... The layout of the book was confusing and so where theexamples and explanations. If it where not for a great math teacher Iwould have been lost in the class if I was just left to the book alone. I would recommend students and teachers (if your considering this book for your class) to stay away from it... END

Excellent seller. It arrived much faster than I expected.
Thanks a lot

This book is addressed for understanding of the Calculus and not for the traditional teaching that sins for the excess of formalism. It is an excellent book for who wants to understand and to learn Calculus through the application of problems of the Real World. The book also motivates the use of graphic calculators to have a better vision of the problem.

This narrative reads too much like devotional literature. It does not present a historical study of the life of Christ as is purported by the book's jacket. Admittedly, there were portions that contained some interesting historical information, but nothing new to a long-time Bible student like myself. The comparison to Morrison's "Who Moved The Stone" is not a fair representation of this book. In addition, the title of the book is very misleading. Overall, if you are looking for a nice devotional read, this book will suit your needs, but if you are looking for a historical study of the life and times of Jesus Christ, you will find that this book will fail to meet your expectations. I was greatly disappointed!

The Jesus Conspiracy

A Book Review

When we, in the 21st Century, seek to understand the life of Jesus it can be helpful to look at Him in the historical setting of His day. It was a time vastly different from what we face today, at least in terms of day to day things and the relationship He and others had to the Roman government and to the prevailing religious environment.

In his recent book, The Jesus Conspiracy, Gordon Thomas takes his readers back to the days of some 2,000 years ago. Thomas is identified in this Baker Book House (1999) publication as a "highly successful British investigative journalist." This book of some 300 pages turns the clock back so that the reader is an eyewitness of sorts to the things Jesus said and did, as they occurred in their proper historical contexts. Along the way Thomas provides some insights about that culture which many of us would find very interesting. The book has been compared to Who Rolled Away the Stone by Frank Morrison, a work by another Englishman who had questioned the validity of the Gospels and their accounts of Jesus, especially the events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection. Morrison began his work as an unbeliever but finished as part of the Family!

Why Thomas selected this title (conspiracy) is not very clear from the text. It may that many, in that time when Jesus was walking this earth, felt that what He was attempting to do was to establish a new order of things, especially of a religious nature. What was taking place, some surely seemed to believe, was a plan to replace much of the established way of doing things in the temple. He presented a threat to the status quo. The so called trial Jesus experienced seemed to have that as the motivation. Thomas, much like Morrison in the earlier work, takes his readers step by step through this trial and shows the many illegal moves made and how those moves were tolerated. The trial was a sham! Many boundaries used to protect people were set aside.

Thomas brings an additional perspective to many of the same events addressed by Morrison so that a reader can come away with a deeper appreciation, especially, of the pain and suffering Christ endured. There are some problems along the way in Thomas' attempt to bring clarity to such an important time of history. He apparently has some difficulty in accepting what the Bible says about things. He notes that "faith does not stand, or fall, on the details of history." Later he says that the "message of God's revelation, while indeed founded on fact, does not depend on each precise detail of fact." This seems to leave the door open for error to enter, especially when someone disagrees with what the Bible might say. Apparently Thomas stands outside the concept that the Bible is God's word because if God wrote the scriptures there would be no room for any mistakes, even in what Thomas may regard as less than precise detail of fact. It is agreed that the things God has told us may not be the exhaustive report. Nevertheless we have little reason to doubt that we have been told is true.

For example, when discussing the trial of Jesus, he says the Biblical accounts speak of this taking place during the night, at least the accounts by Matthew and Mark. Thomas maintains this to be incorrect. Luke, says Thomas, speaks of no proceedings during the hours of darkness. Thomas calls this an "unimportant mistake." While the importance of this trial occurring at night or in the daytime may not, in the grand scheme of things, be all so great, such thinking could easily encourage a person to consider other Biblical passages as being wrong too. Why these accounts don't seem to agree may not so much be mistakes but differing perspectives.

One disturbing section occurred when Thomas discussed the event when Jesus was visiting in the home of Mary & Martha. This is where Mary received a scolding from Martha for not helping. Thomas paints this event as being one in which Mary's attention to Jesus was on the verge of being a sexual thing. Thomas hints that Jesus was unaware of Mary's heart and, in fact, enjoyed the attention. Thomas contends that Martha's concern was not so much that she needed help with things in the house but that Mary refrain from what she was doing. This seems to be reading something into the text that is highly questionable and it might make a person wonder about the ability of Jesus to know a person's thoughts and motivations.

There are at least two serious problems with the book. Thomas speaks of Peter as being the rock upon which the church would be built. This is, at best, a potential misunderstanding of this crucial passage in Matthew 16:18. The "rock" upon which the Church was to be built was not Peter but upon the truth Peter had expressed, that Christ was the Savior. The way this particular verse has been handled has been a major issue dividing the Roman Catholic Church from others who embrace Christianity. Thomas implies that there is no doubt about this verse. Thomas makes this same reference to Peter several additional times.

Thomas, in my opinion, ended the book to soon. He ended it at the cross, but the cross is not the end of the message. There is no reference given to the resurrection. Without the resurrection, the cross is meaningless. Without the resurrection, the figure on the cross was only a man who died. The resurrection is the important part and it is difficult to understand why Thomas stopped before the end of the story. To stop before the end is to present an incomplete account.

However, even given these shortcomings, the book is a good read and can be helpful in understanding the days & times of Jesus.

Dan Schobert Plover, Wi 54467

"Behold the man!" The words of Pontius Pilate reverberate in my mind upon reading this book, a superlative study on the life of Jesus Christ, the central figure of the human race. Gordon Thomas presents the Nazarene and His times unlike any other book I've read to date, with such painstaking realism as to allow the reader to be present during Christ's ministry. One can nearly smell the odors of Jerusalem's streets, hear the bustle of people as they gather to listen to the words of the young rabbi, and witness the events leading to His crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection .

This book is noteworthy for numerous reasons, among these Thomas extensive reasearch -spanning decades- on all extant texts related to Jesus and the events surrounding him: the Bible and the numerous apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books on Christ, early Judaic and Christian histories such as Josephus and Eusebius, and even Talmudic tractates that articulate Jewish law and custom.

THE JESUS CONSPIRACY (previously titled THE TRIAL; the current title is somewhat misleading and ambiguous) is centered on the murderous conspiracy by the staus quo against Jesus and the revolutionary message He spread. It explores the mentality and motives of those who participated in Christ's passion: Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator; Herod Antipas, Idumean tetrarch of Galilee; and Joseph Caiaphas, Rome-appointed high priest of the Temple. This Unholy Triumvirate were responsible for the most infamous show trial in history (covered in great detail in this book) which ultimately condemned an innocent man to one of the most barbaric deaths in human experience and centuries later provided an unjust excuse for anti-Semitism.

The Passion is described with riveting detail; Thomas' vivid descriptions of Christ's flogging (which literally shred the flesh with barbed and weighted thongs) and mockery with the Crown of Thorns is disturbing. The Crucifixion is HARROWING. It is impossible not to be shaken when visualizing these events, and not be left with awe and admiration for the Nazarene, who despite all this exclaimed from the Cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Verily, one is overwhelmed by Christ's magnanimity and salvific love for humanity.

The events following the Crucifixion are demonstrated to impossibilitate any action by the disciples on Jesus behalf. Yet the events on that fateful Sunday morning forever changed the history of humankind.

Gordon Thomas, as a liberal Catholic, is far from dogmatic or confrontational: he actually attempts an unbiased, objective, even-handed examination of Christ's life and times. In his extensive introduction and epilogue, he articulates his research and addresses the numerous concerns and debates, and rightly takes issue with extremist reactionaries (the "Jesus Seminar" and others FARTHER to the left) who are more focused on smearing Christ and the Church than biblical scholarship.

He does question the Bible's authority and disagrees with some important teachings, but this is done in the spirit of objectivity, not theological agenda. What is noteworthy is that in the end of his rigorous scrutiny of Scripture, the fundamentals remain: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came into the world to save us from sin by His death on the Cross, and that He rose on the third day. As a result, whether one is a seeker or a seasoned Christian, one comes out of reading this book a changed person. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

This book is a collection of eight essays. The first seven are each written on the subject of one of the "deadly" sins of sloth, anger, lust, gluttony, pride, avarice and envy. The eight is on despair. Each of the famous authors ruminates on the sin, looking at it from his or her unique perspective.

Overall I found the essays well written, and the book to be easy to read. This book makes for some lightweight reading, short and simple, but without much substance. Overall, I don't recommend it.

Eight essays on Sloth, Anger, Lust, Gluttony, Pride, Avarice, Envy, and Despair (yes that's 8 sins). To be honest I bought it because of Pynchon, (whose essay -if you are even a slight fan- makes the buy worth it) but read on to the back cover. I quickly discovered that these authors compiled around the topic of sins is a great way to see inside these writers styles and appraoch to a similar idea. Some I'd read before, and others introduced themselves in this novel. All were unique and interesting in their own right, especially for someone -me- who isn't terribly interested in sins. Highly reccomended!

This book did not quite meet my expectations. I have a daughter who is almost six and a son, who has ADHD, who is eight. Perhaps for an older child, this book would be appropriate. However, I found that I skimmed pages to try to find something that my daughter could relate to. More illustrations, in color, and less text would be more appropriate for children ages four to six. Perhaps more of a story line. Overall, I think she did get some useful insights out of it, but reading it to her was not an easy task. It is very wordy and comes across as written by an acadamician for a child. If I could, I would rate it 2.5 stars. I think the need is great for a book that addresses the siblings of children with ADHD. Perhaps one aimed at the younger child would help fill the need.

This would be a much better book if the author would change the title. While the title may accurately reflect the feelings of some siblings, the book might get left around the house and generate some hurt feelings. Because of this, I keep it in my closet bookshelf, not in my waiting room.

Once past the title, the book has wonderful, amusing illustrations and the text keeps elementary school siblings interested. The sister eventually does come to appreciate her impulsive brother, but kids will keep coming back to that title...

The big sister in this book is a great story teller! She explains in kids' words the condition her brother has and how they handle it. She is candid in saying it often bothers her, which is good because siblings can often bear the brunt of ADHD family/home problems. It's important that kids know what happens if they have a brother or sister with ADHD, what to expect, and how they can even help. My seven-year-old daughter has gained a lot of wisdom from it in trying to understand her cousin who has this condition! I recommend it.

I do not recommend this book for parents searching for real answers. The title of this book is very misleading and should have been more appropriately entitled "Evidence For Not Disciplining (as defined by Dr. Gordon)Your Children". Most of this book is filled with so-called scientific research which simply berates 'punitive' punishment, rewards and praise. It's filled with definitions that do not quite match everyday life. I honestly do not know for whom this book was written - those who already agreed with Dr. Gordon used it as their soap box. Those who disagreed would not have found a possible bridge with offensive language like 'superiority' and 'so-called caring parents'. The book includes only a small section of solutions which are hazy at best. For a complete understanding of his program, read P.E.T. Leave this book for the ivory tower types who seldom want to provide solutions but would rather win a philosophical argument.

The idea that you can influence children's behavior without using punishment is one that is -- to this day -- thought impossible by a lot of people. In Discipline That Works Dr. Gordon delves deeper into the theory of his landmark book Parent Effectiveness Training, showing exactly what effects the use of parental authority has on children. The book still covers the skills parents can use to positively influence children's behavior (that are in P.E.T.), but with a heaping serving of the underlying theory (for those of us who just can't get enough of the "whys" in life).

I certainly hope this book has become obsolete as it represents a way for teachers to convince their students they're from outer space and often, afraid. I have many objections to this "how to communicate" completely impractical and annoying approach to kids. Here are some:

It doesn't factor cultural attitudes and related behavioral norms- it's yuppie dogma.

It will absolutely send the message to the kids that you're uncomfortable with setting limits.

It implies that language is some kind of magic bullet-( a simplistic no-brain approach in mental health as well).) Say you're teaching and a child is tapping his pencil like a rock musician- trust me, if you say something like "I'm having a hard time concentrating with your pencil tapping." Puh-leeze! How about, "Excuse me, do you mind?" or "Hey, put that pencil down or write with it." When you get really good, you could move in time with it- then dance to the blackboard and say, "It's time for my act." Humor, self- assurance is worth a ton of these kinds of books.

The book has a section on "being authentic." then he procedes to advise you to deny your emotions, (Ha!- like the kids don't know,) avoid asserting yourself as "the last word" and this is a good one- having the class be a democracy- how unnatural, and a time waster.
As soon as the kids get a whiff of this expressing how you feel and speaking up for your feelings, you might as well kiss your curriculum goodbye. Kids will figure this out so fast- they like nothing better than articulating injustice ad nauseum. Oh, this will also get you a rotten evaluation and a reputation as being 'green.'

I have been a special education principal for 12 years and before that I successfully taught "at risk" kids. I also taught "normal" kids for a period. If I sound like some anachronism, I can only say that as far as 'effectiveness' with students, (inner city, drug users, violent and learning disabled), at the risk of sounding immodest- I can get kids in line and doing what they ought to do- and, they LOVE it.
Kids crave clarity, predictability and- especially with regard to the those inevitable teacher's nightmares- a sense of stability and control.

We operate often times with the false perception that if we TALK about issues, we will somehow enlighten, problem solve and prepare great future citizens. Sorry.
Listen to parents in stores with their brood running around like maniacs which they ignore too long so that the kids are over stimulated, then they say something like one of those 'I' statements, "I need you to stop running so that I can buy what we need for dinner." How often have you seen the kids stop?

This book is a set up. If you follow these suggestions you may as well put a sign on you that says, I'm scared and clueless.'
It is developmentally an El Nino of chaos. Children (read your Erickson and Piaget) need hierarchy, affiliation and absolute certainty that significant figures have their feet on the ground and their heads out of the clouds. Think realistically- if you vote on an issue, like we shouldn't have to raise our hands if we want to go to the bathroom- do you think you have just made one giant step towards a world filled with the democratically correct? This is not to say that there isn't a place for voting, but if you give the kids the idea that everything should go to the polls, you'll be voting your brains out and their brains will be the losers.

Last- "active listening' is an insult and a peculiar way to treat another human being. The book gives an example like this-
"I came to talk to you about what I should write my term paper on."
"You're having difficulty finding a topic."
That's not slick- that's enraging. They'll look at you like you're 'challenged.' Is that supposed to have positive impact?
My own personal rule of thumb is that if anybody active listens me I call them on it and tell them to knock it off.
New teachers- take it from a principal with experience in many different 'cultures' I think Gordon calls it. Find a mentor, someone you admire, someone whom the children 'don't even go there.' If you have a trustworthy supervisor- be (authentic?) and ask for some help. but for God's sake- don't elevate the kids into a position they're not ready for and make it crystal clear what you will and will not tolerate. I know I sound like an old meanie, but they WANT it that way, and for the most part, so do their parents. As I've already stated, if you react to conflict or acting out in the style of this book, you're telling them you are overwhelmed and they WILL push it until they come right up to the limit. I sincerely believe that it is unquestionably more pro-social and enriching to assert yourself (with humor, if possible when the time is right) than to utter some awkward edubabble- (made that up) that will diminish purpose and impact.This has been a profitable book, but IT DOESN'T WORK!

Teachers, like parents, often get frustrated by children's "misbehavior" and lack of self-discipline. How can children be controlled? Is there a magic pill that'll make kids attentive, cooperative, well-behaved, eager to learn and self-controlled?

Nope! And this book ain't it, either. That panacea just doesn't exist. But if you want to influence children positively, get them to listen to you (because you've learned to listen to them first), get them to cooperate (because you've learned how to involve them in decision-making processes) and spend less time playing the "evil dictator" or "helpless doormat" roles, then this is the best resource for you.

The book covers essentially the same material as Dr. Gordon's landmark book Parent Effectiveness Training. Its core is a belief in some basic principles:

A) Democratic environments are health-giving (every one feels better when they aren't coerced into obeying orders)

B) Participation; people who are involved in rule-making are more enthusiastic about complying with rules that are set

C) When resolving conflicts, if all parties can agree on a solution to a problem, then the problem is no more

D) All human beings have needs and behave in ways to meet those needs. If someone's behavior interferes with your ability to meet your needs, you have the right to tell them about it so they may change their behavior. If your behavior conflicts with someone else's needs, they then have the right to confront you and try and influence you to change your behavior. Fair's fair.

The book teaches the skills necessary to confront others when their behavior is unacceptable in a non-accusatory manner so as to reduce resistance (I-Messages). Then it covers Active Listening (listening without interrupting, preaching, advicing, arguing, ordering, etc. -- just listening -- then feeding back your understanding of the sender's message) so you can fully understand the other person's position. Tends to reduce resistance to your message when people feel listened to.

Finally, it covers a 6-step problem-solving process that ensures that ALL parties get their needs met.

Is it perfect? No. But that's because we as people are not perfect. We slip up. I've been practicing these skills for a couple years now (since '98) and the results are FANTASTIC, a drastic and immediately noticeable improvement. But I still forget how to listen from time to time and I have to go back and rectify mishandled situations. I'm human, I get annoyed.

If I had to think of the best reason to recommend this book, it is this: I get annoyed A LOT LESS OFTEN.

This is an extremely well-researched book on experiments with brainwashing and medical torture. It is quite interesting but at times interminable. It's just that there are probably a few hundred pages that I found tedious and insignificant. All things considered, I recommend this if you like books on the aforementioned topics.

This book covers the fundamental aspects of patents. The main emphasis is on the US patent system, with a lesser amount of material on Canadian and international patents in general. After a brief history of the patent system, major chapters cover, specifics of the US patent system, Canadian patent system, what are the requirements for an invention to be patented, interpretation of patents as technical literature, patents as legal documents, and what information is needed to defend a patent.
Summary information of the major steps in the current US patent procedurses is outlined. Along with this, a basic glossary rounds out the books contents.
Overall, the material is presented in a clear and consistent pattern. Not a lot of depth of discussion is presented in any one area. The author's intent was to give a brief introduction to the entire area of patents, their uses, limitations, and requirements rather than delve into the arcania of specifics.
The main audience is technical professionals that need a brief background introduction to some of the major concepts involved. The majority of examples are taken from chemical process, substance, and method patents

For better of worse, this slim volume is the only full-length work in existence that deals with the lives and thought of the great British political philosopher "Cato," viz. John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. First of all, McMahon offers a large amount of information and ideas based upon sources that the average reader does not have access too. Regardless of the veracity of her interpretations, this fact alone makes this book a must have for anyone who is truly interested in "Cato" and their era. However, I do find many of her conclusions to be rather untenable. The basic gist of her work is that "Cato" was not really an enemy to Robert Walpole's government, or government all together, but rather they were actually friends to them. She attempts to demonstrate that they were actually allies with the Whig oligarchy and their mission of preserving the Hanoverian succession against the threat of a Jacobite take over. While she admits that much of their work was focused on Parliamentary abuses of power, she equivocates that this was never centered primarily on Walpole, and that they were only attempting to direct Parliament down the path to their common cause. All of this, I believe, is severely mistaken. Having read "Cato's Letters" in their entirety, as well as healthy samples of "The Independent Whig," as well as several of their other works, it is quite obvioust that "Cato" was by all means an enemy to Walpole's oligarchy, as well as Walpole himself. Moreover, "Cato" was by all accounts a firm radical republican, opposed in principle to monarchy and aristocracy. While they most certainly supported the House of Hanover against that of Stuart, this was only because this was by far the more efficacious for the preservation and possible extension of individual liberty that they sought. Their defense of the British Constitution was based upon their belief that it was the best system that the current moral and political climate of Great Britain could support. Furthermore, their work was filled with thinly veiled attacks on enemies to liberty of all kinds, whether they be monarchs, ministers, or standing armies. Perhaps McMahon erred in taking these comments for face value, and not considering the fact that they were unable to reveal the true extent of their libertarian radicalism in print due to the extent of censorship at the time. Despite the fact that her primary thesis is off the mark, she does however provide an adept analysis of the primary elements of Cato's political philosophy. This, however, is tainted by her usage of this information in relation to her thesis. Nevertheless, the book on a whole is stimulating and interesting, despite the fact that one may come away from it in serious disagreement. For a better understanding of Cato's thought I would recommend, first of all, the excellent Liberty Fund edition of "Cato's Letters," as well as David L. Jacobson's lengthy introduction to his selection of Cato's work, "The English Libertarian Heritage." For those acquanted with these works already, I would highly recommend Michael Zuckert's seminal work, "Natural Rights and the New Republicanism," the last chapter of which is without a doubt the finest and most insightful analysis of Cato's thought that I know of.

...P>I don't have a Ph.D. from Harvard either, but I should be getting one next year.

I have had to teach an introductory calculus course at Harvard that follows the "Harvard Calculus" treatment that originated with this book (though the course did not use this book). It was awful. It is no easier to teach this course than it is to learn from it. Students need to learn calculus first *before* applying it to the various fields they will study.

My College Calculus professor uses this book as a suppliment to provide examples for the class use. Everyone hates the problems as they are vague and lack any explanation on how to solve the problem or even where to begin. It appears to me that someone wrote a book simply to create problems that cannot be solved by the book's explanations. Calculus requires a working understanding of the ideas and concepts of the base math before an sort of obscure application should be used. I would not recommend this book to anyone, unless they already have a good understanding of calculus and wish to delve further into the application of the math to the real world. In that case, buy the book. For the other 95% that are just wanting to learn calculus; go buy a different book that teaches you something first.

In my experience with this text, students either love it or hate it. They hate it because it does not offer a brief overview of the topics, like many more popular calculus text books. Instead "Calculus: Single Variable" requires that a student throughly read many examples as it explains rules and laws along the way. Those who love the text do so because the examples offer a firmer understanding of the concepts at hand, instead of just covering enough material to answer the questions at the end of each section. Although this is a very good text book, it definitely requires patience on behalf of the reader, and may not be the book for students who just want to slide by.