This later edition of Joseph Smith and the Restoration is only a shell of the original. The first editions of this book were in large format hard back and paper back form and were produced prior to the 1973 version. The only problem is that the later edition has all of the same identification information as the original. It was requested that the book be trimmed down as it was too much for a student to digest in a semester of studies. It was further requested that all references to miracles, and specific names of players in the Missouri expulsion be removed as some of their descendents are now teaching at BYU. After the author reduced the content, what was left is a dull, dry, waste of time that leads to very little understanding of subject matter. Now, if you can find the original, that's another story altogether.

Being very interested in various aspects of moral philosophy, I am none the less not a philosopher, in the sense of being primarily interested in the history and comparison of ideas for their own sake. What interests me are the validity, structure, construction and application of the ideas. This is irrespective of whether we are dealing with application to abstract or material subjects. From this point of view I am perhaps an unfair choice of reviewer; the author seems to have been writing for professional philosophers and the result is pretty intensely tedious to the layman: So&so said such&such which put him into camp x, except for the following aspects in which he agreed with Bill Bloggs and disagreed with Fred Floggs, while Gawdelpus first said gribble, then changed his mind and now is uncertain whether briggle or grillib. Who cares???

I did not find it very well written either. The author did say that he had written it in a brief interlude of available time, but that is only an explanation, not much of an excuse.

Still, I stuck it out to the last chapter which turned out to be the bit that I had bought the book for, the bit where the author says what he thinks and why, and cheap at the price, and I only encountered injury after insult. He proposes his idea of (to be fair) an outline of a sketch of how he would go about basing an ethical system on no principles. My blood pressure went through my eardrums when I found that he not only tried to justify imperatives on no sounder basis than any of the writers he had criticised, but suggested as his basis, the hierarchy of ideas of what would be most universally regarded as (un)desirable by everyone. Then he glibly selected items which were diametrically opposed to what a lot of people think, and not only those in remote cultures which certainly would stare in bemusement at his idea of the unthinkably horrible. Many (most?) who more or less share his culture, might none the less invert much of his hierarchy of (un)acceptability. Certainly some of the things which he thought the worst of all worlds, seemed to me less of a concern than some he regarded as in comparison just so-so horrible.

This is a particularly inept idea, compelling acceptance of principles on the basis that no doubt everyone agrees on some universally common and non-trivial denominator of them. That way cogency certainly does not lie, whether he goes back to elaborate his thoughts and expand his outline to a completed structure or not. To assume that his pet hierachy of hates and loves and griefs should command the outlook and moral compulsions of the human race is smug beyond belief. (We e e elll, would you accept "beyond belief in a professional philosopher"?)

Now, you may think I am being stupid or nasty or just plain halitotic, but if anyone wants to argue the point, it had better be the author, because I damwell refuse to reread that book to defend my views against anyone else. Fortunately I doubt that the one person with what I regard as the moral basis for demanding that I defend my criticism, will be at all interested in my doing so.

I bought this book looking for real answers. This book covers material for someone who uses a LAN and is interested in how it works not someone who is looking to set up a LAN. This book is filled with generalizations and is not worth it.

Everything is completely outdated as well. All the products mentioned are now obsolete.

Even though this book has come out in a Second Edition (1998), the majority of its contents is obsolete. The authors refer to DOS more often than Windows. They use an Apple IIc and Mac+ for examples of Apple Computers. They only refer to UNIX-based commands in referencing how to use the Internet! DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE I DID!!! SAVE YOUR MONEY BY NOT BUYING THIS BOOK!!!

I cannot call this a laugh riot, as Mr. Cook is humorless. Yet there are laughs to be culled here by those who believe in a single standard of conduct. The author deplores the very IDEA of innuendo, guilt by aquaintance, and "wild charges"--then proceeds for several hundred pages to list every nutty and outrageous claim about McCarthy and to damn just about anyone who ever thought Stalin belonged in the nogoodnick file. He does not, however, mention Paul Hughes, who sold a false story to leading liberals that McCarthy was stashing guns in the Senate basement, and that the New York Post food editor was a right-wing agent. No, Mr. Cook is selective--and an ink blot test of what liberals WANT to believe. For a non-emotional view--and better history--pick up "McCarthy and His Enemies" by Buckley and Bozell or "McCarthy" by Arthur Herman. The only thing worthwhile here is a snicker.

There is a good deal of useful information in this book, most of it technical and available elsewhere. One wonders, in fact, why the author does not credit his sources. That which is good and useful is sadly overcast by the bilious and cranky tone and careless misinformation. Unfortunately, this book will confuse and mislead. Fortunately, there are much better books on the subject available.

The books give a clear brief re printed circuit board

Lester et al.'s work of describing the policy process aims to survey the making of public policies from a descriptive perspective. Unfortunately, the authors present a strong dualistic bias in their analysis, pitting good "liberal" policies against evil "conservative" policies. The result does not make for a balanced nor objective book, and as such mostly serves as rhetoric material for partisan purposes, not a genuine scientific analysis. As such I do not recommend the book unless one wishes to build an argumentation from a strictly partisan perspective, not a public policy perspective, at it lacks in intellectual rigour and objectivity, unfortunately.

this book will appeal to photographers but few others. it is mostly arty pictures of rivers, swamps, plantation workers and dogs. there are only a few pictures of the houses and very little insight into plantation life. there is virtually no text. this book seems to be a vanity publication for the photographer. i returned my copy in the next mail.

If you are a big fan of Redouté you'll likely enjoy this book. I have a similar book showing the 84 bouquets (Redouté's Bouquets, Konecky & Konecky, ISBN 1-56852-033-6, not found anywhere on the web at this time) and although the paintings are nice, they don't compare to Audubon (a comparison my book's introduction makes).

My book has "84 recently rediscovered prints..." and acknowledges the Graham Arader Gallery. I am assuming it is the same 84 bouquets :-)

However since I got my book for a song, it isn't such a bad deal. I cut out sheets for interesting writing paper (in which capacity it is quite above average). Not something I'd do if the book/paintings were especially nice.

The arangements are on a plain white background and often feature roses, a shame as the roses are the least convincing flower he paints.

Checking the web for pictures, it seems these are perhaps not his best work.

The book I have doesn't include any selection from the Lilies.