John Reed Books

great book. read it in two nights. fast moving and interesting. will buy others from this author.

ITS TIME FOR A NEW AUTHOR ON THE BLOCK.HIS NAME
IS John Reed. if you like espionage,and the spy
game at its best, then your book is, THE KINGFISHER'S CALL.
I read this book in just one sitting.I could not put
it down.You will be hooked on the very first page.REED knows
what he is writing about.Its a high octanged pace,with great
characters,and an ending that will knock you out.Do yourself
a favor and buy this book ,you will not be disapointed.
the only problem is how long till his next book???

Sometimes an author comes up with what appears to be on the book jacket to be a great premise. The jacket tells an intriguing tale that sounds like it could be a really good book. Then, somewhere around the halfway point, you slowly realize that the execution of the great idea is flawed. Not just flawed, but screaming down the hill on fire and the book should never have been published. There is a reason for the old saying about judging a book by its cover and this convoluted effort is a prime example.

Twelve years ago, Tuck Nyland was supposed to bring a defector from Saddam's inner circle out of Iraq. This defector was supposed to be smuggled out just hours before the attack led by coalition forces was to begin. Unfortunately, for Tuck, the operation failed and he was blamed before being kicked out of the CIA. One of the reasons for his inability to salvage his career was because his superior, Jon Cross, was nowhere around to clear him of the charges against him. Tuck was booted from the CIA and was lucky to only be fired.

Twelve years later, Jon Cross resurfaces and wants Tuck as part of his secret team within the CIA. Task Force Seven has been formed to generate intelligence on the Chinese Ministry of State Security (the Chinese version of the CIA) and the ultimate goal is to place an agent with the agency. What Cross' superiors don't know is that there is an agent already within the Chinese agency and she wants out of China now.

What they also don't know, but some have begun to suspect, is that there is a Chinese agent working in the White House. As Cross send Tuck on his mission to bring out the agent known as Kingfisher, the Chinese using their assets in this country and abroad to stop him. At the same time, other individuals become involved as political gain, campaign funds, and an attempted Chinese Coup by a rogue General all play their roles.

While this novel has plenty of action, there are gaping wholes in plot logic coupled with stereotypical characters. The anguish the reader is supposed to feel over events that haunt Tuck's life falls by the wayside early on in the work. Instead, the reader is treated to some macho character from a B movie, but in this case, it just does not work. But, like many a B movie, while fleeing for their lives, our hero manages to have intimate companionship with several of the female charters, including at least once in the back of a produce truck on a road somewhere in China. My ability to suspend disbelief shattered at that moment, but maybe it is because I hang out with the wrong people.

Thought it does have plenty of action, this novel is full of stereotypical characters, convoluted plot twists and holes in logic and ludicrous as well as gratuitous sex scenes. It also commits the cardinal sin of having an amazingly stupid fight scene at the end between the chief villain (there are several) and Tuck. Of course, both must throw down their fully functioning automatic weapons and fight with knives in some sort of martial arts ritual. Kirk did it better on Vulcan, by the way. So, put this one back on the shelf and back away and no one will get hurt.

This book could have been so much better. But it became the
usual jeopardy game. You know-the hero's in trouble, then he's
not. Recycle over and over with barely believable situations.
Less 'action' and more sublety would have helped this book.
Glad I borrowed it from the local library.

See storyline above.

Tuck Nyland, the protagonist hero of this story, is one of those characters that seems to have nine lives. A sort of Dirk Pitt type. You know from the onset that nothing can kill this guy but you'll find yourself fretting over the characters that surround him. The novel is fast-paced and visually pleasing with it's locales. To me it had a less than pleasing ending.
An overall adventure that could have been a little more fulfilling, but still, I did enjoy it.

Recommended.

Caveat emptor: I bought this book in order to scan the section on Vicksburg, so my comments only pertain to that portion of the book.

After scanning the section on Vicksburg, I was not tempted in any way to read the rest of the book. She was consistently wrong on nearly every aspect of the Vicksburg Campaign ... from the placement of the fortifications at Chickasaw Bayou (they were NOT on top of the hills, Rowena) to Grant's grand plan of operations when he set foot on dry soil at Milliken's Bend (we see in the Papers of Ulysses S. Grant that he intended all along to move south of the city). Major gaps exist in the O.R. material for this period, and Rowena fills in these gaps with hateful vitriol. I'm not sure what her game is, but it is not history.

Rowena Reed's book stands first in a field of one as an analysis of (Union) combined Navy-Army operations in the Civil War. She may go too far in praising the strategic vision of McClellan, but her discussion of the strategy and tactics of combined operations is first-rate.

This work is enormously well-researched, and contains clear, concise tactical and strategic discussions. Reed, however, goes too far in trying to establish McClellan as the author of joint strategy for the war. Apart from the general conclusions, quite a useful tool for researchers and students of military history.

Not only is this the definitive study of combined ops in the CW, it is the definitive study of George McClellan, the grand strategist of 1861/62 and the only general in the war who maximized naval cooperation. Her insights are brilliant and her premature death is much to be regretted.

John Reed, Harvard Class of 1910, epitomized the best of the pre-World War I bourgeois radicals. Unlike the vast majority of his Class and class he cast his fate with the working people and oppressed of America at a time when the dominant left bourgeois movement- the Progressive movement- was busy applying band aids to the increasingly inequitable capitalist system. The radical movement is always in need, sometimes desperately in need, of intellectuals to tell its side of the story. Despite some exceptions, like Reed, the intellectuals then, as now, either stood on the sidelines or at most acted as `fellow travelers' to the movement. Reed on the contrary put all his energies into the movement. As a journalist he sought out all the radical hotspots of his time starting with his coverage of the Mexican Revolution, through the various workers' strikes of the 1910's in America culminating in his coverage of the heroic period of the Russian Revolution. His journalistic account of the Bolshevik seizure of power, Ten Days That Shook the World, stands even today as one of the best eyewitness accounts of that turbulent time in Russia.

John Reed's political development also offers today's militant leftists an insight into how the swirl of events drives the best militants leftward. Reed started out in the typically Bohemian milieu of New York City's Greenwich Village and imbibed its avante guarde cultural offerings and its pretensions. However, as the United States lurched into participation into World War I he grew stronger as an anti-war advocate and placed himself on the line to oppose that war. This was the great dividing point in the radical movement of the time. This separated the dilettantes and mere reformists from serious revolutionaries. Not an unusual political development, but an important one.

Under the influence of the Russian Revolution Reed led the left wing of the American Socialist Party on a program of opposition to the war and defense of the Bolshevik Revolution. When the left wing was forced out of the Socialist Party he formed a communist organization based on the centrally of the native American working class as the vanguard of the American Revolution. Opposed to that were left-wingers, mainly foreign born elements based on the various language federations of the old Socialist Party, who essentially wanted to act as cheerleaders for the Russian Revolution-and no much else. The result was the creation of two communist organizations that caused no end of problems both in America and in the Communist International. But the fights to lead the Socialist party leftward and later between the communist organizations are stories for another time, and worth separate space. Read this book for starters.

The last full biography of Reed was published in 1967. The Lost Revolutionary was a Cold War attempt at character assassination. Apart from a psychoanalytical epilogue that dismisses his subject as naive, Rosenstone's account is remarkably fair. Reed, brought up in Babbit-style Oregon, was educated at Harvard and at 26 left Greenwich Village's burgeoning bohemia to cover the Mexican Revolution. His political awakening came just before he left for the land of Villa and Zapata, while covering a story on the Paterson silk strike. 'In Paterson,' writes the American biographer, 'Jack had smelled, tasted and felt the spirit of radicalism, and found it good.'

After Mexico and reporting from the Western Front, came romance in the shape of Louise Bryant the sole justification for the title of the book. All this time Reed was writing articles, plays and stories, but for all his worldly experience, they were mediocre against the work of contemporaries such as O'Neil, Yeats and Pound. Reed's greatness would be established by reportage published only a year before his burial at the foot of the Kremlin. Ten Days That Shook The World not only illuminates the trials of revolution, but also shows up the caprice of the winds of change.

This is the book the academy-award winning movie "Reds", starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton, was based on. An epic (but true)love story, you finish reading it in awe at how much life was packed by these people in such a short time.

An epic tour-de-force which examines the fascinating life of John Reed, the only American to be buried in the Kremlin Wall. An ecclectic mix of personalities - from Lenin to Gertrude Stein, from Lincoln Steffens to Teddy Roosevelt - pass thru the tapestry which was Reed's life, each having their own unique impact on the art which remains. From his childhood in stoic Portland Oregon to his years in Harvard and New York to his coming of age in Mexico covering the Villa revolution, Reed absorbed experience and reflected his concept of justice and equality in his writing. Each stop along the way was preparation for Reed's ultimate mission - to report on the earth-shattering 1917 Russian Revolution. The book "Ten Days in October" is still the seminal work on the topic, and this book delves into the evolution of Reed from middle-class dabbler to full-blown Socialist commentator. Mr. Rosenstone does the man justice - well-documented, fair, and without overt "gushiness". An exceptional read.

Okay, so I haven't read it yet. And I emphasize yet. I only just looked at the sample pages and the index and already my dad is coming to see why I've fallen off of my chair. Yoko Ono (see Antichrist) is simply priceless. I'm buying this book if it kills me.

As both an amateur actor and somebody who just appreciates a good laugh, I'm a big fan of just about everything the Reduced Shakespeare Company has done... however, reading this book by two of the RSC members was something of a let-down.

Reed and Austin, if I may call them that, presume a bit too much familiarity as they write. I got the jokes and the tone they intended, but I also got the impression that anyone who wasn't already familiar with their work would have been left pretty cold. "Who are these guys? Where do they get off?" is a response I imagine them getting.

Also, while the alternating-chapter device is cute, each of them employs a running gag (in Reed's case, the story of tormenting a poor Pastor, in Austin's, struggles with his own Atheism) that really meander and get stale for about half of the book before you realize that, rather than gags, these are actually attempts at a plot. I really would have preferred they'd gotten rid of these segments and just concentrate on what does work -- the satire.

And when they concentrate on what they're good at, it's great. Reed's chapter on the story of Moses, which he mixes up with the film career of Charlton Heston, is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

But the good stuff is too few and far-between for the casual reader. If you're a die-hard fan of the Reduced Shakespeare Company, it's worth it. Otherwise, you'd be better off reading some of their other stuff first.

I think it's safe to say that there probably aren't any other books out there that put stories from The Bible into a blender with references to Oprah, Harry Potter, Pink Floyd, and K-Tel Records and hit "puree"! At least not with such delicious results.

The authors are members of the renowned Reduced Shakespeare Company - and their irreverant and witty spirit is intact in this book. Who else but these two brilliant, misguided fools would tell the "Story of Moses' and include bits of Planet of the Apes and Indiana Jones? Funny is funny and they're funny. The book gives the reader an accessible look at the stories of the Bible (as well as the mental and physical breakdowns of both authors during the writing of the book!).

I particularly enjoyed the little details -- even the Foreword and Bibliography is funny. DO NOT miss reading the Index (which is my personal favorite part of the book). The section on the parallels between The Bible and Hollywood are a direct hit. I can recommend this book to anyone who wants to have their funny bone tickled. I would also check out their other books of the plays they've performed -- they're really great too.

"Smoke," a novel mainly set among wealthy Russians travelling abroad, is not without its problems. The story takes a while to get under way, and Turgenev's effort to fit the plot developments into the broader issue of Westernization in Russia at times places a strain on the narrative.

However, a scene in chapter 26 (which gives the book its name) features one of the loveliest passages I have yet encountered in literature. It is a brief passage in which Litvinov, the main character, returning to Russia with his spirit crushed by the circumstances of his ill-fated trip to Baden-Baden, has a reverie prompted by the sight of the smoke he sees outside the train window. As is often the case with Turgenev's writing, it is a simple scene but one laden with humanity and warmth.

(BTW: It is also worthwhile to examine this book in connection with Leonid Tsypkin's "Summer in Baden-Baden" which discusses the meeting there between Turgenev and Dostoevsky.)

Turgenev devotees will be pleased to find a copy of this most seldom reissued and perhaps least known of his novels. Its tidy paperback sheath, studded with sepia snapshots from the historical time it depicts, makes a fine outer garment for the spare and slender frame of a tale we find within. For, at first glance, "Smoke" will not appear to have many of the winning features which normally draw readers into Turgenev's fictional realms and keep them there, so happily immured: absent are the legendary lyrical descriptions of the Russian countryside and its owners to be found in such novels as "Rudin" and "Home of the Gentry," and missing are the complex character development and more involved political reflections which are hallmarks of the somewhat lesser yet still impressive "On the Eve." And the discoverer of "Smoke" will be sorely disappointed should she or he hope to find in this work something to satisfy the voracious literary appetite engendered by the sumptuous meal which "Fathers and Children" invariably is. "Smoke," like "Virgin Soil" which immediately followed it, has no dearth of defects. Its plot moves too swiftly, for example, giving no time for characters to change and events to move in credible ways. Its tone is often mean-spirited and sour. Practically no one likeable, aside, perhaps, from the unhappy Tatyana, appears in its pages. Its plot and even dialogue are too often puzzlingly predictable. Yet, for all its lacks, "Smoke" does accomplish the astonishing novelistic miracle, achieved by so few: the creation of two characters, in Irina Ratmirov and Grigory Litvinov, who are utterly unforgettable. Unsavory from first bite to final slurp, an encounter with them will leave the reader longing for some equally ferocious flavor as purgative to the palate. No small feat! Though to a 21st century American ear, this translation will sound quaintly Victorian (Constance Garnett, whose translating career death has not hurt one little bit) and cozily English (check out curiosities like "phiz" and "fly"), it is well-worth not only buying but reading. What better way, really, to point out the always-to-be-remembered truth that even immortals like the divine Turgenev were not continually engaged in the manufacture of masterpieces.

A very readable translation, although more can be gained with an elementary level of French to catch some of the untranslated idiomatic phrases of the faux aristocracy. This short novel is not as sentimental or melancholy as "Spring Torrents" or "First Love," and perhaps lacks the polish of his best-known work "Fathers and Sons," but the mixture of the setting (Baden Baden, Germany)with the characters from not only Russia, but also France, Germany et al., with a familiar plot device (love triangle) makes for not only an interesting love story but also an intriguing glance at the political history of Russia and western Europe. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants a more complete understanding of Turgenev's works,the Russian novel in general, and the late 19th Century European literature. Personally, I have enjoyed all of Turgenev's novels and would recommend any of them. If you are new to Turgenev, however, I would definitely recommend starting with "Fathers and Sons." All of Turgenev's novels combined make for less reading than say Tolstoy's "War and Peace" or Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment." Sample some Turgenev!

I must say that I'm a little bit disappointed with "Succeeding" by John T Reed. The book reads more like an autobiography than a "how to" book. The author spends too much time describing his own (and his family's) experiences, rather than emphasizing the principles that made him successful. Also, the author's constant talk about his sons (in particular "Dan")and how great they are grew to be a little bit irritating. I didn't pick up this book to hear how wonderful Mr Reed thinks his sons are (though that is a good quality, and I'm sure he must be a great father).

On a positive note, the book does pick up a little bit in the second half, and there is some useful advice stuck in there between all the biographical aspects. Also, from the little that Reed talks about real estate in the book, he comes across as being very knowledgeable in that field.

To conclude, I would say that if you are looking for real estate advice you should definitely pick up one of his other books and give him a try. I'm sure they will be great and information packed (this is something I plan to do in the near future). However, I would leave "Succeeding" firmly off your list of what to read.

Mr. Reed recommends you read this one first. The reason is sound. One should be clear on one's objectives, capabilities, ethics and character before starting on a demanding project with large financial risk if not executed with skill and diligence. Reed describes his life and how his views on several things including real estate developed. At one time he overreached because of unclearly understood objectives (what is enough) only to get wiped out by the Texas meltdown and the 1986 tax changes that dropped income property values by about 25% overnight. He recovered, and did so without cheating anybody or running a shady series of infomercials with deceptive and deceptively priced products.

For those of you looking for a strong, bible-based response to Mormon interpretation of the scriptures, this book falls short, dramatically short. David Reed and John Farkas provide frustratingly few point-by-point responses to Mormon bible-based argument, and not enough consistency or sound reasoning in the responses they do provide. A few points about the book:

* The book's purported focus -- Mormons answered "verse by verse" is not fulfilled. First, the book is only 154 pages long. Of those pages, only a skimpy 67 (pp 37-103) actually take on Mormon bible-based doctrines. That's not nearly enough for a real "verse by verse" response.

* Related to the above point, the book glosses over or ignores some of the most powerful biblical verses that support Mormon doctrines. Messrs. Reed and Farkas do not even address the Mormon interpretation of John 17:20-23 (the Intercessory Prayer, where Jesus prays that the believers be "one; as thou Father art in me and I in thee") which provides a solid justification for the Mormon concept of three beings acting as "one," and therefore considered to be "one God." The authors likewise give short shrift to Mat. 3:16-17 (the baptism of Jesus, where God speaks from heaven and the Holy Ghost descends on Jesus "like a dove," which Mormons use to claim a separation of Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Their response to this scripture? The Mormons' "off-target argument will have no effect on Christians who *know* the God they worship" and "[i]f the unsuspecting householder finds his faith shaken by such arguments it [is because] he started out with a popular misconception in his own mind rather than with sound Christian theology" (p 67). In other words, they have no real response at all except for blaming the reader for being ill-informed or dumb.

* The authors are also sometimes mendacious in their answering method. Switching translations of the bible to get the words you seek is a lot like bumping the roulette wheel if the ball doesn't fall into the hole you want. Their approach to conclude that the priesthood of Jesus is "a priesthood that needs no successor" is to hunt for a translation that says so (p 43). Having fumbled my way through the original Greek, I can assure you that Heb. 7:24 says no such thing. The most accurate translation of the KJV's "unchangeable" is "inviolable."

* The book spends way too much time addressing obscure topics like "Adam-God" (pp 22, 59-62, 126) at the expense of more relevant ones. Things like "Adam-God" are a wild goose chase. If you confront a Mormon with an accusation that he believes Adam is our God, he will look you straight in the eye and say truthfully "No I don't." Trust me, it's a blind alley and the authors really should know better than to waste their effort on it. Likewise the hyperventilating over how Mary conceived Jesus (pp 65-66, 68-70). If, as the Trinitarians say, the Holy Ghost is God, and God the Father is God, why should they get the vapors if Mormons say God the Father is the father of Jesus? The authors don't even bother to respond to scriptures like Rom. 15:6, which state plainly that is the case.

* The authors also make unintentional admissions, some of which are hilarious. They actually admit that the Mormon doctrine of premortal life (Jer. 1:5, Prov. 8:1, 27-31) "is indeed logical from a human perspective" (p 57). And what, if I may be so bold as to ask, is the authors' perspective? Are they not human? They read the same bible as the Mormons. Aren't they arguing basically "we're right because we're right"? What kind of lame-o argument is that? I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

* The authors also have a low knowledge base (i.e., they're ignorant) about certain aspects of both the bible and Mormon doctrines. For example, when referring to the priesthood of Melchizedek, they claim "[t]here is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that Jesus Christ passed on this priesthood to anyone" (p 43). Besides the 1.1 billion Roman Catholics (not to mention 300 million Orthodox) who would disagree with that statement, the authors ignore the Mormon doctrine that the apostles received the sealing power (Mat. 18:18) and were sent forth with the Melchizedek priesthood in John 20:21-22. Similarly, when the authors state "there is nothing in the bible about 'perfect' humans progressing to Godhood" (p 68) they seem to be blissfully unaware of (and as a consequence fail to respond to) verses such as Mat. 25:45-47, 2 Pet. 1:4, 1 John 3:1-2 and Rev. 3:21, 21:7.

* Anyone purporting to show another's errors had better make sure their own **** is squared away. If Messrs. Reed and Farkas wish to argue that the priesthood of Jesus "needs no successor" (p 43) they are perfectly free to do so; likewise, they are free to argue that all believers are "a royal priesthood" (p 98). They cannot, however, argue both. This sort of illogic and interpretive inconsistency kills any confidence the reader might otherwise have in the authors' knowledge base and analytical capabilities.

However, the book does have *some* good points. Messrs. Reed's and Farkas' exposition on how Moses could speak to God "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Exod. 33:11) (pp 47-48), yet not really see God, is pretty good, considering how weak their position is. They also do an effective job of refuting the claim that the Book of Mormon is being referred to in Ezek. 37:16-17, and pointing out that the Book of Mormon is questionable indeed if Isa. 29:4, 11 applies to it (pp 55-56). Their argument regarding Rev. 22:18 and changes made within Revelation itself, as opposed to mere inclusion of additional scriptures (p 103), is fresh, coherent and spot-on. Their discussion of flaws and inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon (pp 105-120) was also solid and well-done, even foregoing the usual Alma 7:10 "at Jerusalem" baloney.

Overall, the book is good enough for Christians looking to confirm their beliefs. However, it is unpersuasive to an objective inquirer into the scriptures, and cannot even come close to changing the mind of a knowledgeable Mormon.

Sorry this isn't a review, but what I think about what they are doing:

Why do these people insist on driving members of the church of Jesus Christ away? How would you other Christians feel if people in the world had a job to make you leave yours? Just think about that. And Mormons arn't a cult. Also, if you wanted to find out about a person, do you ask that person, or do you ask a person who only has stereotypes? It makes me sick.

I bought it, I read partily which I want to know what does mormon exactly teach, this book has lot of details why they believe in their teaching in old and modern. Sadly, they believe in MODERN mormonism only. But it has tools how to witness to mormon when they will ask and message you in several ways, for example, "we are here for messaging about Jesus is our savior" which they teach other Jesus.

I highly recommended Reasoning from the scripture with mormons by Ron Rhodes, And this book too because it has many scripts are always ready for to counter mormon question and beliefs. it has everything what you need to know

This book fails on many counts, not the least the irony that, notwithstanding the claim of the book that "Mormons" wrnch out of context Biblical texts out of context, it is none other than the authors, Farkas and Reed, who engage in scriptural eisegesis.

Of the glaring mistakes is the claim that Jeremiah 1:5 does not support the Latterd-day Saint belief in a pre-mortal life. However, this ignores the Hebrew parrallelism in the verse.

The parallel verbs qadash ("set apart, devote, consecrate") and nathan ("put, set, ordain, give to be, make") in the second and third lines, the verbs yada in the first line conveys not just the sense of "knew" but also "chose." This nuance of the verb is attested in Genesis 18:19 and Amos 3:7. In my judgement, this verse refers to an actual preexistance. Moreover, for ordanination to occur, one must be ordained by hands (see Numbers 27:22-23), so there is no sound hermeneutical reason for the LDS view being controverted.

Clement of Alexandira accepted some form of preexistance based on Jeremiah 1:5:

"But the Lord hath also said in Jeremiah: "Say not that I am a youth: before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before I brought thee out of the womb I sanctified thee." Such allusions prophecy can make to us, destined in the eye of God to faith before the foundation of the world; but now babes, through the recent fulfillment of the will of God, according to which we are born now to calling and salvation" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1:7, in Ane-Nicean Fathers 2:224).

Other Early Christian sources can be cited, such as Justin Martyr, First Apology 10, in ANF 1:165.

Furthermore, maybe one should ask how Jeremiah was *annointed* a prophet before his existance.

Herbews 7:24 is cited against the Mormon belief that multiple people can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, this ignores recent Biblical scholarship. *Aparabatos* does not mean "untransferable" but "permanent." Such hardly precludes more than Jesus Christ and Melchidedek holding this priesthood. Indeed, non-Mormon scholars believe that more than these two Biblical figures held this Priesthood in antiquity (e.g., Margaret Barker, "The Great High Priest: temple roots for Christain liturgy" from 2003 discusses this).

The arguments offered against the Book of Mormon, too, is flawed. For example, the authors charge that the Liahona represents an anachronism. However, such would have been the case if the Liahona was a *magnetic* compass. It was not. Apart from being composed from a non-magnetic material, the Liahona pointed south-south-east and eastward (e.g., 1 Nephi 17:1), and worked through faith, not magneticism. The use of the word "compass" pre-dates the invention of the magnetic compass, and referred to anything round, getting its name from its use of 260 degrees of arc. As the Liahona was a round object (1 Nephi 16:10), the use of the term "compass" does not represent an anachronism in the Book of Mormon volume, notwithstanding the ignorant protestations of critics of the volume.

I cannot recommend this text, as it contains too many factual errors in the analysis of Biblical texts.

I welcome feedback at Robert.S.Boylan@nuim.ie

I realize people that look for books like this have no interest in understanding the truth. Amazon features anti-Mormon books whenever the word "Mormon" is used in a search, so I find a lot of this trash. I won't waste my time on the Mormon bashers who are just here looking to store up information for their bigoted, intolerant, and hateful attack on people who believe differently than they do. Instead, I will list some books available here on Amazon that explain why Mormons are not only Christians, but why they differ from Orthodox Christianity, and why orthodox Christians are not the Bible-based Christians they think they are.

Most Protestant fundamentalist sects have included the writings and creeds of the Catholic fathers that were written after the death of the Apostolic Fathers, and the Great Apostasy began, and the metaphysics of the Greeks, Aristotle and Plato. Much of what is believed to be "Christian belief" today is an admixture of the additions of the Catholic fathers and the Greeks, and is nowhere to be found in the Bible. This is not just the "belief" of Mormons. It is in total agreement with most historians, some who are agnostic or atheist, and some who are Protestant.

I will list a few books here, although I am fully aware that only the honest seekers of true understanding will even bother to look at them on Amazon, let alone read them. Ignorance is the prevalent condition of people who read these anti-Mormon books and believe them to be true. There is a Mormon saying, that talks about not being able to be saved in ignorance. It's your choice; understand the truth about Mormonism, or believe the ignorant, bigotted, intolerant, and hateful authors of books like the one we are reviewing here.

Please read at least part of these books before making ignorant arguments and marking "No" this review didn't help you. If this review, which includes at least looking at these books, and their ASN/ISBN numbers, doesn't help you in some way, then nothing can.

088494784X "Are Mormons Christians?"
Getting at the Truth: Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs - 1590383044
One-Minute Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions - 0882905708
The Father Is Not the Son - 1890828076
Biblical Mormonism - 0882904825
How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God - 0882906070
What Do Mormons Believe - 0875796397

If any among you do have the honest desire to understand, but maybe not even agree, please leave an honest review of the book you read. I do realize some of the most jaded Mormon bashers will leave "reviews" that aren't reviews because they didn't read anything, but that's always easy to recognize.

I have used this text in my Organic classes and have found it very useful and informative. The author uses clear explanations and examples for all key elements in each chapter. The mechanisms and reactions are clearly described and detailed. Also for every college student the solutions manual reveals it all. It has both odd and even solutions. The only reason I give it 4 stars instead of 5 is because not all of the exercise problems really follow what you actually get taught in class, but they are still useful. Great text overall.
B. Bentley

This seemed like an okay book for chemistry. There were a few things that we covered in class however, that were not in this book, just a couple of reactions. I recommend the book "Pushing Electrons" as a supplement to this to help with resonance, it helped me a lot.

Good Textbook, clear and concise. However, for an advanced student who needs or wants to learn advanced explanations refer to another textbook on occasion. I use this as a reference on occasion b/c it serves my needs just fine, the SOLUTIONS/STUDY Guide manual is a must and gives very detailed explanations of the problems in the text, the manual is EXCELLENT. The strong point of this book are the practice questions which really get you thinking.

This book was the required textbook for my organic I and II class...and it didn't help with either. If you didn't understands something the way the professor explained it, the book provided no help. The explainations in it were very short and were of no help at all. Most of the time the examples were too simple to really teach you anything. This is a very elementary textbook, that doesn't seem worthy to me of a place in any college or university.

This text is an easy read, and you will understand the reactions that are given in the text examples. So why the low rating? Organic chemistry is all about "prediction". And when it comes to teaching you how to predict the outcomes of reactions you've never seen before, it is lacking! You can study this text two hours a day, every day, and unless you have an uncanny ability to understand chemistry (I don't)--you will still not have this most fundamental skill you need to succeed. Try "Organic Chemistry as a Second Language" and "Organic Chemistry II as a Second Language". They will have you predicting and understanding Orgo in no time!! This course isn't hard at all- once someone explains it to you properly. David Klein (the author of those two books) does that beautifully.

John Reed lived a short and adventurous life. This three part compilation of his works was excellent to read because of Insurgent Mexico, and the War in Eastern Europe. Both are excellent, and are worth buying this book for its historical importance and for our modern experience in these regions. If Mexican history and Eastern Europe interest you, this is a great read. I enjoy journalistic accounts, and this book really fits the bill. 10 Days that Shook the World is interesting as a period piece and to see that the Commies perhaps duped him but is not as fascinating as the first two works.

I have to say that John Reed's Ten Days That Shook The World works more as a period piece today than as history. Still, you might look at the guy as an early example of what Hunter Thompson called, "Gonzo Journalism." Reed was reporting history as he saw it happen. There is always something to be said for that.

Mr. Reed publishes and sells directly from his own website that you can find easily using his name. This item is 29.95 at the time of this post and is available new.

According to his own website, Reed has owned no rental properties since 1992. When he did, he typically owned a duplex, or one building of a few apartments (a dozen to three dozen units), making him a very small-scale real estate "guru," to use his term. He's worked as a "property manager," which sounds impressive if one doesn't know that most property managers earn just above minimum wage with a free apartment thrown in.

He now lives in a perfectly average suburban home. Google Maps is your friend. (His "rental properties" aren't much to look at, either. One of my previous landlords owns about ten times as much at one time as Reed ever has.)

He also, in an online exchange, identified himself as a "publisher." Of course, his "publishing" credits are a few bound copies of his own wisdom. One wonders if he's so brilliant why no commercial publisher is selling his books? Why are other authors not marketed through him? The answer: He's really no big deal. If he's such a huge real estate "guru," why does he identify himself as a "publisher"? Same answer.

And how is he as a publisher? Let's see:

He states in one of his anti-Kiyosaki screeds that the only expenses a publisher has are printing and shipping, yielding 30-40% net...he doesn't seem aware of bookkeeping, hold against returns, promotions, warehousing, subcontracting of rights and production...of course, people who print books in their basements generally aren't.

I pointed out that, since the typical volume discount offered to the chain stores is 60% off retail, that even with zero returns and no advertising, a publisher cannot net more than 30% in profit, even if they didn't have to pay a writer, editor and production staff. In fact, a typical book nets about 10% each for publisher and author. Though he'll argue with me (with nine books in print or pending through real publishers, and hundreds of thousands of copies in print, available through every bookstore in the English speaking world) that I don't know the business and am a "typical hack scrabbling for peanuts." Yeah, whatever.

From our brief conversation it's clear Reed knows as much about real estate as he does about publishing. He'll also insist that you can't possibly buy his books on Amazon (Hm...yet here we are) or in stores, and must send him a check for his thin, large print tomes. It certainly sounds like he knows first hand how to scrabble for peanuts.

Oh, he also appears to have opinions on coaching baseball, football and how to write how-to books (Gee, what a surprise that one is), not to mention taxes. A true renaissance man.

He's right that Kiyosaki is a questionable expert on anything, and his allegations of fraud are probably correct. However, it appears Reed's main dog in this fight is that Kiyosaki is making more money from his third rate advice than Reed is from his. That would also mean Kiyosaki is a better writer, of course. You can read Kiyosaki for a quarter the price of Reed, which says something about Reed's self-published ego.