Barton Books

A carry over from their novel "Manhunt" with Jeff King as the lead character going home to see his half brothers widow and children after avenging said brother and starts romancing the widow only a month after she became a widow, this is done in poor taste it seems to me, of course they were romanically involved 9 or 10 years previous. Spoiler ahead, the villan of this story is a schizo which is obvious early in the story even though the authors try to give evidence that there are actually two different people, a rather lame tale compared to other works by these authors.

There were many grammar mistakes and proof-reading is very poor in certain sections. Otherwise, the subject and contents are excellent.

This book covers Sue Barton's final year in nursing school. During this time, Sue trains in the operating room, works in a maternity hospital, and serves as a student head nurse. She is devoted to learning her career, but when young Dr. Bill Barry asks her to marry him, she faces a conflict. She wants to say yes, but she also wants to work as a nurse first. How will Sue resolve this issue?

This was a decent story. I'm afraid that I didn't find Sue's interlude in the operating room that interesting, (apparently, neither did Sue, for she decides against surgical nursing); but things start to perk up with the Christmas Eve dance, Sue's sojourn at the maternity hospital, and her turn as a head nurse where she comes up against an ethical dilemma, (should she report a flirtatious student nurse who neglects her work -- a course of action which might label Sue herself a "squealer"?). Sue's graduation night provides a fitting conclusion.

Jane is captured by a nasty Egyptian Queen. So, of course Lord
Greystoke has to go off and rescue her. Jane was looking for Yeti, here
Tarzan has to fight one in an arena!

The Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn Guide by Versus is absolutely brilliant. It gives you all the secrets, tells you exactly where everything is, exactly what needs to be done to get what, how much XP you get from each quest, etc. It's nigh on perfect.

By contrast, this guide for Baldur's Gate tells you next to nothing. It has a "journal" where it tells you what there sample character did. I've always found such things to be useless. You have to comb through it to find any usefuyl information. The rest of the book is better. It does give you some good information in an organized form, but it's sparse. I want a guide to give me precise maps and give me all the little details of what it takes to do what and what's worth what, etc. This guide did virtually none of that.

I suppose that this guide is better than nothing, but if you're looking for a good guide for Baldur's Gate, look online. For instance, http://www.pottsland.com/baldur/ has a good collection of useful info. It's certainly far better than this guide.

In short, this guide is absolutely abysmal. Don't buy it.

Well, from all the reviews here, I must be the only one who actually likes and uses the book. I actually liked the journal form as well as the chapter sections. It actually shows what area you should be looking in without actually telling you the exact coordinates. I always prefer to look around the game world myself than have someone tell me the exact location. It has a list of all the quests and what area to find them in. For me at least, this guide was great.

This book is incredibly bad. Its mostly just the manual reprinted. Under the character section I didn't find how to make a good character, I found the exact same descriptions used in the game. People say this book is good because it doesn't hold your hand. This book just pretends your inept. The "walkthrough" was mostly the exaact same stuff that your journal gives you, with the other being the decisions that the person who played the game made.
It just tells you some of what you need to know to beat teh game, and the rest it jsut hints at. The guide just names the side-quests, it doens't help with any of them, also everything is piled around so that you don't have a cohesive, chapter by game chapter guide, rather parts of the chapter all over the book. For crying out-loud, they made two seperate walkthroughs, neither of which is very helpful.

Save your money, because this book is just an expensive manual.

Dude seriously whats up with these people and complaining about a book? First of All This Guide Is The BEst one realeased cuz like some one else said it lets you chose you own decisions and some idiot also said it didnt show how to find an ankehg plate mail, well Mr Idiot if you Had Actually Bothered To Play the game you would have found that there is a monster called just that.......no not idiot.....called ankehg and if you even maneged to kill him you would have found that you get its Shell...and once again if you had played the game you would have hear that thunderhammer smithy makes "special"armor and incase you didnt even know WHERE he Was Well He's Located In Beregost that building in the east just click on the door and open then you pay him money give him the shell wait a tenday and there ya go........and i hope this helped other people too who werent sure how to get this mail plate. And If Your Gonna Whine About A Book That This Person Maybe SO it could help you and all you do is cry well make a guide of your own then whine as much as you want if you even get to make a guide that contains 1/12th of the entire game:P So yeah to Those Interested In This Guide Give It A chance and Dont Listen to these guys who haent even tried playing every single quest i hope this was helpful to all you thinking about buying this book!:D

This book doesn't even come close to giving away all the Baldur's Gate secrets. It seems as though it tries to help guide you without giving away too much. To me that defeats the purpose of a strategy guide. In my opinion, a strategy guide should list ALL the treasures, ALL the traps, ALL the hidden items, ALL the subplots, etc. This book doesn't, and I felt it was a waste of money. I found better strategy guides on the web.

I remember reading this when I was younger, probably around 14. This was a book that started out normal, and then I don't know what happened to it.

Initially I thought the book lacked many key elements, and quite frankly if you're going to look at it in a strictly science-fiction / fantasy spotlight, then you're going to miss some of the finer details. A book, is not written to coform to a category, but rather; a category is written to conform to the book.

This book is chonicles and exemplifies all of mankind's fallacies. The belief in auto-supremacy, the belief that man is higher than all, etc. The objectifying of women is another one of mankind's shortcomings. Regardless of what anyone says, this book does indeed highlight many, many things that should be of concern for today's society.

The people gathered together are truly representative of a microcosm of today's society. Greed, sex, money, drugs, and "nubile" flesh, dominate everything.

What it all boils down to is it's all about the sex, but pay attention, you'll learn something about yourself if you think hard enough about it.

This story is bascially the worst of every soap opera plot combined with 2001. The use of profainity is unnecessary. And the she slept with him/he slept with her subplots steal every potential storyline in the book, making a terrible novel. The only good thing about the book is the excellent cover. That is the only reason this got 2 stars instead of one. Read the Odyssey books by Arthur C. Clarke instead.

Most of these reviews focus on the fact that the "book has too much sex". Well, that's kind of the point. The novel is heavily focused on the failures of its characters. Yes, given the backdrop of all this cosmic wonderment - alien species, the end of the universe, black holes - they are still **human** and still very much looking out for number one. This is the major character flaw of the human race, the inability to act selflessly to further the species, something the alien "conquerors" appear to have done rather well in their quest to "engulf" the universe. The ending of the book has some major religious implications, and will possibly confuse anyone not already familiar with Tipler's Omega Point theory. But the entire book can be summed up by this one line, spoken between two characters near the end - "Everything matters, Mr. Wolf. That's why excuses always fail". Yes, the book could have been better, but Barton and Capobianco have always been obsessed with the negative dynamic between any group of characters, the interplay between wants and needs. In reality each and every character in their books, ALL of their books, are looking for redemption and reconciliation. In this book, their characters finally find it.

This has to be one of the worst books I've read in a while. I kept reading, hoping it would redeem itself, but instead it only got worse. The misogynistic Wolf, the main character, never grows past his obsession with women's genitalia. The women have no depth and remain objectified. The plot, if one can call it that, becomes horribly improbable and stereotypical at the same time - star gates which magically transport, good aliens who can telepathically speak to us, bad aliens trying to wipe out humanity, etc. ...

It started out slow and a little interesting. Then, it moved into some real action with some believable SF.

Then came the profanity and the sexual overtones. I could deal with that, but after about 100 pages it grew old. And to make matters worse, all of a sudden the book moves into totally unbelievable situations and events. I don't mean unbelievable like "Wow that's cool!" I mean it like "There's no way this could happen, that's stupid..."

And to top it all off, there was still about 125 pages to go and the story was going downhill fast. It seemed like the writers recognized that the plot was fading and they hadn't developed an ending. So, they apparently decided to throw in a lot more sex scenes more often.

The writers should have stuck to SF and not to their sexual fantasies.

I finished it (against my better judgement...) Only because I am waiting on a book in a series that I am in the middle of. If I had it, this book would have gone by the wayside very quickly.

Anyway, the first third of the book is "ok" to "almost good". After that, you can decide.

I had never read any books by this particular author, so I really had no idea what to expect. Reading the summary on the back cover got me interested in the story of Dom and Lausanne. However, as I started reading, I seemed to lose track of who the actual protagonists were.

The story is about a woman (Lausanne) who gave her baby girl up for adoption at the age of seventeen. She spent several years in jail for being an accomplice to armed robbery. Now that she is older and wiser, she is determined to find her baby girl to ensure that her life is a happy one.

Dom is an ex-SEAL who is put on a missing person's case. When he discovers the missing person, he becomes emotionally involved, only to find out that the missing person is actually a woman named Lausanne.

Not a bad book, and not a bad story. However, I believe that more often than not, Audrey Perkins (the missing person) seemed to be the protagonist (and not Lausanne).

The missing person case turned out to be a murder scenario. While this was carried out ok for being a romance novel, too much emphasis was put on this story as opposed to the two lovers.

The way the characters' attire was described was a bit contradicting for me. The Bedell family seemed to be dressed as if living in the early 1900's, yet everyone owned a cell phone and the like. It seems like the book was carried into two different time eras.

The protagonist (Lausanne) is a bit annoying. Her character of a strong woman is fine, but it begins to get annoying when she reverts to acting like a teenager at times.

Dom's character is ok. The whole trust issues adds to the storyline but begins to get a bit dull. A nice ending, probably the best thing in the book.

Overall, if you're looking for an incredible romance novel, this one isn't it. If you're looking for an average story, with average characters, and an average read, then this is for you.

Dangerous Deceptions should have been a good story. Not that I was expecting anything different from the usual romantic suspense being churned out these days but Barton's new book is surprisngly bad. The writing is reminiscent of something out of the early category titles that I wondered if this is another one of those publishing cheats. You know what I mean - those old titles dressed up to look new (like they do with Elizabeth Lowell) and nothing to warn you you're buying an old, old book. Well, Dangerous Deceptions reads like one of those dated books and my surprise is because Barton's previous books were quite different from DD. The writing in her previous romantic suspense were far more sophisticated, her characters less cheesy so I was actually thrilled when I read Dom Shea is an ex-SEAL, being a sucker for these alpha heroes.

Unfortunately, Dangerous Deception turned out to be a deception, indeed. Give it a miss and go get Sandra Brown's Ricochet instead. Of, if you can only afford a paperback, get Michele Jaffe's Bad Girl. Don't be put off by that horrendous cover, though of the two, Ricochet is a steamier read and Bad Girl heavier on the police procedural.

I would have to agree with the other reviews. The female lead in the book just whines throughout the whole book. It took me took me two weeks to finish the book. If you are looking for a great read from Ms. Barton; read some of her earlier Protector Series books. Very disappointed.

Lausanne Raney hasn't had an easy life. Forced to give up her daughter, convicted of a crime she did not commit, Lausanne only wants to lead a respectable life and find her daughter. When her employers daughter, Audrey, asks her to travel around the southeast and impersonate Audrey, Lausanne becomes embroiled in an intrigue that could prove deadly.
Private investigator and security specialist Domingo Shea is called in to find the missing Audrey. With Lausanne the last link to Audrey, Dom must set aside his feelings for Lausanne. While Dom doesn't completely trust Lausanne, he is incredibly attracted to her. With a killer hot on a Lausanne's heels, Dom finds himself not only protecting her, but wanting to believe in her too.

I hadn't read any of Beverly Barton's books before and I have been missing out. I am already searching for all the books from the Protectors series. I loved Dom and I can't wait to fall in love with more of Beverly Barton's Alpha men.

Full of suspense that kept me guessing and plenty of chemistry between Dom and Lausanne, I really loved Dangerous Deceptions. After I read the last page, I hugged the book to my chest and sighed a happy satisfied sigh.

Nannette
Reviewed for Joyfully Reviewed

Began to hate ther heroine as she whined constantly about her poor choices which led to an unwanted pregnancy at 16 and a 5 year stint in prison. The main part of the story involves Lausanne,the heroine, involved in an impersonation plot, that she is too stupid to realize will only get her into deep trouble. After the impersonation is disclosed and she is nearly arrested for murder, she continues to do stupid improbable things. Once the hero finds out that the woman who hired her is in Brazil, he flies south to confront her. All well and good. But Lausanne decides she must also go out of the country to confront the woman. Improbable. How many woman living on the edge of poverty have a passport? Plus, it takes a visa to enter Brazil. Who researched this?
This was a promising series. But the promise is gone.

I have read David Barton's book and found it very informative and well written. He carefully documents what he has written.
He shows what the founding fathers said not what some said they said.

Mr. Barton has show beyond a reasonable doubt that the current interpretation by the Supreme Court is not a reasonable interpreation of the constitution which they are sworn to uphold, but a cleaverly disguised attempt by the Court to establish a state religion which congress is prohibited from doing.

By removing Christianity from the social and political life of the nation the Supreme court has established Humanism and it's origins doctrine of Evolution as the state religion. This is not the religion of the people but the religion of the Supreme Court.

David Bartion shows the historical context and intent of the founders regarding there attitude about religion. (When the founding fathers used the term religion they meant Christianity because all else was false religion.) The intent was to keep the government from establishing any sect of Christianity from being made the state religion and from compelling anyone to worship as the state dictated. The First Amendment is to prohibit congress from establishing a state religion and to keep them from telling you and me how we can worship. The constitution does not say anything about prohibiting you or me from worshiping or practicing our religion as we please. The Supreme Court has over stepped it's boundaries by making law where none exists. (If congress can make no law on this issue then no law can exist on this issue.)

Anyone who would review this book and not understand the true history it reveals must have prejudice and bias against God and Christianity which is beyond reasoning with.

The words "separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution, and several state-endorsed churches (notably the Anglican Church in Virginia) continued to receive state backing in one form or another even after the Constitution's ratification.

But Barton's case for a "myth" goes too far. The Framers of the Constitution were gravely concerned that the government might get too involved in the operation of churches or that religion would be foisted upon people by the state.

In making his case, Barton embellishes and overstates. Take the example of his "quotation" from the 1892 US Supreme Court opinion in Holy Trinity Church v. United States. Barton cites the Court as saying, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian."

A pretty theocratic declaration if ever there was one. The problem is, this quotation can't be found in the Supreme Court case. The actual source of the quote? The 1883 opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Richmond v. Moore. And what's worse is that the quote is taken way out of context . Take a look at the full quote, with the portion Barton cites set of by asterices.

"Although it is no part of the functions of our system of government to propagate religion, and to enforce its tenets, when the great body of the people are Christians, in fact or sentiment, *** our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian *** , but not for the purpose of compelling men to embrace particular doctrines or creeds of any church, or to support one or another denomination by public burthens, but simply to afford protection to all in the enjoyment of their belief or unbelief."

Ironically, when one views the quotation in its entirety and in context, it is actually a clear call for separation of Church and State! And by the Supreme Court of Illinois less than 100 years after our Constitution's ratification, what's more.

How sad to see such a disingenuous argument from one who lays claim to Christian principles.

Barton's first attempt to clarify Jefferson's true meaning behind the statesman's call to maintain "a wall of separation between church and state" and the twisted interpretation of his phrase (nowhere to be found in the Constitution by the way) by twentieth century courts is admirable, if a bit hastily put together. Finally, someone willing to show us how WE can determine the truth about Americas foundational principles and the liberal attempts to take advantage of our freedoms, and seek their own political ends. Barton gives all American's the keys they are denied by public education, and shows how these keys, found by researching original documents, are available to all American's to research for themselves and make their own determination about the Original Intent our forefathers died to preserve. Jefferson himself, according to Barton, and according to Jefferson's voluminous writings, would take a bullet to protect American's freedom to practice any religion, any way they wish. His desire was to separate the Anglican church and her huge financial power from influence over the government of Great Britain. That church controlled the worship practices and titheing of all other denominations and thus denied the freedoms of Baptists, Presbyters, and all other religions. The founders, and Jefferson, were profoundly religious people, as they all (with the exception of two out of 200, Franklin converting later in his life) recognized that rights come not from men or governments, but from our Creator. Jefferson wanted to keep the government away from religion, not free expression of religion away from those that govern. Barton shows how this common-sense distinction has been perverted by twentieth century courts, and he does so (a process perfected in his latest work "Original Intent")by encouraging you and I to search the documents of our forefathers and modern (post-1945)court documents to determine for ourselves if we have been duped by those who would take the founders words out of context so as to impose increasing government restrictions on Americas originally inclusive policy of total freedom from oppressive governing bodies. Barton demonstrates, much more clearly in his later work "Original Intent," that the founders, particularly Jefferson and Washington, intended for government to be a strictly limited tool of the people, and that religion was to continue as the totally free moral foundation upon which American's would enact and abide by a moral form of self-government. Barton shows how modern courts have misrepresented, rather successfully,the Original Intent so as to put the State in an advisory,paternalistic, and ultimately hostile role over the practice of religion, when the true Original Intent was to let the moral decency of all, shaped by their devotion to God and God's expectations of civil behavior, to determine the healthy, limited size and shape of our government. I recommend this book if you can't find Barton's "Original Intent," and encourage those who wish to know the truth about what our country's forefathers said to dare to read the documents for themselves. The Library of Congress' huge site on Religious Freedom is a great place to start.

Mr. Barton's poorly researced and written book is used as a marketing tool by radio and tv evangelists of the religious right to prop up their political views. It has no cohesion and takes many of the Founders' quotes out of context or completely changes them. This is another example of the revisionist history taking place by the religious right.

This book by David Barton is full of distortions that I could not possibly use the book for any research. Small "quote-lets" are constantly taken out of context and used to say the *opposite* of what the original authors intended. Barton makes several lists of people who "support" ideas by taking small quotes out of context that sound good, when the Barton is really stretching their use.

One small example, Barton uses the quote from James Madison saying "Religion...[is] the basis and foundation of government," which I happen to agree with. But he uses this quote in a different context to say that Madison would support the cooperation of church and state. This could NOT be farther from the truth. Madison was raised in a Christian home and attended a Presbyterian seminary, but his first initiative as a freshman lawmaker was legislation that protected the rights of religious minorities. He was perhaps the most decisive force shaping the First Amendment's religion clauses. Madison dedicated his life to separating church and state.

Barton even uses the ridiculous assertion that the 1st Amendment is in common with article 52 of the former Soviet Union, thus painting it Communist, when in fact, this document was drafted over a century AFTER the U.S. Constitution was written!

I also agree with this: "Religious Right propagandist David Burton claimed in his self-published 1989 book The Myth of Separation that later in the [Danbury] letter Jefferson wrote that the wall of separation was meant to be 'one directional,' protecting the church from the state but not the other way around. Barton also alleged that Jefferson added that 'Christian principles' should always guide government. These assertions appear nowhere in the letter, and Barton corrected the errors in later editions-although he continues to dismiss the letter as unimportant and distort its contents and meaning in other ways.

"One scholar who has studied Jefferson and church-state separation says Religious Right leaders fail to grasp the significance of the Danbury letter because they don't understand or will not acknowledge its historical context."

* As a Christian, I MUST ask my fellow Christians: If our Founding Fathers believed that religion has a role in government, then why doesn't the Constitution mention God anywhere? The only place religion is mentioned is in the negative, that religion cannot be a test of public office.

My fellow Christians, it IS true that most of the Colonies were established as Christian colonies, but let us NOT be ignorant of the historical results. The fact is that persecution resulted and the majority in society abhored the power-hungry churches. Guess what happened as a result? Our founders established a secular government that "deregulated" religion and created a free market of religious ideas. Even the Preamble to the Constitution states that the authority of the government rests in the people, like a social contract, rather than deriving its authority from God.

My fellow Christians, why do we need to rely on civil power to encourage morality? I get suspicious of other churches when they become power-hungry. Why must we entangle ourselves in the domain of government? At a critical time in the formation of Christianity as a growing movement, neither Jesus nor his apostles relied on civic power. In fact, the church grew *despite* opposition and persecution from government.

My fellow Christians, why must the church seek to coerce the moral decision-making of others? Why must we rely on government-instituted schools to teach morality, enforce prayer and indoctrinate religious teachings? The very people who tout the importance of "family" are passing off their responsibilities. Shouldn't the "family" be responsible for moral training? Isn't it "legalistic" to resort to political power and legislation to enforce morality? My humble opinion.

This arrogant, ill-mannered American was hardly the sort of man Princess Adele of Orlantha was used to encountering in her world of wealth and privilege. And yet Matt O'Brien was all that stood between her and the deadly conspiracy that threatened everything she held dear.

Her only hope was a marriage - in name only - to her self-appointed "protector." But to be so very... intimate with this infuriating yet dangerously compelling man was almost more than she could bear - because their masquerade was turning into a passion that was all too real.

13th in The Protector's series

I try to read all "bodyguard" romances and as far as they go, this was not a very good one. Even within the confines of these necessarily short romance books, authors can create good, memorable characters and write realistic, witty dialogue and good plots. This story, about a princess in a fictional country who runs away to avoid marrying an undesirable man whom she has to prove is a traitor to her country, had none of these positive things. I thought her bodyguard came off all right, but the princess herself sounded fake and stiff whenever she talked. I didn't particularly like her and that's not good when she's the lead character. It was kind of nice that she and her bodyguard got married for convenience and then fell in love for real (I like romance like that) but the whole story seemed like a fake prop for something (what, the rather explicit and not very romantic love scenes)? Just because I'm reading a formula romance doesn't mean I don't want a good story and good characters. I'll be donating this one to the library instead of keeping it.

I read books to go get lost in them and although this book is not one I would have choosen in a book store ( my Mom gave it to me) I did get into it. The story is good and I liked the characters what do I care if the places the Author used are made up, I knew when I starting reading the book it was FICTION. Good for getting wrapped up in others romance for a lazy Sunday.

Normally, BB books are quite all right to read, if you're looking for a snach read for a rainy afternoon. However, this one has some serious weaknesses apart from the fact that I personally don't like made up kingdoms and princesses. Part of the story is set in Austria and therefore there are some supposedly German parts mixed into the dialogue. However, Ms. Barton should do a little more research to offer correct German. Only because there are Umlaute does not mean that every vowel gets two little dots on top. The question 'How are you`, when literately translated, asks for a characteristic of a person rather than being a polite formula. The answer to this question could be something like nice, fat or stupid.
So, I found this booh really quite boring and way too far fetched. Read this only if you are really desperate and waiting for all the good books to be shipped.

A lot of the web sites in the book no longer exist. In fact it seems like most of the ones that I find interesting no longer exist.

This book is extraordinarily helpful for one seeking to wade through the deep waters that are golf on the Web.

I originaly bought the book in 1997. Since then there have been tremendous changes in golf on the Internet. This book needs to be revised.

Some of the sites that the book shows aren't even online anymore. I would not recommend the book any longer.