Pub Weekly clearly didn't find the right reviewer in this instance. The is a fairly far-out book, but one that I've been drawn to over and over, the way the book itself is in constant flux, allowing you to follow the delicious "footnotes" or reading straight through. Readers like myself, intellectual poachers, find other ways to follow the book's many threads. The best way to describe it might be to compare it to the late novels of Samuel Beckett, the forceful quiet, the urgent diminutive, spacey and yet faintly ethical, even ecological obsessions. The music in this long poem is soft, but profoundly compelling: not unlike the dadaist composer Eric Satie...the stucture, form, and traces of melody all return and you intuitively come to understand their logic. As a young poet interested in learning to push the range of my own writing, I learned a tremendous amount from this book: ambition and restraint. It is one of the least academic books of poetry to come out in a long time.

This book is without any doubt the best english language book on the subject of physical education. It is very good for the sports oriented individual who needs to have a broader and at the same time deeper view on the subject of physical education and sports also it is a very good undergraduate textbook.

This book is for anyone who ever wanted the inside information on how some of sports top exuctives got their start. I was delighted to see that all contributors mentioned internships in their personal climb to the top. The book and its contents inspired me to work hard from the bottom of the job totem pole to the top. The book also gave practical information on how to get started and who to talk to. I would recommend this book to anyone graduating from college and those who are already in the field for some insiders advice. A very insightful and interesting book!

There is a good deal to recommend this book. It is for the most part well-written, and the idea behind the book is outstanding. However I have quite a few problems with it. The opening tale by John Tynes is somewhat too short to overcome by backstory and characterization a rather ugly incident that takes place within it, equating experience with the Deep Ones to a version of combat syndrome, and that taints the rest of the book. Other tales fare somewhat better, and have some very thought-provoking concepts, adding a bit of science fiction to the world of the Mythos. One can become a ghoul, for instance, by reading a certain book, and a certain Great Old One can tear holes in the spacetime continuum in order to attract males for her followers (kind of silly, but effective within the tale). On the whole, I liked it, but for me that is the crux of the biscuit-I wanted to love it, and did not. Fell far short of the expectations that were engendered in me by the blurbs on the back cover and the front cover recommendation from Lucius Shepard. Can't give it a thumbs-up, but worth looking at if you have the money. Slim for the price.

I really enjoyed reading this book. As with any collection of short stories, I liked some more than others, but there were none in here that I didn't like. There were a couple that I consider to be real gems. My only real complaint is that it's not much book for 12 bucks. It's about half an inch thick, with eight stories in it. I guess maybe it's priced higher than most paperback books because of the cost involved for a small company to have smaller quantities of a book like this printed, but I must admit I was a bit disappointed with it in this respect.

I have always been a fan of way-out-there lunatic sci-fi/horror but unfortunatly most of the sci-fi and horror out there is just really insipid banal mainstream garbage. This book is different, the stories pull no punches and will blow you away. There is some violent violence and BIZZARE sexual stuff in this book so it is probably NOT for kids. Highly recommended and far better than the other Delta Green fiction "Rules of Engagement."

This book is a must have for anyone interested in PR. It is up to date and illustrates all the relevant forces working in PR. It also outlines application and startegy for an effective PR campaign. Along with this book, I would also recommend Michael Levine's Guerill PR Wired, which is also a must have for anyone remotely interested in PR.

Whether you are a student or a pr practitioner, this book clearly tells you what Public Realtions is all about. Plus, you won't waste your money on this. It is up to date with the latest trends affecting PR, like laws, cases, and technology. I highly recommend this to all people who are interested in public relations. I have read many pr books but this one tops it all.

Alright, it has a couple of tips for a Disney World type haunted house, not a haunted house where you go in to get scared and run from masked killers or what have you. But it's okay though, a bit out-dated now since it's from the eighties I think. A lot of it is for making a haunted house for your school or church. not that much for professional things. but it helps open your imagination and for that I call it a good book.

I bought this book back in the late 80's. It sparked my imagination well and led to the creation of some fantastic haunted houses I created over several years. I only wish I still had the time!

I read this book back in the 80s. It was an inspiration to start my own haunted attraction called - Spookyworld Themepark in the Boston area. We spook over 150,000 people each October and owe alot to the author of this book ! Thank you Mr. Morris. david bertolino/spookyworld,inc.

The sample questions at the end of chapters and the exam prep questions on CD are NOTHING like the actual exams. They provide no help. I found numerous factual errors in these books. Many questions on the real exam could not be answered even using the book as a reference. Do not count on these books as your primary study guide or source of information.

These books are very well written, making them easy to read and understand. The content layout is well layed out with reference to the exam objectives, making it easy to see exactly what is required for the exam. The content I found to be sufficient for the exam but they do have minor bits of information missing. The practice exams usually identified these bits of information to me, so overall I consider the content to be adequate. The practice exams were a valuable aid in preparation for the exam, and were not too far away from what the real exam is like. These books are far better than the Sybex books that I used for the elective exams (they too have information missing). The Sybex books were difficult to understand and each exam objective was not clearly explained.

This book covers all aspects of the NT side of the MCSE quite well. It is written in a clear style and comes with lots of labs and exercises.

The book is complete and detailed. It gives the conmputer developer what they need to know in order to comply with EDI standards

The panacea for today is "conversation". It's almost like the haunting caricature of the intransigent fundamentalist Bob Jones Sr. becoming an actual reality: "What did the evangelical say to the liberal"? I'll call you a Christian if you'll call me a scholar." How long will it take before we Evangelicals realize the sufficiency of our orthodox theological heritage? True enough their is always room for improvement, we are not God, but until we have culled more than the surface of our own theological\philosophical resources and have done so standing with historical confessional integrity; conversation proves little more than concession and honest critical anamnesis aqueicense. Is it not obvious that the hue and cry of antifoundationalism assumes its own self defeating foundations and to retort with accusations of logical imperialism nothing more than the same? Where is the virtue of intellectual honesty? As long as all parties are agreed, for instance - the reality of entering such dialogue in the first place, logic is just grand (not to mention - academic grandstanding), but the minute monologue replaces dialogue foul is invoked. As if human fallibility and/or limitation in some areas can not be overcome through tacit knowledge (Michael Polanyi) or even fortify the truth inadvertently in others; not to mention ontological intrinsicallity. This is not to say that Christians can not glean from the contributions of our interlocutors. However, it does mean that to initially and voluntarily fail to exhaust our efforts to retain historic understandings (possibly considering the interest of historic "others" before our own, "hmmm what a novel idea")- especially of those we know unambiguously were of our own - is to be disingenuous on the one hand and slothful on the other. Our onto-theological resources are as expansive as creation and as the inescapable "foundation" this "Word of God" speaks loudest. Does saying it loud enough long enough really make it True? Contrary to the musings of the so - called postliberals, their own lives betray their thoughts, let it not be so for those who, even as the Apostle Paul, defiantly answer with an affirmative!

First, let me begin by saying that if you know nothing about foundationalism after this book you definitely will. If you already know what it is the repetition is almost mind-numbing. Anyway, this book is a conversation between evangelicals and postliberals that seeks areas of convergence as well as possible conflicts. Lindbeck notes, however, that it might not be easy to compare the two since postliberalism is like a formal research plan and evangelicalism is identified with communities, movements, and institutions. That said, the two share in the stress on Jesus Christ as Savior and the Bible serving as a norm for both thought and practice. Part of the postliberal 'research' program emphasizes antifoundationalism and intratextuality. The themes evangelicals appeared to be most concerned about were metaphysical realism, ontological truth, and fideism. Postliberals, in general, are not necessarily antirealistic or obscurantist and they attempt to defuse these claims.
On the evangelical side I enjoyed the articles by McGrath (doctrinal truth), Freeman (spiritual exegesis), and Knight (religious affections with emphasis on Edwards and Wesley). With respect to the postliberals I found the following aspects interesting. Hensley explains that Lindbeck can be read as a metaphysical realist and also makes clear his nuanced view of truth. Kenneson argues that postliberalism is not fideistic or relativistic but has the means for rational testing and change through ad hoc apologetics. Hunsinger explains Hans Frei's ad hoc minimalism in regards to Jesus' historicity in the Gospels. Finally, Lindbeck urges a return to classical hermeneutics with a priority on practice and uses the doctrine of the atonement as an example. Despite the recurrence of discussions on foundationalism, this book is very informative and entertaining. I find it telling that at the end Lindbeck states that if the postliberal research plan has any hope of surviving that it will probably do so under the guidance of Evangelicals.

This is a collection of essays presented in lecture form at the 1995 Wheaton Theology Conference concerning prospects for a consensus between evangelicals and postliberals. It largely succeeds in outlining the areas of agreement between the two. The differences, though, are still substantial.

Postliberals reject inerrancy, a correspondence theory of truth, and the concept of propositional revelation. Largely dependent upon the writings of Karl Barth, its founders (Frei and Lindbeck) stress the narrative quality of the Biblical account and (borrowing from Wittgenstein) describe the church as a language game where doctrines function as grammatical rules.

Because of their dependence on the cultural-linguistic model of theology, they tend to be anti-realist in their metaphysics. The Bible is a narrative that serves as a way to organize, relate to, and explain an otherwise inchoate reality.

Postliberals are antifoundationalist and therefore see systematic apologetics as a misguided task. They prefer an 'ad hoc' apologetic, not bound by an adherence to method, but engaging in a dialogue with the unbeliever. They stress the internal coherence of the Biblical narrative, and the need for theology to be done within the believing community.

The essays are uneven in quality, frustratingly repetitious at times, but generally well-written and helpful. The best of the bunch are Hensley on Postliberalism and Antirealism, Clapp on Evangelicalism and Foundationalism, and Kenneson on Postliberal Theology and the Possibility of Change.

Some of the postliberals who contribute essays display their appalling ignorance of evangelicalism. For example, George Hunsinger criticizes Carl Henry for depending too heavily on historiography for verification of the Bible, a charge that anyone who has read even one of Henry's apologetic works must find astonishingly mistaken.

Gregory Clark, in a piece on worldviews, accuses evangelicals of relying too heavily on philosophy and of treating conversion as a simple paradigm shift. He apparently doesn't realize that the concept of worldview, as evangelicals use it, is roughly equivalent to the postliberal notion of cultural-linguistic framework. Evangelicals don't portray a worldview change as a conversion, but as a result of conversion.

The misunderstanding is not limited to the postlibs, though. David Clark displays his failure to grasp the nature of postfoundationalism in his essay entitled "Relativism, Fideism, and the Promise of Postliberalism."

He wants to reject the classical foundationalist view that knowledge must be founded upon self-evident or incorrigible beliefs, but at the same time to hold that there is a rational way to determine the truth of an ultimate verificational criterion. The 'modest foundationalism' he champions is a foundationalism in name only. I think it is only fideism that has not yet become self-conscious.

Overall, though, The Nature of Confession contains many thought-provoking articles and serves its readers well in identifying the similarities and differences between evangelicals and postliberalism.

This is book is part of Zondervan's Counterpoints series. According to the editors of this work, the purpose is to bring Christian thinkers together to discuss the question of the salvation of non-Christians. The contributors are: (1) John Hick, advocating pluralism; (2) Clark Pinnock advocating inclusivism; (3) Alister McGrath advocating a somewhat exclusivistic position; and (4) R. Douglas Geivett & W. Gary Phillips advocating exclusivism.

As is often the case with this series, the book suffers from poor editing. All of the essays are worth reading, but they generally don't deal with the alleged topic of the book. For example, Prof. Hick tells us that he believes in universal salvation and that he has written a book arguing for this position, but he doesn't give his reasons in the essay. Prof. McGrath touches on the issue, but not in any great detail. Prof. Pinnock deals with the topic in a limited manner. It is only Profs. Geivett & Philips who actually go into the question in some detail. They provide an exegesis of Acts 4:12 and some other passages. However, none of the other contributors responds with any detailed exegesis. What is often seen as the key passage concerning the salvation of non-believers -- Romans 2 -- is only mentioned in passing. So, this book is really a discussion of religious pluralism, not salvation.

In spite of my criticism, I think this book is helpful to anyone who wants a background on the general issue of religious pluralism. If you are looking for a discussion of evangelical views of the salvation of non-believers, then this isn't the place to look.

I like all the differing views. While I am a conservative, I like the other points of view. This series is usually good for exposing differing views.

I was somewhat disappointed in this particular book, since I was hoping it would deal with what salvation means (Saved from what?) and how people are saved. Instead, it focuses exclusively on who may be saved.

Without a good understanding of the meaning of salvation, it is hard to be confident about who it may or may not apply to. However, the WHO question seems to be of more concern than the WHAT, WHY and HOW questions to most people interested in questions of salvation.