain bookstore outlet, it must have been small to laughably minuscule.

Let's assume that Dickie is real. If so, then Dickie is the out-and-out liar. His lie doesn't involve his techniques for cheating with the cards. He gives precious little specific information there. In fact, about the only useful thing he says for budding card-sharps is look up another man's book, study it and (like the man trying to get to Carnegie Hall) practice, practice, practice. If Dickie Richard actually exists, his lie isn't about him being a rootless, no-good, no-account, card-cheating grifter. That's self-evidently true enough. No, the lie is that he is a SUCCESSFUL, rootless, no-good, no-account, card-cheating grifter.

Dickie tells us that he constantly and successfully trolls for home poker games, that he casually assumes whatever character traits will make him appear to be an acceptably like-minded, comfortable, trustworthy, likeable card-playing buddy--until, of course, he seduces whatever women are in the immediate vicinity, scoops up whatever portable valuables are left unprotected in the home of his host, cheats, lies and steals whatever money is to be had, and then permanently departs over the hills and far away.

I say nonsense. No way. Not a chance!

Just consider his anecdotes. The man hasn't an ounce of wit or charm or grace. He says he can talk the talk of the pool hall and the country club with equal facility. No he can't. This crude little man is as far from being a silver-tongued devil as is possible to get. W. C. Fields, even when completely sozzled, had a more winning and believable line of patter. His every word, his every story, his every thought shouts out that he is a low-life.

The Big Anecdote in the book is Dickie's drawn out tale of his Big Game, the one into which he introduced himself, then gradually raised the stakes of the regular Big Money Game of some well-heeled Big Shots up in New Hampshire. He returns to the tale of this game again and again, until he comes to the day he brought in his five million dollar stake in anticipation of the Big Killing. He tells us how he won Big, and then through sheer hubris, how he lost even Bigger. Finally he laments the permanent ruin of the Big Game, from which he emerged a poorer but definitely not wiser man.

Nuts! Dickie with five million bucks? The same Dickie who recommends that you poke a sticky-coated paddle into the cash box at a home game in order to extract loose bills and chips? THAT Dickie? Don't make me laugh! Nah, this is a guy who far more likely drives (and probably sleeps in, often as not) a third-hand car and makes hamburger money from the good old boys at the Elks Hall.

Dickie Richard with five mill? Hah! One star for this busted flush.

Anyone that understands the modern game should understand that unless a game is viewed in it's entirity and thoroughly analyzed, no worthwhile evaluation can be derived. I would pass on this offerring and defer to a real expert on the subject. You wanted some exposure, you got it.

Anyone who has never played competitive sports nor even watch a particular game should not be spouting off stupid remarks just to increase readership. That is exactly what Gregg Easterbrook did. How can he possible spew out that the Oklahoma Sooners ran up the score against Houston with a score of 63-13 while in the same breath say that Western Illinois did not run up the final score of 98-7 against Cheyenne. Our starting quarterback only played the first series of the entire second quarter as did most of the rest of the starting team. Easterbrook's fervent jealousy and/or dislike of the Oklahoma football program is pretty evident in his ill conceived column. Like Mike Lupica of last year, it is quite obvious that Easterbrook did not watch the game or even the highlights, but simply wrote his nonsensical diatribe based on preconceived prejudices against Oklahoma. How someone who has never been nothing more than a "couch potato" write a book on football and expect anyone to take it seriously is a mystery to me. Personally, I believe his latest attempt at writing, "Tuesday Morning Quarterback..." is a horrible and elementary written book, and like Easterbrook, I came to this belief without reading the book, like he did not watch the game.

The football gods will punish this dufus for "writing" this tripe. He wouldn't recognize a football if it hit him in the nutz.

I don't even have to read the book to know it is horrible, just look who wrote it. I am guessing he commented on certain games without actually watching them. Just a moron trying to throw around his opinion.

Lets put it this way, i was selling it on ebay within 2 hours

this book for me was an impulse buy. I was looking for some random info that would lead me to more indepth things later and this is exactly what this book did. It sparked my interest. I knew from the first few pages that some of it was probably info ripped straight from a inquistor's handbook but other things were interesting.
Like the charms against evil eye and such. Where I live in Appalachia some of these are still in use, I even surprised my papaw with my new knowledge of some of the older myths.
Some of this book like the ways of become a witch were down right ridluious and in this part it could be more clear that those were foolish assumations of ignorant Burning Times Inqusitors.
But other things like Solomon's demons come straight from the Bible(which weather non-christians like it or not is still a pretty valid piece of historical reference). To really read this book I think you need to already have a bit of background in such things if only to be able to decern between fact and once believed ficiton

As a non-Pagan, not even a neo-pagan, but a writer, I found this to be an invaluable resource. "True believers" may not actually do most of these things, but the information regarding historical superstions is certainly accurate, if succinct. Certainly the information regarding King Solomon's Spirits was dead on, and nicely summarized.
If you're looking for information to make a piece of historical fiction more "real", this is a fine place to start. Also, if someone is looking to add flavor to an RPG, this is a decent and economical reference.

I'm sure this review will draw attacks from the practitioners, but, if one takes the book for what it is and not what one wishes it to be, it's a fine reference.

This is ridiculous. Don't get this book, its all unsubstantiated, falsified crap. Sorry, but this was made to get a quick buck.

For the most part, this book was quite humorous. I've been using magick for a little over 10 years now and this book tells of some unique spells to try. Read the other review about the invisibility spell. I don't want to repeat it here.

This book may have disgusted some people, but through other research I've done, those were actual recipes from the 15th-16th (more or less) centuries. The spells that include dead animals and other things considered taboo today were concocted by people who were hunted during the burning times.

The other part of this book was actually very informative. I do recommend this book if you are down to earth enough. 50% of this book are old spells and they tell you the ingredients which should be taken with a grain of salt if you are closedminded. The last 50% of this book is interesting and some of it works (such as the magick squares). I've yet to try summoning one of the 72 Spirits of Solomon.....so I'll leave that to a master pagan.

Overall, this book was interesting, captivating, humorous at times, and full of information not easy to come by.

I bought this book, without looking through it. Big mistake. Do NOT waste your money. I looked at a few spells, and almost threw up. One of the invisibility spells calls for you to boil a cat for 24 hours, throw the meat over your left shoulder, put the bones in the left side of your mouth, and look in the mirror, to see if you're invisible. That disgusted me. The entire book disgusted me. I'm thinking of writing a letter to the editor/writer(s), telling them exactly what I think. It's things like these, that give us a bad name. It made some comment about how people with the evil eye are more likely left-handed, members of the clergy, and some animals, including dogs, cats, wolves and peacocks. I only flipped through it, but I plan to look at the rest, just to see what else they have in there.

People who think Pagans are bad, pick up this book and see what it says, thinking it will have the write information. We have a bad enough name as it is, because of other people, there's no need to give us a worse one, with this.