Distributors Books

I found this book to be a very in depth study on this subject but broke down piece by piece that anyone can understand. Dr. Wierwille handles the few scriptures the trinity stands on and does not miss out that 68 times it says son of God and nowhere does it say God the son. He points out the few scriptures the trinity hangs once looked at from a bibical reasearch method three steps of letting the word interpet itself either in the 1)verse where written or 2)in the context or 3) where the word is used before. This keeps you from just looking at it from a trinity perspective. He also states the trinity is nowhere in the word! His research on the history of the trinity was very helpful for me to start my research to build an even bigger foundation on this subject. Jesus Christ is not God!

This book teaches another gospel message. Wierwille was a false teacher and a Spiritual Terrorist. I strongly discourage people from reading the hellfire teachings in this book.

Wierwille's thesis must be taken seriously. His book must not.

Although he makes an attempt at being reader-friendly, he does so at the expense of sound proof of his thesis. This is a laughably bad book, and its primary usefulness lies in reassuring you if you already agree that Jesus Christ is not God.

A much more comprehensive attempt at addressing this issue can be found in Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting's "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" and the book "One God and One Lord" by former Wierwille followers John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark Graeser. Of course, defenses of the Trinity doctrine can be found in any Christian bookstore.

If you're going to disagree with the Trinity or try to disprove it, Wierwille's book should be your last resource.

I found this book to be a very in depth study on this subject but broke down piece by piece that anyone can understand. Dr. Wierwille handles the few scriptures the trinity stands on and does not miss out that 68 times it says son of God and nowhere does it say God the son. He points out the few scriptures the trinity hangs once looked at from a bibical reasearch method three steps of letting the word interpet itself either in the 1)verse where written or 2)in the context or 3) where the word is used before. This keeps you from just looking at it from a trinity perspective. He also states the trinity is nowhere in the word! His research on the history of the trinity was very helpful for me to start my research to build an even bigger foundation on this subject. Jesus Christ is not God!

This book really opened up my spiritual eyes. I am going to preaching a lot different now that I understand the truth. No wonder I could never make much sense out of what most preachers said about who Jesus is. I recommend this book for everyone who wants to know God and how Jesus relates to God.

I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play.


In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth.
The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too.
His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes.


Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light.
He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince'

Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.

While Seward makes some convincing arguments and successfully rebuts some Ricardian explanations, he does so in a horribly pretentious manner. He makes the constant claim that Richard was unpopular, which may have been so, but he does not bother to use reliable sources to prove it. He is also guilty of using the words 'obviously' and 'plainly' while not giving the reader any inication why he thinks these things are so obvious and plain. An example of this is found when Seward states, "When speaking of Richard, Commynes uses the word 'proud' more than once. Plainly he employs it in the sense of vain glory or self delusion. Had he known the word 'hubris' he would have used that too." Be that as it may, Seward does not offer any proof as to why he believes the word 'proud' is used to mean self delusion, and his assumption that the writer would have used 'hubris' hints of Seward's own pride and arrogance. This neglect to explain basic charges runs throughout the entire book, which makes it an almost unbearable read to one simply trying to find out the truth, rather than wallow in anti-Ricardian sentiment. Almost all historians of Richard III are guilty of writing from bias, but it is not usually so suffocating as this.

This is an entertaining mixture of historical story-telling, scholary gumshoe work, and criticism. No aspect overpowers the book, which makes it an interestingly told history, and a well-shaped argument for Seward's perspective of Richard III's reign.

Of course, so much of his work in the primary sources leads him to numerous conjectural qualifications. This state of affairs demonstrates why there is so much divergence of opinion on Richard III. However, if both Richard's contemporary subjects and their progeny have such a consistently malignant view of the man's rule, why go to such effort to rehabilitate (revisionize) him? It is obvious Richard's black legend is not solely a product of Tudor propaganda. The man simply did all the heavy lifting on establishing history's view of his reign.

Seward's book is a good read. It's not a purely speculative, breathless narrative of "Maybe this happened, then that ... probably," but an argued case that approaches all of the sources in the field, primary and modern. This book has the potential to become the definitive history of Richard III and his reign; it simply lacks the appeals to cliched romanticism that surround much work in English history.

I got this as a result of seeing Ian McKellen's film version of the Shakespearean play. It left me wanting more History as well as more Drama. I had heard that Shakespeare was essentially writing anti-Richard propaganda, since the man who defeated him, Richmond, went on to become Henry VII grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. But while the truth is no doubt more complicated than the play suggests, Seward convincingly shows that Shakespeare got the essentials right even if he did take a few liberties. He doesn't merely elucidate the character of Richard himself, but of those around him. The Woodvilles, Ann, Catesby, Tyrell, Brackenbury, the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stanley were all real players in Richard's rise and fall, well known at the time for their victimizations through or their contributions to his tyranny. (Catesby for example was known as the Cat in a popular rhyme of the day.) Seward gives an in depth though not necessarily complete view of the constraints and shared assumptions they were operating under which eventually leads to the characterization of the King himself. It's difficult to tell how much of Richard's tyranny stemmed from the bloodthirstiness of the times he lived in, or if good really triumphed over evil at Bosworth field, and Seward makes no assertions to that effect. But he does throw into sharp relief the flaws that earned Richard his bloody reputation, and they aren't saintly ones. He is also very clear cut about which primary sources he is drawing from, Thomas More, Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler, how they culled their information, and how he reads them. I'm sure there's a wealth of information on this subject, yet I found this book to be a very satisfying introduction.

Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.

Interesting read, though I would have expected better scholarship. Based on the overwhelming amount of dissenting material, is "mormon apologist" a contradiction of terms?
Challenge - look up Thomas Stuart Ferguson to see how he described LDS at the end of career.

I encourage all people of the Morman faith, especially those who are young in the faith, to research what has not been revealed to you. You will find that Joseph Smith took many liberties with the text of the KJV Bible. As I found out in the latter part of my Morman journey, this religion is not a christian one. Jesus is not the savior of the Morman faith. Heaven is a planet...God has a wife (Heavanly Mother) who mated w/ God to create celestial beings...the Morman faith has undertook the task of baptising of every living person recorded(within or outside the faith) using stand ins. Joseph Smith, the founder of the religion suffered from alcoholism, was an adulter, and went to jail several times. He named himself the prophet, and appointed 12 disiples,(mirroring Christ)a practice that remains today with Gordan B. Hinckly heading the church. By todays standard, this religion (the world's richest and fastest growing) would no doubt be labled a cult."Do not add or take away from this book, for whosoever shall do so, his name shall be stricken from the book of life." -Revelations Take heed and find out what your church has not revealed to you.

This book was good in that it provided some quick, logical and rational answers to the questions posed by critics of Joseph Smith and the LDS church. It provided some brief and precise rebuttals with scripture and similar defenses from the bible. For example, the question as to why the Book of Commandments had changes in the texts when it became the modern D&C is answered with the example of Jeremiah changing a revelation - and by changing I mean adding to and expounding, which is what Joseph and other church leaders did - for King Jehoiakim. Don't believe me, check out Jeremiah 36 and 2 Timothy 3:16. Anyways, that is just one example that shows some sound and reasonable rebuttals against even some of the most vicious attacks against Joseph Smith. And it does it in a quick and snappy way. It does not stretch on, though that may prove to be the more appropriate thing to do in some cases. But the reason I give this book four stars is because the title was a bit to harsh, I think. There may be some folks who honestly want to know about these things who have no desire to purposely attack the Gospel or Joseph Smith. A better title may have been "One Minute Answers to Tough Questions" or "One Answer Minutes to Critical Questions". But this book still was good and I would recommend it to someone who wants to either see a simple defense to even the most vicious critiques or discover how these "hard hitting" and "faith shaking" questions - which have been stewing around ever since Joseph's First Vision in 1820 - hold little weight under reason and logic.

This book is a very basic intorduction into some of the issues surrounding the Mormon faith (hence the name "One-Minute Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions"). It's especially helpful if you are just starting out and not quite ready to jump into Hugh Nibley.

One-Minute clears through some of the basic accusations against Mormonism (ex. The BOM and DC contradict each other on polygamy, the BOM was stolen from View of the Hebrews, you can't trust answers through prayer, Jesus is not the Mormon savior, etc.). For the most part, Gibson uses logic and common sense against many of the accusations. Even if you are a Mormon critc, you should find this helpful as it strenghtens your position to abandon any illogical arguments or any that have time-and-again been successfully refuted by the Mormon community.

That is not to say that none of the quetions about the Mormon church, about its doctrine and history, are not valid questions (ex. why did Young believe Adam was God? why is Native American DNA more closely related to Asians than Jews?). I believe that the Mormon-critics are hurt by over zealous Anti-Mormons (many usually ex-Mormons, feeling hurt that they were "lied" to, who will write online reviews having little to do with the book and much to do with how Mormonism is a controlling cult where everyone lies to everyone while they worship Satan). Anti-Mormons tend to believe and support any argument, no matter how irrational or flawed, that makes Mormonism look bad.

I was disappointed that DNA and The Book of Mormon wasn't mentioned, and that Gibson brought up Dee Jay Nelson first on the issue of the Joseph Smith Papyri. We all know Nelson was a fraud, but that doesn't resolve the issue (Gibson did move on to why the Papyri don't disprove the Book of Abraham, but I didn't think that he needed to start with a full page on Nelson).

Again, this is a basic introduction into the the controversy of Mormonism.

First of all, I have to say, that if critics wish to label the LDS church a "cult", then I believe that we have every right to label them "anti-mormon" That is just my view, however. I will be civil with someone who is civil with me, but when they start throwing around names, then I only think that it is fair to do likewise.

Having said that, I will review this book.

I believe that this book is a good starting point for someone wishing to examine the accusations of many critics of the church. It answers many of the common arguments which critics have. However, because of the nature of the book (I.E.- one minute answers), it fails to get very detailed.

This book attempts to answer 61 questions in 197 pages. Many of the questions range from the common sense questions ("Did [the book of mormon] give the wrong birth place of Jesus?", "How does baptism relate to 'being born again?") to some more in-depth questions ("Is there more than one God?", "Are there three heavens and no hell?") This shows that not all of the discussion and rebuttal can be placed in a book this small.

In some ways, the short concise answers are good, such as to people who want a quick answer in the midst of a discussion. However, for anyone serious about looking into the arguments against the LDS church you should invest in more detailed books.

Hope this helps,
---
Christoph

A very engaging book with many tools for being an effective leader. Book cites true life stories of success complete with groundbreaking innovation by company executives.

The book was simplistic in the concepts and examples, little boring, but good book for high school business major wanna-bees

I am in a MBA program with little management background. I find this book to be excellent. It has tons of graphs with color and lots of case studies. It comes with an access code for you to get onto the website to take tests. If you are new to business I recommend this book.

I had working knowledge of some of the principles discussed in this book, but feel like it lacked in depth in a lot of places. It mentions Dr. Deming, but barely scratches the surface of TQM (total quality management). The chapters on human resources and ethics were probably my favorites but I had a great teacher with lots of experience and relatable stories. I agree with others the bank tests are useful only for padding your GPA. I never used the internet access even though I purchased the book new, not sure I missed anything though.

This is a good basic book on management which delves into the application of management concepts in organizations. The book explains how the four functions of management namely planning, organizing, leading and controlling are integrated and how they contribute to the success of a firm.

The authors methodically explain the management concepts and they provide readers with various tools and techniques that they can employ to effectively manage their organizations. The authors reinforced their message with numerous examples, illustrations, stories and case studies that are useful for assimilating the management concepts. There are some useful internet references that the reader can refer to should they need additional information. However, one does not need to stop reading to refer to the internet site but rather can visit it at one's own pleasure.

This is well written book in simple and straightforward English which should allow any reader with basic understanding of English to follow and understand the message. The book is also well laid out and attractive. It also covers ethical considerations that are very critical in today's business environment.

All-in-all, this is a good and comprehensive book on management which should meet the needs of business students at undergraduate levels or for any reader who needs to learn the fundamental management principles and their practical application.

Simply put, this is a bad book. It is poorly written and is bad history.

When the author stops digressing, he has many unimportant and trivial anecdotes about the dollar in American history.

His interpretation of American history is terrible. Just a few examples: Early in the book he cited Hawthorne, Thoreau and Twain (who lost a fortune trying to be an industrialist) to reach the conclusion that Americans did not collect and hoard money in the nineteenth century. Apparently he did not read the rest of his book which went on ad nauseum about Americans in the nineteenth century chasing and counterfeiting the dollar. In another instance he concludes that all civil rights were suspended during the civil war (not that this had anything to do with $) - completely ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Lincoln's attempt to suspend habeas corpus. Lastly (I could go on and on), he finished the book by noting that on our dollar bills are the icons that were present at the birth of our nation. This, after telling how Grant and Cleveland were on our bills! Last I looked they lived late in the next century.

I kept hoping that some pearls about the dollar would come shining through. Whatever pearls there might have been were muddied by his erroneous history and his horrible interpretations of the history he included.

I felt I wasted a good deal of time reading this book. If one wants to read the only useful part of this book, limit yourself to the chapter(s) describing the private banknotes. Nothing before or after is at all worthwhile.

This is a very enjoyable work, well-written and researched, with numerous anecdotes and sidelights. I thought particularly strong the early chapters on colonial and post-revolution America. One sees in Jefferson an early version of a common type today: the person who is adamantly opposed to debt and credit instruments because he himself is hopelessly swamped in debt. Today's debt paranoiac shuns credit cards and deferred payment schemes of all stripes in favor of cash (paper dollars and checks drawn on bank accounts). But for Jefferson those very paper dollars and banks were suspect. For him, the only "real" money was metallic: gold or silver. The only stores of value in his opinion were coins or bullion or land.

This brought him into opposition to Hamilton, who wanted to inaugurate the new republic by assuming a huge load of debt (all the promises of payment represented by the wartime "Continentals"). Hamilton had a plan to set up a bank and issue paper money backed by gold reserves which didn't exist yet, but which he was confident could be built up by land sales and import duties. His plan, a risky scheme in Jefferson's opinion, was approved by Congress, and our little country began its life with a whopping 42 million dollar debt (p. 102). In spite of Jefferson's misgivings, the scheme worked so well that some twenty years later Jefferson himself was able to double the nation's land area by buying Louisiana from Napoleon.

I was disappointed that in this book, devoted as it is to various forms the dollar took over the years, no mention was made of the exact type of payment by Jefferson for Louisiana. Was it gold bullion? American gold dollars? Spanish gold dollars? Was there some of the paper money that he so despised? Was there a mortgage involved? Or a more racy installment plan (No interest and no payments until May 1808, or until the emperor conquers Russia, whichever comes first! Don't delay! Act now!)

"Greenback" then goes into satisfying detail on the banknote phenomenon, the system of the 19th century whereby banks printed notes (dollars, promises to pay) and either backed them up or did not back them up with gold in their vaults. As I understand it, the US government did not start printing such notes until the Civil War, and it did not become the sole legal printer of dollars until the 1920s. I would have liked more detail about how that latter change came about. What was the exact last day when you could use a dollar printed by a bank. Why did they wait so long to pass such a law, which seems perfectly natural to us now? Might the conversion have had anything to do with the subsequent worldwide depression? All fascinating questions for a follow-up volume which I hope will come from the febrile pen of Mr. Goodwin.

Jason Goodwin is a polarizing author, whose books are either hated or loved by his readers. As in his best-known previous book, "Lords of the Horizons", in "Greenback" he uses a lot of wonderful anecdotes to spice up his prose and keep the reader interested. As in that book, his grasp of the essence of the subject is pretty good, although one could disagree in the details.

I am one of those readers who choose to stay away from rigorous, traditional history books because I am turned off by the stuffiness and the pedantic detailed narrative that they often provide. (I came to this end after having read a good deal of them...) I believe that the history of any subject is the sum of the personal histories of the people who participated and formed those events, famous or obscure, big or small. Jason Goodwin gives us plenty of those little personal stories and thank God for that as far as I am concerned.

I found this book very enjoyable to read and rich in information, although not as exciting as "Lords of the Horizons", so I am giving it 4 stars instead of the 5 I gave that one. I hope Jason Goodwin keeps giving us those great books on his diverse subjects and full of those colorful characters, and I am looking forward to his next book of non-sterilized history.

I am about halfway through this book. It is a pretty good book; it has an intriguing subject. But it is a bit confusing, and Mr. Goodwin has a tendency to go offtrack. Also, be prepared to know your history, because a lot of the people mentioned do not have introductions and/or biographies. Overall, this book is pretty good.

I don't know why books on economics try to be funny, but there is an ongoing genre. John Kenneth Galbraith's Money (1975) is a classic. Aiming for the same combination of erudition and laughs, Goodwin does a fine job.

Unlike Galbraith, Goodwin confines himself to America. He hasn't written an organized account but a collection of amusing anecdotes. But they're good history, so they remind us how much of our daily behavior would seem wildly bizarre to our ancestors.

At a simple level why should we give something valuable - say a week's work - in exchange for a piece of paper? Of course, today's money is guaranteed by the U.S. government, a reliable organization. This wasn't the case for most of U.S. history. In, say 1840, you might receive an impressive certificate for ten dollars - payable in specie ("real money," i.e. coin) at Fred's bank in Lexington, Kentucky. If you lived in Lexington and knew Fred was reliable this was acceptable. Living fifty miles away in Louisville, you might not feel so comfortable. You might insist on a few extra of Fred's dollars to compensate for the risk. Far away in New York, who knew about Fred? His dollars might be worthless or accepted at a big discount.

What a mess! In fact, state regulation existed, but it was not rigorous. Readers will chuckle as Goodwin explains how bankers in a given city would assemble a chest of hard money. On the arrival of a state inspector checking that each bank had enough specie to cover its notes, the chest would be rushed from bank to bank just ahead of the inspector. The Civil War finally forced the U.S. to issue paper money, but this was regarded as an emergency measure, and for decades afterward "greenbacks" were looked upon with deep suspicion.

Switching gears, the author discusses counterfeiting. Until the nineteenth century, paper was printed with copper plates. Copper is soft, and after five thousand impressions, the plate wore out. It had to be re-engraved. This never produced the identical image, so even good bank notes showed variations which made counterfeiting a snap. The author introduces Jacob Perkins, an American genius unknown to me and most of you. Just after 1800 he invented steel engraving. This made duplicating a bill much harder, but the book collects a dozen fascinating counterfeiting capers with an explanation of the technology behind them.

Galbraith's Money is fun to read and well organized. Goodwin's Greenback is even more fun. Well organized it isn't, but in chapter after chapter he tells wonderful stories about Americans and their attitude to paper money (Jefferson and Jackson hated it; Franklin and Hamilton loved it). We forget that gold and silver coin were scarce in the U.S. until late in the nineteenth century, so even people with a moral objection were forced to use paper money.<...

My appreciation for Theoni Pappas is enormous as for an observer and admirer of the world around her and mathematician. These factors cannot be separated, as at first you have to do more than just look around, but you have to have a beautiful mind of a child and be an intellectualist at the same time, not just to take things for granted, but as a child be curious and ask questions and finally as an intellectualist and mathematician find answers to them.
Yet, there is more to it. It is so, as the author popularizes mathematics. She answers the basic questions about role of mathematics in our lives. Most people associate mathematics as calculating especially money, yet in mathematics the theory models or formula are created, and it occurs that they find application in our material world sometimes even centuries afterwards. Let us look at some examples in the book "The joy of mathematics": - earthquakes and logarithms- connection lies in the method to calculate earthquakes' magnitudes by means of Richter scale, which is logarithmic, - the catenary & the parabolic curves- who takes as an obvious phenomena- the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco- it looks gorgeous, but what it looks like is connected with construction equations, which contribute to the fundamental thing, that it really is invulnerable and cannot be destroyed by the mass itself, as well as additional natural forces. Even Galileo noticed the curve to be parabola, - Thales & the Great Pyramid- Egiptians' calculations of the height of a pyramid were based on shadows and similar triangles, -the Dome of Milan -Gothic plans incorporating the application of geometry and symmetry in architecture, and lots of stuff like that. If you like to notice more around you, astound your friends, you should read such books, as there is more beauty around you than what you just see.

if the discoverable arithmetic of the everyday natural world interests you, try this; and then you may want to explore her other work along this line.

The widely divergent reviews reflect a lack of understanding of the purpose of this book. It is meant to touch on many mathematical ideas, not to go into depth on any one idea. My son read this at age 8, then at 10, and again at 12 - getting something more out of it every time. Many of the ideas intrigued and inspired him to seek out more information on his own, to research and understand more deeply. For that purpose, it deserves the highest rating.

I did not give 5 stars because there are some instances where I did find errors, these do not detract from the purpose of the book, but they are annoying to those of us who try to delve deeper. What I consistently found myself doing is researching from the internet and other print resources. But the idea originated from the overview in the book.

Many recreational mathematics books are inaccessible to beginners or math phobes. This book allows you to sample many, many ideas without feeling overwhelmed by details you may not understand. If you want details, you go explore the world opened up by the book.

This book could have been good if the author had done a careful job of writing the text, and perhaps if the illustrations were original, and above all if the author had understood the material she was writing about. Sadly these are often not the case with this book.

Rather, this book gives every sign of being essentially copied from bits of many dozens of other books. All the illustrations appear to be low-quality xerographic copies from other books (clearly used without any permissions).

But worst of all, the book is chock full of misstatements, misconceptions, and sentences that don't convey any meaning.

This book gives the non-expert reader the impression that he or she is learning something, but a great deal of the time this is just the illusion of learning.

I will list a few of the errors and illusory learning that I can readily find:
________
p. 6: The illustration of the cycloid curve should show it to be in a vertical direction where one arch meets another; instead it is at 45 degrees to the vertical.
________
p. 7: It is stated that when marbles are released in a cycloid-shaped container, they will reach the bottom at the same time. This phenomenon occurs for a bowl whose cross-section is an *inverted* cycloid, but that is omitted.
________
p. 13: Both the "impossible tribar" and "Hyzer's optical illusion" are NOT mathematically impossible, contrary to what is written. (They can be constructed in 3 dimensions.) Twistors are mentioned but not defined, even in a rough, metaphoric way -- just not at all.
________
p. 18: It is mentioned that pi cannot be the solution of an algebraic equation with integral coefficients, but there is no discussion in the book of what such an equation is.
__________
p. 19: Also, it is stated that the probability of two randomly chosen integers' being relatively prime is 6/pi. Not only should the correct number be 6/(pi * pi), but the idea of randomly choosing an integer is left completely undiscussed, although there is no known way to do this.
________
p. 38: The Platonic solids (aka regular polyhedra) are discussed here, but although they are defined twice, neither definition is correct. (The author neglects to mention that the faces of such a solid must be *regular* polygons.)
________
p. 45: The Klein bottle is discussed and illustrated here, but there is no mention that a genuine Klein bottle cannot be constructed in ordinary 3-dimensional space. (The familiar model of a Klein bottle depicted here is a self-intersecting version of the real Klein bottle, which does not intersect itself. This is much like the fact that a picture of a knot drawn in the plane must appear as if the knot intersects itself, though it does not do so in space.)
________
p. 46: The illustration at bottom purports to show what the model of the Klein bottle would look like if it were sliced in half. The halves are erroneously shown as identical, but they should be mirror images of each other.
________
p. 78: The title of this page is "Fractals -- real or imaginary?"
This is an entirely misguided question that will only confuse the reader. All mathematical concepts are real within mathematics, and do not exist (except as approximations) in the real world.

It's a worthwhile topic in the philosophy of mathematics, and could well have been introduced in this book, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with fractals per se.
________
p. 91: Here the author attempts to describe a model of hyperbolic geometry (in a circular disk) devised by Henri Poincaré. However, she gets it exactly backwards, saying that objects get smaller as they approach the boundary of the disk.
(She may have been well-aware of how this model works, but her prose is at best completely ambiguous.)
________
p. 96: Here it is stated that it has been proved that knots cannot exist in more than 3 dimensions. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with an extensive and thriving field of higher-dimensional knots. (For example, a sphere can be knotted in 4-dimensional space.)
________
There are many, many more such gaffes, but I fear I have gone on too long. I just wanted to make it crystal-clear that this book is riddled with erroneous and vacuous statements.

Sorry to say but this book is a dud. While the concept of presenting interesting mathematical facts is great the presentation is so brief, so wrought with errors, and so incomplete that the work is not worth perusing.

Some of the "chapters" have answers at the back of the book and some do not. It appears that the author could not make up her mind wether this was to be a "math tricks" book or a "popular mathematics" presentation substantiated by theory.

There are many other excellent books that are more fulfilling. Journey Through Genius comes to mind.

All in all a disappointing work.

... but perhaps not an accurate one.

All biography is nothing but lies. Even a biography based entirely upon facts will have to suffer for the interpretations that lie between them and the motivations that are used to frame them. As such, those who call this book compelling or farcical have missed the point.

We will never know with real accuracy who Stroud was any more than we will who Jesus was. As a dead man who did not have the advantage of having his entire life transcribed by witnesses and whose thoughts were not captured for posterity, with the exception of his own writings which seem to portray a man who felt victimized and who was likely a bit of a hypochondriac, we have little to go on.

Moreover, the inclinations and purposes of Mr. Gaddis are also mysterious. Based on his other works, we can fairly, I think, assume that Mr. Gaddis was a proponent of change in the American penal system. It shouldn't surprise me overly if he had spent time within it himself, although I have no proof, of course.

It is automatically clear upon a careful reading that the book is not accurate (in case the disclaimer in the front was not enough). This is clear from the ever changing and growing list of people permitted to exchange letters with him, despite the claim that he was only permitted to exchange letters with three people (it actually became entertaining to watch the list grow throughout the novel, sometimes approaching hundreds).

One interesting thing about the book, however, can be noted on pg. 207 of the 1989 Comstock edition, wherein it cites the forces that caused convicts to slowly, inexorably go mad. Insightfully, it mentions that these same forces were operating on the guards. This, if present in the original edition, significantly predated the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Lucifer Effect (both by Philip Zimbardo) which elucidated the role of these forces on the guards.

Despite these problems, it was an interesting book. To those who would like a clearly biased book describing one inmate's time in the prison system in the early 20th century, pick this up. Otherwise, feel free to read something else.

Harkius

This book is nothing but a lie. Robert Stroud was an anti
social misfit would could not function in either the outside
world or within a prison. It was never a question of
rehabiliatation. Stroud was a smart, capable man who made
choices that put him where he was. He killed a man and went
to Jail. He would have got out of Jail but for his decision
to kill a guard.

And for killing the guard, he would have been executed but for
the intervention of a president (Wilson) who saved him. Out
of "gratitude", he made repeated threats to kill the federal
prosecuter who had prosecuted him for the murder of the guard.

At a time of brutal treatment in prisons and strict laws,
Stroud was given every chance imaginable. But rehabiliation
requires that a man be willing to change first. And Stroud
was never interested in changing.

If you can't function in the outside and you can't even function
in prison, you end up where Stroud did. Rehabiliation would
have started with Stroud being able to function within prison,
but he never even managed that first step.

What his interest in birds showed was that he was an
extremely gifted man in some respects, but he was also a
viciously anti-social killer. The one could not be seperated
from the other. And that makes it worse.

Stroud never became a productive member of anything. Even
with the birds, he could only function "productively" in
total isolation from other people.

Thomas E. Gaddis motivations for writing this book as he did
have never been clear. But he has created an enduring myth
and made a victim out of Stroud.

Depicted in this book, not as the bizarre "Birdman" of legend, but as a real man with great courage, fortitude, and intelligence, Robert Stroud is seen as a man who, despite his 54 years of incarceration (43 of which were in isolation of one form or another) maintained a dignity rarely equaled. Even with the enormous obstacles in his way, Gaddisis was able to unveil many of the injustices shown to Stroud throughout his life in prison, the ways he struggled to keep his sanity, to go from a third-grade dropout to a world-renowned expert in the health and care of canaries to an old man who was not even allowed many of the sparse comforts afforded fellow inmates. Gaddis does not try to hide the violence in Stroud's past, yet he also makes it possible to view glimpses of the man that Stroud could have been. With the last words written only one year before Stroud's death, this book was able to lay open for public view not only one man's life but also many of the injustices and atrocities with which the history of the American prison system is riddled. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I am a former National Park Service volunteer, U.S. Penitentiary Alcatraz Island. I had access to many original records regarding the prison and its inhabitants as well as former guards and inmates. This book is an (almost) complete work of fiction. Robert Stroud did not keep birds at Alcatraz, he kept them at the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas but Gaddis knew it would sound better to call him the "Birdman of Alcatraz" than the "Birdman of Leavenworth." He was not mistreated by the guards at Alcatraz and he was not the touchy-feely guy portrayed in the book and movie. Because of this book, many people believed he was a great and sympathic man who should have been released from prison. Many wrote letters on his behalf and supported his release. But the real Stroud was a brutal murderer, a psychopath who married a woman (despite being gay) to use her to assist him in getting his books published. By the way, much of his book was plagiarized and much of it was simply incorrect. This book does a disservice to history and readers should not waste their time on it. If you want the true story of Stroud visit Alcatraz or contact one of the National Park Service Rangers for truthful information.

Can a man who committed 2 murders be rehabilitated in prison? Robert Stroud, aka "The Birdman of Alcatraz" could. He transformed himself into a leader in the field of ornithology, a scientist and an expert on prison reform. Through his work with birds he taught himself not only to cure their diseases, but to heal himself. This man became a productive member of society under the most stringent, unfair conditions, and I believe should have been paroled long before his death 54 years after he first set foot in prison. A very moving book.

This book is a readable and rambling argument that "freedom" in America can only be sustained when "Christian Faith" provides the foundation. Hart argues that this was the viewpoint of the Founders; that the intention of the founders is being forgotten; and the faith-foundation being subverted today by enemies of liberty. The book jacket contains recommendations from Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, William Buckley Jr, Robert Bork, and Richard John Neuhaus. Indeed, the book is a good example of history as understood by the political and religious Right in America. (For comparison/contrast, see "The Godless Constitution" by Kramnick and Moore.)

Unfortunately, the credentials of the author are nowhere indicated. The pages are packed with quotations, but there are no footnotes, nor any way to check historical accuracy. The logic of the rambling augument is sometimes confusing, even juvenile at times. Clearly, passion and ideology are as important to the author as verifiable historical accuracy. Yet the writing is lively, all the (predictable) arguments are included, and Hart,s views are forcefully presented. Such views are widespread, and call for response.

The logic this book uses is bad. For example, Hart states that everyone, not just members of one religion, should have a say in how government works. In a different chapter he says that it's O.K. for a majority to make the entire decision (as long as it's a Christian majority, of course). As a secular humanist who believes that religion should be tolerated but not encouraged, I recommend this book as a way to gain understanding of why fundamentalists often suffer from brain atrophy. The reason why I gave it two stars instead of one is that despite its lack of logic, it is well written, and the history itself is very interesting, particularly the section on the Quakers.

Faith and Freedom is an excellent history of the ideological roots of American Government. Mr. Hart has done a masterful job of identifying the sources of those ideas that influenced the Founding Fathers and the charters which they wrote. This book defuses the revisionist's arguements that posit that America is a child of the Enlightenment in the same vein as France. Mr. Hart shows that America, unlike France, adopted the Protestant Christian principle that freedoms came from God and not government. Government within this structure was charged with the protection of those God given freedoms. France on the other hand virtually excluded God from discourses that proceeded their revolution, and by doing so, put government in the position to give and take freedoms as it saw fit. Our war for Independence was successful while France's was a bloodbath that failed by all measures. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in an accurate, concise history of this very important episode of the American story.

I read with great interest Mr Hart's contention that the founding fathers philosophy was essentially drawn from the Bible. Through select uses of quotations Mr. Hart leads the reader to believe that the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, etc. are essentially a product of a Christian world view. His use of quotes to support his suppositions are not based in the context in which they were written. For example, he quotes from Thomas Jefferson extensively to support his position that the founding fathers used the bible to form their ideas of liberty and freedom for the individual. I am assuming that Mr. Hart is an Evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible should be the only source to inform the morals and laws for society. He ignores the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which is the very opposite of what he believes. He uses the term from Jefferson of "God's Nature." Mr Hart you need to know that Jefferson did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or the Bible as the Word of God. He draws parallels between the Old Testament and a supposed relationship to the Declaration of Independence. He fails to give hard evidence of this connection. This book is at best a diatribe against what Mr. Hart sees as the destruction of America's "Christian Roots." Check your sources Mr. Hart and admit that America's "Christian Roots" is at best laced with historical fabrications and misleading assertions.

Ben Hart's vision of the American founding is supported by American historical scholarship, viz. Diggins or Kloppenberg etc. For those who don't have access to this scholarship, Hart's book is a very good substitute. It will enlighten those who have a murky or very restricted notion of American history.
Any book that stretches horizons can be worth reading. Hart's book stretches us in a very much needed direction.

Au contraire, some of you reviewers. This book is THE tour de force on the music of Chopin, expressed in the most descriptive and vibrant language imaginable. It was written in the late 19th Century by a man who understood every nook and cranny of Chopin's genius.

The book is meant primarily as an overview and examination of Chopin's music for pianists and lovers of Chopin, written by a man who was a GREAT music critic and pianist himself. It's full of information on how the great pianists of the time performed Chopin and is INVALUABLE as a fascinating read and historical document. The book was never intended as an encyclopedic biography of the composer and much has been discovered about Chopin's life in the last 100 years that can be found in other sources. Those who expect Huneker to be factually correct in every respect on Chopin's life are badly missing the ENTIRE point of this fantastic examination of Chopin's life and music. Huneker ADORED Chopin and his writing brims with passion, enthusiasm and incredible insight into each piece Chopin produced, though his words were NEVER meant for the piano pedagogues only.

Anyone who deeply loves Chopin will find this a unique and wonderful read. I have marked many passages, referred to it countless times, and there is nothing like reading Huneker's descriptions of a Chopin work while you are actually listening to it performed at the same time. Huneker's language simply reflects the florid language of his age and is magnificent in its descriptive detail.

Zero stars on the misguided negative reviews on the book; and 5 stars on behalf of Huneker's little Chopin classic that has been in print for over 100 years. This is a book to be SAVORED and there are no other writings on Chopin that can match the boundless enthusiasm that Huneker has for his musical god. Each page brims with Huneker's vibrant spirit. Philistines stay away.

This book (originally published in 1900) is split in two sections. In the first 100 pages, the life of Chopin is discussed by Huneker in a very colorful and poetic style, although unfortunately very few biographical facts are revealed. When I finished this section I felt I had hardly learned anything new about Chopin.

The next 150 pages deal with Chopin's music, in which Huneker comments briefly on every one of Chopin's compositions (with the exception of several pieces unknown to Huneker), categorized by type (Ballades, Preludes, etc.). This section, like the first, is amusing but not very helpful. The author never really goes into great depth about any single piece. Instead he simply says a word or two on mood or style, often quoting authorities such as Kullak and Niecks, and compares several major editions of the work. I would recommend this to someone very interested in editorial details... anyone else could probably do without most of this section.

People familiar with Chopin should find Huneker's writing somewhat enlightening, though far from substantial. Those looking for an introduction to Chopin may find the first section very helpful, if they can tolerate the author's verbosity.

Who can count themselves learned in Chopin who has not read Huneker's wonderful, purple-prosy, unabashedly romantic examination of the Polish Master's music? If the musicology is a tad dated, the enthusiasm, the sheer love of music present on every page, are more evident than ever. This is absolutely essential reading for the Chopin lover.

This book does not present much information about Chopin the man, and stumbles around endlessly about Chopin's music. The prose is laughably dated. Who can not help laughing at sentences like "Chopin distrusted Jews, but that's the way Poles are." The French, English, Germans, and Hungarians: Huneker comes up with some interesting stereotypes for them too. Many of the facts are incorrect, as the editor supplies the corrected facts in the footnotes on nearly every page of the text. And the music discussions have the spirit of "What a powerful melody! However, I believe the third note of the 14th measure of Etude 12 op. 10 should be an F sharp, though it's written differently in some scores." What a snore. I suggest looking elsewhere for real information about Chopin and his music. This book offers no insights though some occasional unintended laughs.

The biography is very disappointing, the musical descriptions are poetic but don't get into much detail. If you want a general feel for Chopin's music but don't want intricate musical detail, the descriptions of the pieces may suit your need. That's the only reason I didn't give this book the lowest possible rating.

For biographical info, "Chopin in Paris" by Tad Szulc is much more informative and accurate. Huneker's biography, besides being relatively short, takes off on gossipy tangents that often jump around in time making it hard to get a good feeling for Chopin's progression thru life.

My problem with the musical descriptions (the book is divided into 76 pages of biography and 141 pages of music "analysis", divided into sections on preludes, mazurkas, etc.) is again the gossipy nature. For example, the chapter on the preludes is 13 pages long. The first four pages are strictly about who claimed when and where they were written.

I recently played Prelude No. 4 in E Minor at Peabody in Baltimore. Prior to the recital, I was deluged with coaching at college master-class play-ins, etc. The discussions centered on things like why the downbeat beginning each measure is played weaker than usual, contributing to the feeling of hopelessness in the piece.

Huneker's descriptions are: "The melody seems literally to wail..", "This tiny prelude contains wonderful music", "The whole is like some canvas by Rembrant.."

In the relatively few times Huneker does go into musical detail there may be some insight, but just as frequently a few bars of music are shown accompanied by an explanation like, "Volcanic mutterings these!" -when the music shown is a pianissimo (played very softly) passage!

For anyone looking for insights on actually playing the pieces, Walker's "The Chopin Companion.." which can be found "used" at Amazon, is a much better choice.

I have read several books in prep for the written boards. I found this book to be the most comprehensive. Questions are short answer so that a great deal of information can be covered quickly. I read it twice in about 20 hours.

They nailed about 1/3 of the questions I saw on boards.

I read this text twice and scored in the 94% on written EM boards. This book is updated frequently. Several residents used it for the inservice and blew it away. GREAT BOOK

If you're looking for something to help you review emergency medicine in general, or to review for your boards, do no buy this book. I have read through it myself and talked with two colleagues who have also used it- we all agree that it is filled with useless minutia not relevant to the practice of medicine either in real life or as would appear on board exams. There are a lot of other texts on the market today that are better in terms of their focus and relevance.

One other thing that is not reflected in the description: this book contains only questions and answers. The format is text- not multiple choice. There is no general overview in any section so the only information you get is contained within the terse answers that contain almost no explanations.

I purchased the 3rd edition, but I can only assume the 2nd was no better. This book was literally filled with mistakes. The authors thoughtfully provided a disclaimer in the introduction that the content was not to be considered as practice guidelines. This proved true as many of the entries were not only outdated, but many times wrong. Following their recommendations would lead to malpractice. The only value of this book is stimulating you to recognize their many mistakes. This book is not worth the paper it's printed on and obviously reflects that the editors either had no time to actually proof-read the material or don't know how to practice medicine in this or the last century.

this is better than rivers by far-44 cases that you do with another person acting as the examiner, or do half as the examiner & half as the candidate, with a friend who is also studying for the orals-rivers is ok, but this more accurately simulates the exam process & has enough repetition that is becomes second nature-they especially look for the picky details that are easy to overlook & presumably a big part of your score in the real thing-i recommend both rivers & pearls, but this has a higher yield