This book is fundamentally a very basic review of anatomy (and some physiology). The chapters are scant, with very little contemporary information. In fact, ALL of the anotomy information in this book can be accessed, in much greater detail, directly from other (true) anatomy texts. The author presents a qualitative methodology of how to assess and/or analyze soft-tissue injury cases, with no specific numbers, analytical techniques or other methods to aid the user in similar such cases. I cannot emphasize enough that there ARE NO NUMBERS in this book. Even the "graphs" in the book are presented qualitatively, with a "here's how the general trend would act" type of a "plot". This book may be useful to the most uninitiated, ill-informed practitioner, but should be avoided by all others.

I am not a Catholic but if I were one this would still not be a good book. Frederick W. Marks is best known as a diplomatic historian, whose books on Theodore Roosevelt and John Foster Dulles were endlessly adulatory, while his book on FDR was unremittingly critical. These books were unusually tendentious for a professional historian, and that vice has cropped up in his defence of Catholicism.

Much of his book is based on Catholic apologies that are six to ten decades old. Many sources are not properly footnoted at all, such as his claim that Pope Clement (d. 98) quoted the Gospel of John or the statements on p. 65 about Jewish connection to usury. Much of his work on the Inquisition is based on William T. Walsh's 65 year old life of Philip II, which has no standing in scholarly circles, and which is anti-Semitic to boot. His comments on how Christianity improved the Roman Empire ignore every historian on the subject, starting with Gibbon, but also G.E.M. De Ste. Croix, Ramsay MacMullen, and Robin Lane Fox. He asserts that Catholic treatment of slaves was especially generous, and ignores those scholars such as David Brion Davis and C.R. Boxer who have undermined that. A more up to date apologist would note that Eamon Duffy and Geoffrey Parker make arguments about the Reformation which would be more useful than Marks' dated authorities. A more literate scholar would have used Henry Kamen's book on the Inquisition. He makes apologetic claims that more intelligent Catholics do not make. For example, even conservative Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown and John P. Meier are well aware that Isaiah 7:14 does not refer to a virgin birth, and that the siblings of Jesus mentioned in the Bible were not his cousins.

There is also a certain sloppiness. Jefferson supposedly supports a bill against Sabbath-breakers that was passed nine years before he was born. The reign of the emperor Hadrian is given as 183, when it was 138. Marcion's heresy is predated by thirty years. And Woodrow Wilson, who died in 1924, supposedly announced a national day of prayer for World War Two. At one point Marks argues that all great artists and statesman were moral believers. Confronting the counter-example of Wagner, he claims that he had composed all of his major works after his adulterous liaison with Cosima von Bulow. Dead wrong, since he was clearly working on the Ring cycle while conceiving two children out of wedlock, and "Parsifal" was written after his wedding to Cosima. Elsewhere Marks tries to give the Catholic Church the credit for abolishing slavery in French colonies, ignoring the fact that slavery was abolished by the Convention at the height of the Terror, was reinstated by Napoleon, was allowed by three Catholic monarchs, and was abolished once and for all by the anti-clerical democrats of the Second Republic. And he does not mention that American Bishops criticized Lincoln for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

One could go on. Although Marks' book is a militant defense of Catholicism, he claims as believers people he would denounce as heretics if they were not secular saints; people such as Jefferson (a deist), Lincoln (not a churchgoer, who almost never spoke of Jesus), Einstein (a socialist) and Churchill. He cites as evidence of Peter's primacy, 2 Peter, unaware of the scholarly consensus that this was the last book of the New Testament to be written, five to seven decades after Peter's martyrdom. He argues, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that Peter was widowed when he met Jesus, and ignores 1 Corinthians 9:5 where Paul says Peter brought his wife along with him during his travels. He tries to find a biblical basis for the Catholic condemnation of birth control by arguing that all New Testament objections to sorcery are to contraception. This clearly does not follow. It is one thing to object to contraceptive medicines as sorcery, but the reverse does not follow. And how are condoms sorcery? He gives the examples of Leonardo Da Vinci and Michaelangelo as examples of celibacy, apparently unaware that both men were probably homosexual. Confronting Isaiah 7:14 he argues that the Greek translation is better than the Hebrew original. He praises the supposedly peaceful heritage Catholicism has given Latin America. He bases this on the supposedly merciful 1954 coup in Guatamela, and does not mention the tens of thousands slaughtered by its ostensibly Catholic elite over the next few decades. The Sadducees are described as "theologically liberal" when clearly they were theologically conservative in opposing such innovations as a resurrection and the scriptures after the Torah. All, in all, this is not a very reliable book.

This book is a workbook to accompany the 4th & 5th editions of the textbook "Carpentry and Building Construction". It contains examinations based on the study units within this textbook. It is not a textbook on its own.

The way to maximize the profits of a book is to sell the book without placing any useful information in the book. A perfect example of that is "The Casino Management Handbook"

This book was the textbook for one of our classes in music education. I think it's very poor because it's so unintelligent (thin) and boring and, compared to texts we use in other music courses (e.g. music history), it's unscholarly and sloppy. For example, this book repeats a whole pile of dead information that any undergrad can find in MENC blurbs and MENC 'propaganda'. I think Mark must be paid as a cheerleader for MENC. Being forced to read this book is like being forced to read a cereal box. And look at his discussion of 'philosophy' in this book; Mark thinks he's a scholar, but he is so obvioulsy clueless and biased. One more thing --- even I can find all sorts of typos and errors in the BIB and I'm just a senior!! The bottom line for me and my classmates is this: a poor author + a poor editor = a lousy book!! We want our money back!!

Expensive and full of typos... ( Ex: Vous apelez-vouz...) Lots of them. Not very useful. I suggest that you save your money. They are better books out there for French learning.

The Wrox publishing company has been sold to Wiley. As a result, Wrox has abandoned maintenance of its web presence and no support materials are available for any of these PDF documents. I've bought a couple of them now and all are ridiculously overpriced. They contain simple, basic information you could easily find for free elsewhere. My advice: avoid anything with a red cover, especially now that Wrox will not be around to support any of it.

Like most Bradygame books, this one is pretty devoid of useful info. The enemy section, with about 20 words for each, is a total joke.

There's better online stuff than this book. For instance, Gamespot Gameguide's Descent 3 online strategy guide has this one beat by a long shot.

He made claims that contrast with known history (even some assertions that aren't being disputed by Arab, Israeli, or other partisans), and wouldn't back up 95+% of his asserions with supporting facts, even after I made several requests for him to provide citations (and after I'd provided him with many of my own citations, which were contrary to his claims).

Despite that my citations were of credible sources like the UN, major media, self-criticisms by heads-of-state which they published themselves in their memoirs, etc., and despite that I'd typically provide several varying sources to corroborate each of my assertions, AND despite that he'd not even bothered to rebut 95+% of my assertions (and if he did rebut, he'd never cite any facts/figures, so for all I know, he was using data from partisan groups), he'd go on believing his "version" of history over those well-documented assertions I made to him. In other words, he seemed like an irrational/illogical nut who'll believe what he wants in spite of commonly-accepted facts.

Although he seemed to love debating these issues, he made very poor arguments because he provided me with NO reason to believe the wide majority of his assertions, and gave me threadbare reason to believe the rest ("the rest" being maybe about 1%, if that); so, since this book is about a controversial subject, if you do bother reading it, take it with a grain of salt and if he actually cites sources, check them carefully, and check whether he's giving you the whole picture or not.

I expected my questions to be at least qualified when I bought this book. There is nothing here but the opportunity to spend more money on forms that are easily found on the web. No questions are answered beyond the obvious. I would really like to have my money back. This is one book you should see in a book store before ordering sight unseen.