I have read this book in spanish language. As the "title" says, Salinas have a sort of deep and strong writing. You may ask: in love poems? And i have to answer: yes, in love poems. The spanish language has tracks that are dificult to explain. Salinas let you travel through this language guidelines making the words fly and flow by itself. It's impossible to properly describe this "feeling". If you like jazz you must hear the music to understand it. Nobody can tell you this "feel" using words...

This is a wonderful book. David Lee Garrison is a graceful, unfailingly accurate translator, capturing the wit and wisdom of one of Pedro Salinas's best collections. In a prologue, Salinas writes that "poetry, like love, either conquers or ceases to exist." This time it conquers!

The art of translation is on full view here in David Lee Garrison's subtle and rigorous explication of Salinas's work. Here are poems of surprise, of emotional and intellectual daring, of unearthly beauty. This is a book that deserves a wide readership, both for the brilliance of its poems and the pellucid quality of their translations.

This volume of short stories was published just as Peter David ended his long run as writer of The Incredible Hulk, so his last Hulk story "The Last Titan" is his way of saying farewell to the character. I liked most of the stories in this book. Pierce Askegren, Glenn Greenberg, and Keith R.A. DeCandido were among the good writers who contributed to the anthology. It covers the early days of the Hulk from his birth in a gamma bomb explosion to a possible future time when an older Hulk faces the end of the world. I hope some of the writers who worked on these short stories get to write future Hulk novels.

I've always been a Hulk fan, but I lent it to my boyfriend and nade him a convert as well. Favorite story: "The Samson Journals" by Ken Grobe. A story about the guy who psychoanalyzes ALL THREE of the Hulk's personalities. Pretty cool. Dennis Brabham's take on Rick Jones was great too. Let's see another of these anthologies soon!

The Hulk has probably had the most complicated history of any Marvel superhero, and this anthology covers all of it. I wish there were more of the "merged Hulk" -- he only gets one story, and it's the good-but-not-great "Playing it SAFE" by Keith R.A. DeCandido. Peter David's "The Last Titan" is really really really really great, the perfect ending to his decade writing the Hulk comic. And there isn't a bad story in the entire book -- even the usually-awful Danny Fingeroth's story is good -- and three great ones (by Dennis Brabham, Ken Grobe, and Steve Lyons). I only wish Jason Henderosn, who wrote the fantastic novel _Abominations_, had done a story.

Although it is a 2nd ed., still too many mistakes. Very few explaination. Ridiculously expensive. Not a good buy.

This is a great book and should be widely available as a reference/textbook. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a copy of the book and the book is ridiculously priced for a student (and therefore is unlikely to be purchased by a library). It's a shame that such a great piece of work isn't more easily purchased online or directly from the publisher. I've tried to buy a second copy of the book after finding the first in a book store and am still waiting for it to arrive after ordering the book two months ago.

I would ask the authors to demand, from the publisher, that this outstanding book be made more accessible.

As for the content of the book, the selection of topics and coverage are no less than outstanding. The authors will discuss a topic and then provide an example to illustrate how the topic is applied. Most, if not all, of the fundamental topics in digital communications are covered. Well documented references are provided if the reader desires more information than what's given in the book.

Used at many universities such as Georgia Tech, and as reference as in Valencia Polytechnic University, this is a must read book for every engineer in the world of communications...later it will serve you as a great reference, a good volume for your library. Wish there were more book like this one!! Adeu!

Ever try to look up a word in a 600 page dictionary that isn't in any order known to you? Unless you know this book's secret you'll have to look through the entire book to find your weed, if it's in the book at all. There is a key on page 603 but no instructions on how to use it and the author apparently doesn't return email inquiries. This book is full of great pictures but if you want a book to help you identify a weed in your garden look somewhere else.

A must-have book for gardeners, hikers, rural residences. 100% color photos make it great to ID weeds about the house. Categorized by family so pretty easy to find. Books that have art renderings of plants just don't ID a plant for me, and I'm an artist!
Any negative about the book would be that it could use more descriptive type about the plant.

This book isn't for everyone, but it really fills a gaping hole in the reference library of any gardener interested in the use of native plants, xeriscape gardening, wildflower cultivation, etc. For anyone who has ever let a yard go to seed "just to see what happens" (or dreamed of doing so) this book helps you determine what weeds are really weeds and what weeds are hidden treasures. The book is amply illustrated with photos of both mature plants and seedlings, which helps you determine what to get rid of after monsoon rains have done their part. The descriptions are clear and the index functions fine. Plus I just love the idea of having an entire book on weeds!

The Genesis Debate allows 3 pairs of scholarly authors to present (and dialog on) the 3 most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days. The presented views are the 24-Hour (young earth created in 144 consecutive hours), Day-Age (old earth created over 6 extended periods of time), and Framework (Genesis 1 is a literary expression of actual non-sequential creation events at some unknown time in history). The book format allowed each team to present their view, the other 2 teams respond to that presentation, and then the view presenter responds to the responses. This back and forth format was better than many similar multi-view books.

Norman Geisler gives a very wise forward to the book. He states that "the creation-day debate is not over the inspiration of the Bible, but over it's interpretation...no one holding any of the views should be charged with unorthodoxy for the position he espouses in this volume...the Church needs to shift its focus to the real enemy - evolutionism - not to other forms of creationism that remain true to the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis". I think all believers involved in these discussions would be wise to heed Dr. Geislers advice and lower the intensity and frequency of their attacking of one another.

The 24-Hour view based their arguments primarily on tradition. They went to great lengths to show how most interpreters in the early history of the church (pre-1800) held a view similar to theirs. They also presented a bible overview of various verses that speak of creation. The main weaknesses (pointed out by the other scholars) of their presentation is that tradition has been wrong in the history of the church. While tradition is important, if evangelicals/protestants thought it was the ultimate authority then the reformation would never have occurred. The second weakness of their presentation was that their Bible overview had virtually nothing that contradicted the other two views. The verses basically all supported the concept that God performed special creation (something the other two views agree with).

The Day-Age view based most of their arguments on how well scientific discoveries correlate with the sequence of events in Genesis 1. The science presented was very convincing. Unfortunately, neither of the other 2 teams had the knowledge or inclination to dialog on any of those issues (other than a few feeble attempts to instill doubt in the scientific evidence). Perhaps another book where the 24-hour vs. Day-Age view, focussing primarily on scientific evidence, would be good. Another major facet of this presentation was to show how various Hebrew words have multiple meanings (e.g. yom - 24-hours, daylight period, or unknown period of time). There was some good dialog, especially between the Framework and Day-Age teams, on these lexical type issues.

The Framework view (surprising to myself) was actually the most interesting. They went into great depth of exegesis on Genesis 1 and several other creation related passages. Though I'd not seriously studied this view before, I found myself more persuaded by their presentation than either of the other two (though I wasn't convinced, I was persuaded to consider this a viable and legitimate option). Interestingly, Framework holders can believe in either a young earth or an old earth, since (as they interpret) the issue of "when" in creation really isn't covered in the text.

Overall, this was a good book. I wouldn't recommend it to someone new to this topic (as some level of previous knowledge is required to follow parts of the presentations), but for someone wanting to expand their understanding of the issues and read a relatively polite dialog on an often heated issue this is about the best book I've come across.

In getting two Young-Earth proponents to debate their ideas in a civilized format with proponents of other views, the editors of this volume have more than earned their 5 stars (I'd give them six if six were an option). Young Earth'ers are vociferous dogmatics who routinely castigate other believers as heretics for not subscribing wholeheartedly to their particular interpretation of Genesis - in arranging for a fair debate between Young Earth creationists and other scholars, this book reveals how Biblically hollow and unsatisfying Y.E. arguments really are. I was literally shocked to the point of revulsion at how weak YEC theories are - all the YEC team did was assert that ALL prescientific Biblical commentators (Calvin, Luther, various church fathers) believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old and that anyone with another view was a liberal-compromiser with evil "science." The YEC team's assertation that all pre-1800 Christians believed in a young earth was quickly shown to be false (although the YECs refused to accept the truthfulness of the Old Earth team's quotes!), and the YEC team was unable or unwilling to interact with or deal with the scientific evidence or the Biblical evidence. I came away from the YEC essays with a profound feeling of disgust at how so many Christians can be seduced by this blatantly false ideology.

But the book does one better: rather than casting the debate as strictly old earth vs. young earth, the book gets to the heart of the problem: how is the Bible rightly interpreted? Proponents of the Framework theory point out that the Bible is a literary account of creation, not a scientific one, and debates about how old the earth is may be scientifically interesting, but they simply aren't Biblically relevant. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is - it tells us that God created us in his image to love and know him, and man is lost because of disobedience.

I was raised, like many, to believe in Creation Science, but immediately I was unconfortmable with the position. The old-earth or "Day-Age" theory appealed to me, but I never felt that theory was 100% right. I am not a scientist, and I cannot debate the fine points of geology or chemistry. I do, however, have a degree in literature and an advanced degree in Writing. When I applied the techniques of my own discpline to Genesis, I arrived at the Framework view. The Genesis story has plain symbolic elements (e.g., the Snake), and from a literary standpoint, it's a parable. It is not against a "literal" interpretation of the Bible to say that a portion of the Bible with obvious symbolic elements is, well, symbolic. Even the most literalistic among us routinely recognizes this quality in other portions of Scripture, and even within Genesis 1 itself. (Relatively few people will argue that man really fell simply due to a talking snake...particularly since the Bible later informs us that the Snake was a symbol of Satan.) I'm glad that my insight was not an aberration, and that this view point is in the ascendency. I greatly respect Hugh Ross and other old earth creationists, but even their reasonable attempts to reconcile a literalistic reading of Genesis with modern cosmology, while a vast improvement over YEC theories, aren't really faithful to the Bible's own character. I work with engineers, and I know that scientific people are often very literal in their mindset and aren't the best people to interpret a poetic text. English majors are the ones who really have the goods on Genesis 1, and debates on the earth's age belong wholly outside any discussion about the meaning of Genesis 1.

Critique:

Each of the three pairs of authors have contributed something vital to the Genesis 1 discussion for which they should be commended and thanked for their time and effort. Duncan and Hall have rightly reminded the reader of the dangers that conformity to the present age presents to every generation. Their appeal to past interpreters further reminds us of the dangers of "novel" thinking and the importance of an orthodox consensus. Ross and Archer bring with them an arsenal of scientific understanding that has been used by the unbelieving community to attack the Bible and have sought to use it in support the Bible. They have found no reason to reject the Bible in the name of science. Their efforts affirm that the Bible can be reasonably interpreted without compromising inerrancy or a critically scientific mind. Irons and Kline offer a strongly textual argument reminding the reader that the Genesis 1 text had and has primarily a theological and a literary meaning. By offering an exegetical and theological argument that leaves ample room for secondary apologetic considerations.

Of the three arguments presented, the strongest by far is the framework view. Irons and Kline have put together an impressive work of exegesis and theological erudition that places the biblical text in its proper place without snubbing a literal treatment of the text or sidelining the concerns of science. On the other hand, Duncan and Hall do not present a unified and exegetically convincing argument. Too much rests upon the lexical use of a single word divorced from a broader context. Ross and Archer similarly offer a minimal amount of exegetical work and only that for which accommodates their pre-commitment to make science fit the textual data.

Presuppositions become clear in this discussion. The 24-hour view and the day-age view appear to come to the text with a strong commitment to something other than letting the text speak for itself. Duncan and Hall even chide Irons' and Kline's work for doing this. Yet the chiding reveals that they themselves have not done this. Duncan and Hall are set against a conformist's view and see anything less than a belief in their view as a compromise to worldliness. But the accusation only stands if the biblical text demonstrates their view convicingly. And while in actuality it might, it does not in their presentation. Their constant appeal to church tradition rather than a fully orbed exegesis appears to show a failing in their argumentation. Other voices have to shore up where textual evidence has fallen short.

Ross and Archer show a pre-commitment even more strongly than Duncan and Hall. They are unabashed about their belief in certain facts of science as irrefutable, requiring the text to accommodate for them. They assert that general revelation ought to share a proper place alongside special revelation. But in practice, it seems that general revelation is taken as "fact" whereas special revelation is subject to interpretation and is more subjective, thus the Bible can bend in places where its strict literalness can be questioned. Here Ross and Archer have not demonstrated the awareness that science is just as subjective and involving interpretation as biblical exegesis. Not only are the scientific "facts" today often overthrown or changed tomorrow, but most importantly, while the "facts" do not lie, the way they are interpreted, handled, systematized, and shown in relation to other facts (which cannot be avoided in any knowledge-based inquiry) is absolutely a matter of interpretation. The most recent hermeneutical discussions have not only crossed philosophy, theology and linguistics but are now branching into the realm of science which is beginning to see that it, indeed, involves interpretations of facts and the use of models to generate systems of knowledge. Ross and Archer seem to take the "facts" of science too much for granted, not allowing for immense complexity involved in moving from observation of phenomena, to understanding of said phenomena, to extrapolation of said phenomena from present observation to past reality, and then to abstract principles that govern theological issues such as creation. Each of these steps involve many levels of interpretation, especially since no one ever has "all the facts" even in scientific inquiry.

Hence, the approach of Irons and Kline not only takes us back to the proper focus-- the text-- but also to the proper focus of the text which is theological and practical issues. Since it is a theological conclusion we are attempting to reach, priority is placed rightly by Irons and Kline in the exegesis of the text rather than upon science or an appeal to a single lexical term or to church history. Duncan and Hall claim that when all is said and done the 24-hour view will stand when science and novel interpretations have fallen away. What is more accurate is that the Biblical teachings will endure when all else has fallen away, and Duncan and Hall have asserted more than successfully argued that their interpretation is the correct one. Irons and Kline have presented a more biblically convincing argument and have used their space in their essay to argue the text of Genesis 1.

Overall, the book was interesting, readable, and helpful in understanding three of the major views on the debate. I commend and recommend it highly.

Mr Lowry does a very good job at conveying a great deal of Aikido's Aiki-jo. One does need to know a little about the basics of aiki-jo for some of this to make sense, however this book is a great text for the practioner who can't always get to an established instructor. I have found it to be quite helpful when I reach a stumbling block and I can't remember exactly how to do a specific move.

Dave Lowry clearly explains the basics of Jo technique with a fairly complex Kata at the end that unifies most of the moves taught. Care should be taken to notice how the hands shift from position to position, as many times they 'flip' over during the movement (something the author doesn't often specify).

"Johnny Appleseed: My Story" mixes what little is known about John Chapman with some of the legends and tall tales that sprang up about Johnny Appleseed. Johnny comes visiting at the home of Beth and Will's family, having walked 20 miles for a taste of their ma's pie. Around the fire that night Johnny tells the story of his life, embellished with some details that even Johnny has to admit are not true. Told by David L. Harrison and illustrated by Mike Wohnoutka, this book is aimed at Step 2 readers in Grades 1-3. The story covers all of the basics of the legend of Johnny Appleseed and the artwork provides a warm depiction of the man. After reading this book, young students will have a better understanding of what things are said to be as American as apple pie.

This is an engaging story with wonderful illustrations!

Excellent story book, keeps my impatient 3 year old transfixed page after page thanks to the terrific stories and outstanding illustrations. Wish there wer more books like this around, a must have for your kids!

I received this book when I was little, and I remember being mesmerized by it. I'm glad I kept it, because I've had the pleasure of reading it to my young stepson over and over. When asked what he wants to read before going to bed, he usually answers, "The Giant Book!! All three stories!!" Plus, before each story, there are limericks that always make him laugh. This book is a great find!

I read this book to my children in Germany 25 years ago. I found a used copy recently here in Houston and am going to buy several new copies for my present and future grandchildren. Very comforting to read! Erda Hillmann Houston, TX

As an all-inclusive reference on Drafting theory and practice, this is as good a book as any. However: Having used it as a teaching text, I found an inexcusable number of mistakes in the end-of-chapter exercises. The dimensions simply don't stack up! My advice: Go over them yourself first, time permitting, before assigning them to your classes. Perhaps (hopefully) this has been/will be corrected in later editions. Also: Board drafting is a dying art. Thus, while opening chapters on theory and sketching methods should be retained, more emphasis must now be placed on CAD (not "CADD"); specifically, 3D CAD and downstream processes.

This is not a review. I am the author. Your catalog lists Engineering Drawing and Design by David A. Madsen (Editor). I am not the editor. I am the author. Can you please remove the work (Editor) from this listing?

Thank you.

This book describes it all, gives the rules of the road for the changes that have occured in the last number of years in ANSI callouts, Geometric Tolerancing, ASME, and ISO practices. I've been in this business since '76 on the drafting board, and since '86 with CADD (Computer Aided Drafting & Design) and have watched the skills of knowing how to draft (a distinct language of its own) and the elements of design and engineering fall by the wayside in general as the focus now by our educators and companies is more about learning to and running a CADD program, making a picture than following the skills and practices of drafting, design, and engineering. Students today need to get back to "walking" (learning drafting) before they "run" with a CADD program. This book addresses what is necessary to create drawings and design the parts as they should be. I highly recommend it to anyone conscientiously wanting to really learn to do the job right and/or to hone their skills.

Lots of Thurston, Mike Watt & Lee Renaldo, some David Yow, only one entry from Courtney and none from Stephen Malkmus, so the title is a little misleading. If you're a Beck fan, you'll love his entries. They're the best of the bunch. He describes the world as he sees it in Beck-style free-form, without bashing his fellow performers. Thurston's entries are almost entirely in strangely self-righteous defense of Kathleen Hanna and an incident in which he was not even involved, which is a waste. The last I heard, Kathleen is more than capable of speaking for herself so his defense of her/bashing of Courtney is unnecessary. I expected and would have preferred more insight into the Lollapalooza performing experience.

Here is a low priced little book with lots of journal entries from Thurston Moore and Lee Ranaldo, quite a few from Beck and a couple others (but the others don't contribute too much). It is a very interesting inside look at one of the most vividly remembered tours in independent rock history. A lineup featuring the likes of these many performers will probably never cross the U.S. again in my lifetime. The Kathleen Hanna incident doesn't actually dominate Thurston's entries, but takes up a large chunk of his journals. Beck's entries are great. David Yow doesn't say too much... One overriding theme is how big of a jerk Courtney Love really is. There are plenty of little interesting stories relayed along the way. Don't miss out you Sonic Youth and Beck fans! And for all those who still remember being at one of these shows, it might be interesting to hear what was going on behind the scenes.

In 1995, the Lollapalooza maelstron plundered thru the cities & towns of America, a [diamond] sea of noise & beats changing lives & generally having fun. That's what I'm lead to believe anyway. Thurston is more or less the star here as he was in 1991: the Year Punk Broke, & there's some other cool & crazy kids there too. He writes in his typically amusing & insightful style about the Mexican food, the backstage parking that's reserved strictly for Hole & how Kim has to pretend to be Courtney so SY's car can get in, & how Bek was outraged by this, the Kathleen vs Courtney thing, the crowds disappearing when SY are last on the bill, etc. Lee Ranaldo also writes from the sonic perspective, of course in his more contemplative style usually except when he gets pissed off he shows it. Well, to be honest, I've read these things as they were intended, as computer things so I didn't get everything, I'd very much like to hear what the great Beck had to say about it as well. Yeah the show goes on eevry year but that was the one that mattered. Very interesting reading that you can go back to many times for enlightenment/amusement.