This is a thorough book. Contrary to what the critics on this page have written, the book includes: (1) Interviews with catholic priets directly involved with smuggling Nazi collaborators (2) Intelligence documents from France, the US, British and Russia (3) Media reports from Italy and other places at the time (4) interviews with some of those who were smuggled through the Vaticans 'Ratline', and of course photos and miscellaneous personal testimony from others involved or affected. In other words, the authors bring an enormous amount of evidence to bear on the issue of Vatican complicity in helping war criminals escape from justice.

The other critics on this page, it seems, have either not read the book, are talking about another book, or believe that the Vatican is mankinds sole connection to God or whatever and can do no wrong.

The critics charge that the Vatican was pro-communist is ludicrous. Communist persecution of Catholics behind the Iron curtain was a principle motivation for the Vatican to protect ex-Nazis. See, the Nazis hated the Communists as well. The vatican and the Pope desperately wanted to stop the eastward expansion of the communists. So they turned to ex-Nazi leaders (who still had connections, military equipment and money) for help. That is a key part of the story (theres more to it, though).

Even so, the Vatican was not a monolithic entity. There were elements within the church that hated the Nazis, and elements that supported them (most notably the Catholic priests connected to the Pavelic regime). Like any large organization, different people had different opinions. But the evidence is very strong that the highest levels of the Vatican supported helping ex-Nazis. US intelligence infiltrated the Vatican and reported that known war criminals were hiding in the vatican, where they had diplomatic immunity.

I would not give the book 5 stars, however, because it is not well organized. Some of the writing is confusing. The information is extremely somplex, since it relates many events involving different people at different places. Its a very complicated story thats difficult to tell.

One mor thing: if the Vatican is so virtuous and infalliable, then why are they still refusing to reveal what they know about the 'Ratlines'? Why are they refusing to provide public access to their internal documents of the period? Methinks they have something to hide.

So buy this book. It is a revealing story about power politics behind-the-scenes. To simply deny the evidence is naive.

I read the authors book "The Secret War Against the Jews" and had to have this one. In the controversy of today about whether or not the Vatican really helped jews during the Holocaust, this book should set the record straight. The Vatican has no morals whatsoever. Its nothing but the worlds largest tax exempt business. A few years back the 60 Minutes program did a story on how the CIA helped nazis escape all in the name of stopping communisms spread. Well they did a pretty poor job as all of eastern Europe fell under Soviet domination. this book fills in the the whole story on Vatican/CIA collaboration with Nazis. The worse item i read in this book was about the Croatian Priest Dragonovich. He and the Utashe were brutal. They murdered Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in the most horrific way. This priest was then honored by the Vatican. The Vaticans now infamous "Ratline" helped thousands of Nazis escape to South America. To this day, the Vatican will not release their records from WW2. Could it be that the reason why the Pope has been so "nice" to Jews for the past 20 years is because if the Vatican does fully release the WW2 records, then he will spared any criticism??? The book also tells how Ukranian Catholics were more than nice enough to volunteer for an SS unit and they killed thousands of jews. The Vatican is an organization thats need to be torn down.

First published in Britain under the title Ratlines in 1991, and in the United States the following year under the title Unholy Trinity: the Vatican, the Nazis and Soviet Intellegence, the current revised edition of the book replaces "Soviet Intellegence" in the subtitle with the Swiss Banks." This latest title change reflects the recent direction of the international investigations into the Vatican's role in WWII. The bulk of the book (Chapters 1-12) remains unchanged from earlier editions. The authors have, however, added an introduction and a new chapter of revised conclusions

Using previously classified government documents, the authors give the most detailed account in print of the Catholic Church's collaboration in the smuggling of Fascist and Nazi war criminals out of Europe at the end of the Second World War. Officials at the Vatican who helped these men get false papers and safe passage included then Monsignor Montini (later Paul VI) and Bishop Hudal, author of the clero-fascist Foundations of National Socialism. Among those who thus escaped justice, at least temporarily, were Adolph Eichmann, chief administrator of the holocaust, Walter Rauff, director of the mobile gas truck extermination program, Franz Strangel, Commandant at Treblinka, and Ante Pavelic, fascist Croatian dictator. Many other ex-Nazis were recruited by the church to become "freedom fighters" against the Eastern bloc. Aarons and Loftus argue Vatican's primary motivation throughout this operation was an anti-communism so fanatical that it knew no moral limits. The second half of the book recounts how the church's smuggling operation was infiltrated and turned against the West by the Soviet Union. Although the authors' analysis of the motivations and culpability some of the figures involved can be questioned (most notably their exoneration of Pius XII on charges of complicity with the Nazis in the rise of fascism), this book remains a remarkable history of a little known dark chapter in modern church history.

In their introduction to the new edition, Loftus and Aarons detail how some of their original investigative work led to the capture and arrest of Erich Priebke, the SS officer who directed the infamous massacre at the Ardeantine Caves near Rome. Priebke had escaped through the Vatican Ratlines to Argentina and was sheltered by the church even during his 1997-1998 trials. The authors also point out some of the connections between their investigations and the ongoing highly-publicized attempts to trace the Nazi gold held in Swiss banks. More detail on this is given in their revised conclusion (ch 13) in which they suggest that financial motives may have been as important a motive in the Vatican's decision to establish the Ratlines as anti-communism. The Vatican invested the $29 million cash settlement that it received from Mussolini as part of the deal for the Concordat in Germany. During the 1930s, it attempted to protect that growing investment against the looming international conflict by setting up a money laundering scheme which involved secret exchange protocols between the Vatican Bank and banks in Switzerland. Recognising this, the authors have moved fairly far away from the conclusion of their original edition that the Vatican was not involved on the build up of fascism in Germany. In fact they now even cite a passage from La Popessa which claims that Pacelli (later Pius XII) gave money to Hitler in 1919 to suggest early links between the Nazis and the Vatican.

I bought this book expecting a real debate between the three views mentioned, namely, Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Creation, and Theistic Evolution. The reason I found it disappointing is for two main reasons. None of the contributors really talk about the evidences for their position, but instead ramble on about their philosophy of science. Van Till spends most of his time trying to convince people to call his perspective the "fully-gifted creation perspective" instead of theistic evolution. To me, it really was just playing with words in order to avoid the negative Christian response to evolution. Does Van Till believe in Darwinian evolution or not? He says he does, so why not Theistic evolution? His view, as he expresses it, is really Deism, although he protests that it isn't. Read what he says and decide for yourself. My other major complaint with the book was that instead of the proponent of each view responding to the other two views, the responses were made by a third party "panel". I found this to be extremely unsatisfying.
The book wasn't totally without merit, and all three perspectives had some good things to say - but it got lost in a lot of wordiness about "words" which really took away from the book as a whole.

This book consists of essays by proponents of each of the three views (Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Theistic Evolution) and commentaries by practitioners of four disciplines: Biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and science. The entire discussion is concluded by summaries by Philip Johnson, an advocate of intelligent design, and Richard Bube, an advocate of theistic evolution.

The result is only partially successful. I am particularly impressed with the essays by Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds (Young Earth Creationism) and Howard J. Van Till (Theistic Evolution). Both give lucid and reasoned presentations of their views. I was pleasantly surprised to see Nelson and Reynolds, neither of whom I have read before, forego some of the more common but already discredited scientific arguments for a young Earth. Van Till presents a well thought-out and challenging integration of science and theology.

I am very disappointed by the commentaries, however. My first complaint is that the commentators sometimes seem unwilling to critique the essays primarily within their own expertises. For instance, John Jefferson Davis spends much of his space discussing the fossil record. On the one hand, none of the other commentators talk about this important piece of evidence. On the other hand, I wish the editors could have found someone other than a theologian to do this.

My second, more serious complaint is that each of the four commentators speaks entirely from an Old Earth Creationist perspective. In fact, Walter Bradley (who is supposed to provide criticism from a scientific perspective) uses the space allotted for commentary on the Old Earth Creationist perspective to attack the positions later presented in the Theistic Evolution essay. The reader is deprived of any scientific critique of the Old Earth Creationist view and instead finds a philosophical objection to a view not even presented yet. I find that entirely inappropriate.

As a brief introduction to the thinking in the three perspectives on creation and evolution, the primary essays in this book are very good. They each present some of the strengths and weaknesses of their own positions. These are not explored fully, but each essay is well referenced for further reading. The commentaries could have benefited by a better selection of commentators, however.

i've read in the field of creation-evolution for nearly 30 years now, from the _genesis flood_ to _darwin's dangerous idea_. that certainly doesn't make me an expert, only a concerned layman. this book is addressed by christian's to christian's, not that anyone outside of that community won't get a great deal out of the discussion only that the emotional desire/impetus to seek answers pushes christian's with a high view of scripture to try to reconcile the two biggies in their lives: science looking at general revelation and theology looking at scriptures. if you're not part of this community it is much easier just to ask "so what?" and not to understand why this is such a personal topic.

this is a first book, that is suitable for educated people to delve into a topic where many of the other books in this field/topic presume a background in either science or theology, or where the books are so stridently biased as to be "preaching to the choir" and put off 'newbies' with their presentation.

the issues are presented well enough that i think if someone finishes the book they will have a reasonable idea of what the problems are and where the different parts are most concerned in the discussion. it is not a scientific or theologically based book but rather philosophic. it presents concerns from each viewpoint, thus showing relative priorities in what each person discusses first and critisies as lacking emphasis in the other viewpoints. this is one value in a debate type of format, it can leave you with a prioritized idea of what people find important in the issues.

one problem however with this debate framework is that each person reading the book who already have committments to issues or positions tend to cheer for their side and boo down the opposing sides. this is evident from the reviews posted here, the young earth creation team is not the big names in the field, so it looks like in suffers from lack of heroes. nay, the two philosophers defend the position well given the page constraints they faced.

there is one issue running through the book i wished everyone had addressed in a more explicit matter, that is the difference in accepting the functional materialism of science versus the uncritical acceptance of a materialist world and life view of scientism. there is much confusion between the two, you can see it in much YEC criticism, in this book as well, of both progressive creationism and theistic evolution. naturalism is the idea that what we see is what we get, no god's behind the curtain, no skyhooks to come down and rescue us. there must be a distinction between how science uses this idea as a working hypothesis, as a functional means to an end, versus how a philosophy uses it as an axiom. of the 3 viewpoints, only vantil talks to the separation of the two. the YEC's fault the other two positions as if they accepted the materialism/naturalism as a deep committment in their systems. which as christian's is simply unacceptable from the beginning.

i liked the book. i think if you need a place to start it supplies one. however if you are already committed to a position you would be better off served by jumping straight to one of the major works in each viewpoint. and interact with that author without the polemics that form the debate structure of the book.

This book is not as good as the other ones in the series, particularly the ones by Marcus Burton. The sample questions are largely useless, with them beating to death the layers of the OSI model. They spent too much time on the flavours of FDDI for the likely number of questions on the exam.

The editing and quality control on this book are decidedly below average. For instance page 116 has test tips for Windows 95 just kind of dropped in the middle of a discussion of architecture.

I used this book along with the Networking Essentials Exam Guide from QUE, and expect to pass the exam with no problem, (but I have a LOT of experience). This should not be your only prep material for this exam.

Besides being riddled with errors, the sample questions were generally not meaningful. It is, however, easy reading and does have the necessary information. If you must rely on this book, I suggest that you make the Networking Essentials exam your last exam. I skimmed this book and was still able to pass thanks to the information I picked up from studying for other exams.

A very good book for people trying to prepare for Networking essentials exam. Needs more work on questions and routing/bridging/gateway part, but if you can get your hands on good exam questions you will be OK. Only used this book and a sample questions and passed the exam on the first try.

For 16 authors (programmers??) to make so many typos, mistakes, ommissions, is unacceptable. I even sent email to the authors who cared to provide addresses and none responded.

The authors must have been confused or took so much for granted. The problems I found with the book are too many. For example: Code snippets fail, poor steps (making the book a very tidious read.). The steps are embedded in lengthy theories, making them impossible to follow. Focus is lost and references are poor. For example, on page 88, they write "you can find this function [global_service_lib.asp] in the include directory". Wrong because, the global_service_lib.asp resides in the siteroot/service/include directory. These are minute errors that can frustrate many readers in the middle of the night.

Some diligence should be put into books that involve program codes. I generally do not tolerate such errors from programmers. We should be people akin to details!!

normally, the book should be rated with maximum stars, because it is the the one and only book which steps in detail into the commerce server 2000 dungeons. BUT, the codes and files downloadable from wrox site are full of errors and missing files. so, it is difficult to follow the authors in their expearince. also, you see from chapter to chapter there are different writes, having CS2K setups/retail installation. so, steping over the chapters, you have to take a look on your up to this retail solution done previously. also, some errors in the code samples inside the book (which are not part of the download) have some mistakes. but, at least. i think it is a good entry point for CS2K developer...

After waiting 6 months for a decent book on Commerce Server 2000, I finally got it! This book does a great job giving an overall view of the product before diving into the nitty gritty information. Unlike any other book currently on the market, this one gives a great architectural layout of each part of CS2K (user profiling, campaigning, catalogs, etc...) and then gives code examples. Great job WROX!

Research on David Lane reveals that he will attack any religion that comes close to the teachings of his beloved Charan Singh. Lane wrote this one 25 years ago as a college term paper, just after becoming a devotee of Singh. Naturally, since he believes his way to be the only way, anything coming close *must* be stolen from his precious master. His attacks on Eckankar are mild compared to his attacks on the various Indian branches of Sant Mat. This book does a grave disservice to anyone interested in seeking spiritual truth.

This book contains some enigmatic information about Eckankar and Paul Twitchell, the founder of this modern day religion.

Being that he is a Professor at a small California college, this book is generally considered to be a credible scholarly work.

In actuality it is his term paper written twenty years ago, as a twenty year old student.

On 12/28/2000 in postings to the alt.religion.eckankar newsgroup David Lane has finally admitted the truth about this paper.

Writing about his "own biases" he said:

"I agree that there are some slants and some interpretations of mine that cannot be so universally duplicated and those can become arguable points of contention.

First, THE MAKING was written NOT as a sociological treatise but as a 'critical expose'.

Second, I wrote the paper when I was an undergraduate in religious studies.

Third, I am NOT a member of ANY sociological association.

Fourth, I NEVER claimed that the MAKING was a sociological treatise.

I wrote the paper AS AN EXPOSE!"

By intention this book may be shocking to those that do not see that the conclusions he draws and assumptions he makes are just the beginning of his twenty year campaign to defame all religious teachings.

From Catholicism to small innocuous teachings like Eckankar, Professor Lane believes that all religious experience has no reality beyond the neural synaptic firings within the brain.

So this is not a serious work of research but a paper intended to provoke negative opinion about Eckankar. At that it is a compelling success.

I am a former student of Doctor Lane, and I consider the time I spent in his classroom as the most influencial experiece of my short life. I recently reread this piece, and I can honestly say it is testiment to my affirmation that he is a reveloutionary scholar in religious studies, and has pumped life into a dying field. Be warned, you will question your faith when studing his material, but what is faith when it is untested?

For those of you who have read Boswell's two epics "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" and "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe," this book doesn't present anything 'new,' in terms of scriptural translations/interprestations per se. However, it is probably one of the few recent books I've seen which focuses on the plight of homosexuality exclusively in the Catholic Church. The author discusses several of the Vatican documents(1975, 1986,1992)on homosexuality as well as the American Bishops letter of 1997-8. What is most striking in his approach is Jordan's breakdown of the rhetoric of the Catholic Church. In order to better understand what the Church's statements themselves mean, Jordan enables the reader by breaking down the layers of 'silence' by the church: their background, and the rhetoric used to maintain the status quo. Stylistically, parts of the text seemed fragmentary. It did not help that almost every paragraph was separated by little ____ dividers, which distracted this reader to the overall thought process. Jordan borrows and builds on several notions from Sedgwick's "Epistemology of the Closet." I found the chapter on the 'Liturgy Queen' and Clerical Drag quite amusing. For a book focusing on 'catholic' issues with homosexuality, the last chapter offers the most promise by describing the possibilities of living as a lesbigay Catholic. Overall I'd give the book between 3 and 4 stars (3 and a half, if there was the option).

OK, so it isn't a review, but it has been puzzling me for some time. Why O why can't book publishers find something creative to put on covers about subjects connected with Catholic Christianity except a string of rosary beads? Even academic publishing houses fall into this trite practice.

I fail to see even a the slightest connection with the subject of this or Jordan's "Truth" book.

Consider that probably the other place one is most likely to see a rosary is in a photo of a pop music performer or gang member (who seem to think rosaries are some kind of necklace or jewelry).

Weird.

Mark Jordan's book well illustrates Garry Wills's claim in "Papal Sin" that the unwitting legacy of JPII's papacy is a homosexual priesthood. However, Jordan's book goes far deeper in exposing the extent to which the Catholic Church has cynically used priests with homosexual tendencies for a thousand years. Once ordained, these hapless young men could then be used to wage war against innocent and open forms of sexual expression. Anyone who deviates from the 'party line' would have his own homosexuality exposed! This has created a situation where blackmail and hypocrisy run rampant in the inner circles of Roman Catholicism... Further, the young priest's anguished knowledge of his own hypocrisy would make it far harder for him to intervene and denounce any other occasion of injustice and exploitation. For example, it is possible to see how Paul VI's alleged homosexual tendencies could have been used by the Roman Curia to block any change in the Vatican's position towards birth control. It is tragic that a largely and secretly homosexual priesthood should have ultimate authority over the sexual practices of married catholics.

Ok, strap on your rose colored, politically tinged, pseudo shining path blinders and delve into the slanted, branded, censored, ivory towered, ignored, unexplored, head-in-the-sand view of "punk" in the nation's capital. Two decades? They got that wrong- should have been "Two Pinhead Views of Punk..."

Anyway, these guys certainly weren't playing the clubs and hanging out with the bands to really know what went down, and what was said, as Ian MacKaye has expressed. As obvious groupies with a few favorite bands, they've left out such a sizable chunk of history- either because they didn't know, or (heh, heh) they couldn't care less, or both- that one cannot take too seriously this "history" of sorts. They've unearthed too few bones and voices to give credence to such a lofty book title. At best it's a molecular thin slice of some of what was going on, thus failing the admirable goals actually educating readers.

For raw objectivisim, this book gets a zero. There are some nice pics and for what they do write about- sans the strained politburo commentary, public policy side-bars, and soap operatic narrative- some of the content is interesting, but way too serious for it's britches. C'mon this is punk history, not Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind.

Now, how about a challenge? For Volume 2, maybe they could dig deep, pull up their pants, roll up their sleeves, get out their trowels and do the hard, sweaty work of an objective historical chronicle which will truly enlighten and educate readers.

Hint: Haggle for it at the yard sale.

Obviously this book took a lot of time and effort. It's just too bad Andersen and Jenkins were so focused on ultra-politically correct Dischord and Positive Force. Anyone who was there between these years can tell you there was a helluva lot more going on than what's in this book. I agree with the reviewer above--so many bands & people are missing and skimmed over, I suspect because they just weren't in the Dischord clique. I'm talking Moss Icon, Images, MFD, DSI records, Outcrowd, Marginal Man, Parasite, Mopagans, Immoral Discipline, Indian Summer, Neverman, Agent 86, Safari Club, Barbecued Iguana shows, Avail (another who fled...to Richmond), the Hated,...SO many others. And whythe hell the chapter on riot grrrl? That was Washington STATE, as far as most DC punks are concerned. There were always women involved in the Washington scene.

The cheap production values don't help this book's case much, though I heard the authors paid forit themselves due to trouble with the publisher. A sad story and a slanted way of telling it.

Anyone interested in underground music, activism or civil disobedience should buy this book in a flash. It describes how a small clique (in this case a handful of Washington, DC high school kids) united by energy, idealism, and a Do-It-Yourself ethic can spearhead national campaigns to change society.

Step by step it tells the story of Bad Brains, Minor Threat, Faith, Rites of Spring, Fugazi, and other DC hardcore bands and the social movements (Straight Edge, Positive Force, Revolution Summer, Riot Grrrl...) they inspired. It was exhilarating to see a local phenomenon erupt into international musical trends and activism I read about in such distant papers as the Bangkok Post. And reading the whole, hardscrabble saga is almost as exciting.

The one prior book on DC punk, Sun Dog Propaganda's great "Banned in DC", was more a photo album than a history. In contrast, "Dance of Days" is exhaustively researched, rapidly paced, and full of vivid characters. It's especially brilliant at suggesting the link between punk cultural values and progressive politics, something usually ignored by such books. As well as inspiring newcomers, it will stir up fond memories for scene insiders and even provide them new information.

Admirably, the book is more than a celebration. The authors deal also with the downside of the movement, condemning its violent, bigoted elements. While this face of punk has long been exploited by the mainstream media, "Dance of Days" had to address it to provide a balanced account. Acknowledging that the scene had serious problems just makes its final renaissance seem all the more miraculous.

Like the scene it describes, the book has flaws that prevent it from being the last word on DC punk or the equal of a study like Jon Savage's "England's Dreaming". The section dealing with the scene's most exciting era, pre-1984, has little of the "juice" you'd expect from fans' memories of hardcore. Punks may be reminded of the history books they ditched to hang out at the 9:30 because there are few amusing anecdotes and no real sense of fun or abandon. While authors like Gina Arnold take narrative gusto to mawkish extremes, some enthusiasm would've made these chapters both more fun and evocative of the era.

I applaud the authors for stressing the activism of harDCore, but their earnestness gives some chapters a dark tone. As a casual spectator to the scene I was deeply unsettled by their expose of its fascist and street-gang elements. One detail especially bothered me: A person who was very helpful to me at one of my first gigs is described here as a vicious, gay-bashing neo-Nazi. The book gives little indication that this person had some positive qualities. Similarly, the authors' depiction of the heyday of the Georgetown Punks focuses on violence and elitism rather than the gleefulness of the clique. Insiders may deem this old news, but those less hip should prepare to be disillusioned.

Another drawback is the lack of a coherent timeline. Often the chronology is so confusing that it is hard to tell in what month or even year a particular gig or event took place. For a book called "Dance of Days", and with such a factual tone, this is surprising.

Despite these qualms I was overwhelmed by the book's breadth, detail, and fair-mindedness. As an example of how grassroots art and activism can create a community and even improve society, it is inspiring and unsurpassed.

Can I have my money back?
I wish I had something more positive to say about this "book" but I can't - really not good.

Although I was able to get a reasonable understanding of UML notation and how/when to use certain UML diagram types, the book was quite a dissappointment overall.

The authors spend way too much time on analysis methods that (admittedly) have no representative UML diagrams. Although they state clearly that UML is purely notational and does not imply/condone any particular methodology, they proceed to introduce a "generic" methodology of their own, and spend most of the book explaining it and using it to develop a simple "application".

Without doubt the most dissappointing thing about this book (to me) is the joke of an application developed by the authors. For a book subtitled "The Developer's Guide, with a Web-based application in Java", I actually laughed out loud a few times at example source code.

Sorry, guys, this book could've and should've been much, much better.

I'm very pleased with this book. The authors take you step-by-step through the visual modeling process using UML and Java. I read the book cover to cover. It's almost like a good friend taking your hand and guiding you all the way.

I would highly recommend this book if you are new to UML or not clear on how the many diagrams fit together to elaborate an analysis and design effort.

Thanks, Paul Harmon and Mark Watson for writing such a great read.

I loved "The List of 7", but this book pales next to it, and is a disappointment. The characters and story are good. But Sparks' fall from grace and the things he does during it are disappointing and I think unnecessary to the story. It takes away from his lustre as being the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes. This is not a book I will read again.

Well, The Sign of 7 was a promising beginning for Mark Frost, but the sequel has much more troubles arriving at the same quality and finally it fails. Even though the story is well done, and its a pleasure to rediscover the heroes of the first book, Frost is unable in this book to recreate the same atmosphere of his first novel.

Its a nice read for example as a holiday book, but it wont impress you as much as "The List of 7".

Although it has been a few years since I read The list of 7
and the 6 Messiahs, both left me craving perhaps Frosts next
trip into Doyle and sparks next adventure. I was less
enthusiastic with The 6 Messiahs, and thought it should have been longer. yet all in all both books were thouroughly enjoyable.

Mark Wiley did somewhat better on the second edition, than the first, but for all his suposed knowledge he didn't have the diplomacy to not disrespect his seniors, including the Grandmaster Vincent Angel Cabales Sr. The first book in the list of masters ommited #16 Master Stanley Wells. At the photoshoot for the second book, I listened as Master Stanley Wells confronted Mr. Wiley about that. And I listened as Mark Wiley promised to include Master Stanley Wells in the list in the second edition. Master Stanley Wells, began training before Master Jaime Cabiero started in the early 70's. As for the Filipino culture, Mr. Wiley included in the book the language of Tagolog, rather than English or Vissayan as Grandmaster Angel would have prefered. Jerry Preciado, has studied Serrada, for many years, but did not receive his Master Degree at the time the 2nd book came out, yet the book lists him as Master. The contributing articles that most of the people wrote were rediculous, and should have been ommited also. The martial arts community seeing the Grandmaster in the Photos, may think that he is agreeing with what went into Mr. Wiley's book, but that is not the case. An incident at the photoshoot precluded further discussions and Mr. Wiley left early for the East Coast. During Angel's life he mentioned that he wanted 13 true disciples. He is well remembered as an honest and caring man. He had 13 disciples and he knew who they were. The title that some of Angel's past students use now is 'Angel's Disciples,' but that name was not given to them by Angel to my knowledge. It was after he died that they call themselves that. If they were true disciples they would reflect back to when Angel was alive, and appointed his son Grandmaster Vincent Angel Cabales Sr., to take over the Serrada Accademy as his main last wish. They would help out. I do not recommend Mr. Wiley's books on Serrada, however, some of his other books are better. He is gifted as a writer. Mr. Wiley has put out a lot of effort in the wrong direction. He needs to contact Grandmaster Vincent Angel Cabales Sr. when he wtrites about Serrada. The Grandmaster could have answered a lot of questions, if he would have asked. Train hard and have fun!

Unfortunately the book can only be as good as the practitioner and this one is not that good. He underestimates his readers by simplifying the concepts and techniques of his art, generalizing cultural and spiritual aspects. (BTW, he doesn't really do any better in Filipino Martial Culture.) The stories that he relays about the lineage are haphazzard. He picks and chooses which legends/stories he wishes to believe and uses that argument to counter other stories to the point where he essentially calls Dizon's boyhood training partner a liar. This is just bad research and bad oral history. He is not arrogant enough to say "this is my training experience" outright, but he serves the injustice of claiming this is real "research," when it seems he's only stepped as far as his back door. He may be an instructor, but it doesn't mean he understands his art to its very depths.

The foreword of the book was personally written by Grandmaster Angel Cabales who tells why he personally chose Mark Wiley to present his art to the public. As it clearly stated in the book, Grandmaster Angel Cabales read and approved the manuscript before his unfortunate death in 1991.

In this introductory book, Mr. Wiley purposely exaggerated the movements and distance of this short range fighting style to help the photographer and give the reader a clearer view of how the techniques are performed. Basic concepts and techinques were explained, but as with any martial arts book, it was never intended to be used as a means to learn the art without a qualified instructor. It is also admirable that Mr. Wiley focused on presenting the art form of Grandmaster Angel Cabales and did not digress into tales of his training that do nothing more than boost his own image like so many other martial arts authors do.

The author's qualifications to teach, write about, and demonstrate this art are impeccable. Mark Wiley received his Master's Degree (Pangulong Guro) in Cabales Serrada Escrima in March of 1990 by Grandmaster Angel Cabales. Mark Wiley has written for and edited numerous martial arts publications and regularly travels to the Philippines as well as other parts of Asia to do research on and continue his study of the martial arts.