He lost his virginity at the age of 51, and his poetry undoubtedly got a great deal better afterwards. Political claptrap marred his works and spoilt some vaguely pleasant ideas. I am afraid that any man who spends his entire life concerning himself with politics and Celtic twilight missed a great deal of the reality of life. However, I am inclined to attribute a great deal of this to Ms Gonne, who without a shadow of a doubt was the main factor responsible for his horrendous 'Helen of Troy' images. To any student studying this text, I would urge them to remember Dr Derek Pezrekier's pithy comment at a lecture given at Berkley University, California: "Mr Yeats - what did you spend the money on?" to which a student replied "What money?" "The money your mother gave you for brain surgery.".

The book contains information from the 1980's which by today's standards is history. If you live in a 3rd world country than some of these techniques will work...but if you live in the US, you best surf the net for info.

The chapters looked promising but the content fell short. The author attempted to expand the variables of knowledge often offered up to the phlebotomist by adding chapters that included Complications of Phlebotomy, Phlebotomy Department Management and Total Quality in Phlebotomy Service. Unfortunately the research for even the basic chapters fell short and relied on antiquated methodologies, technologies, standards and accepted practices. The bibliography offered at the end of each chapter reflected the use of appropriate agencies and literature, but from standards or information accepted five or ten years ago. With the ever-changing winds of healthcare even last years information can be too old. I would not recommend this to students who are attempting to take their national certification. The information given does not necessarily reflect the answers you will need to give on the national test(s). Some of the information offered in this book was interesting and well founded but if you don't already know the answers you're left wondering which parts you can trust for their accuracy.

It is difficult to see why a retired British army colonel would want to write this book, which is a summarized history of the French and Indian War (1755-1763). There is little new to offer in this account, since the author relies heavily on timeworn secondary sources such as Parkman from 1884 and Fortescque from the 1920s. A professional military officer might have added value through in-depth analysis, but this is sacrificed for brevity. Adding insult to injury, the book is poorly-written and in particular, the author should be cited for excessive use of the exclamation point (usually a bad sign in a history book).

Throughout the book, Williams displays a casual attitude toward historical fact and statistics. For example, the author writes that in 1754, [Governor] Dinwiddie...selected [George] Washington, now a colonel, with 300 men from his militia to attack Fort Duquesne.." However, Washington's mission was defensive - to construct forts on the Virginia frontier - and he had only 160 Virginia provincial troops (who were not militia). In the 1758 Louisburg campaign, after the surrender of the fortress, Williams claims that, "one thousand of their comrades [the French] lay dead among the ruins". In fact, French army losses in the Siege of Louisburg were 102 killed. In the 1758 Ticonderoga Campaign, Williams also fumbles on the description of the key skirmish at Bernetz Brook on 6 July, writing that, "in the skirmish which followed, Howe, shot through the heart, was killed instantly, with 300 of his companions". In fact, British losses in this skirmish were fewer than 100, but French losses were about 300 killed, wounded and captured. These examples demonstrate how error-prone and unreliable this account is and also the author's failure to properly research his subject.

Mr.Levin's thinking can hardly be charicterized as rational. I was in a course of his at UC Davis, in which I experienced his thinking first-hand. His logic and his anything-but-linear mode of thought would drive even the most patient individual absolutely nuts. I dropped his course after 2 and a half weeks, but sometimes at night it still haunts me. This book is not recommended either.

To read Professor Marszalek`s book, Sherman and the Civil War Press, first published in 1981, and re-issued in `99 one would come away with the distinct impression that General Sherman was sitting in his tent at Paducah, at Pittsburg Landing, at Memphis, at Chickasaw Bayou etc., etc., wracking that quite outstanding brain of his, not on how to defeat the rebels but plotting the systematic downfall of all reporters. If asked to swallow Marszalek`s assertions and emphasis, the average reader might well find themselves putting down, what is afterall merely an extended thesis, something one might jot off for a P.hd, asking the question, how then did General Sherman manage to Capture Atlanta, make Georgia howl, and march 62,000 men through the Carolinas if he spent his every waking moment agonizing over " pestifirous newshounds" ? The answer is, of course, he didn`t! Lashing out at the reporters who crowded his camps merely to write up stories coloured by the personal views of the enlisted men and predjudiced by the self-glorifying comments of political generals such as John McClernand and Frank Blair was just one more aspect of Sherman`s multi-layed and complicated charactor. He was one of those people who throughly enjoy confrontation, he thrived on, was inspired by, what Londoners nowadays might term "aggro" - But Marszalek would have us believe that compared to the court martial of Knox and the discouraging of other scribblers the rebellion that was tearing his nation apart was a side show. The author portrays the General as wishing to muffle a free press - but if we put this desire into the context of this century`s conflicts, notably The Gulf War, we will realise just how vital, necessary it was to advocate General Sherman`s view - why should the enemy employ spies when the newspapers and T.V. are only too willing to share our military secrets? It is also important to remember, a fact that Marszalek conveniently forgets, that Mr Lincoln refused publishers the right to use the trains to transport their newspapers, even closed a couple when they came close to treason in their editorials. No one called him insane or obssessed. Much of this book is merely a fast track re-hash of Marszalek`s often inaccurate biography of the great General - inaccurate in fact and in analysis and conclusion. I would like to say that what the professor lacks in content and accuracy he makes up for in style - I would like to say it, but unfortunately I cannot, for Marszalek has no style. Stringing together sentances to make chapters, is not style. I wish the professor luck in finding another subject, I think he has taken this one as far as he can. It is fortunate for the professor and other Sherman biographers that the General is not alive today for he most certainly would have made THEM the object of his ire in a book to be entitled " Sherman`s third War - The General and Bad biographies." Since there was no " nil stars" rating I gave it one star for subject matter.

It is not a book but just copy of 21 page report which related to police laser gun ticket. If you were lawyer and your client got a ticket from police, it would help to reduce a fine. I returned this book as soon as I opened the box.

When it was announced that the Catholic University of America Press would publish a portion of William Tyndale's works, there was skepticism as to their intent. After all, why would a Catholic press publish the writings of the man who struck such a fatal blow to Papal power in Europe; and who provided the world with the English Bible, which the Papacy had tried to prevent by tortures and murders? A review of Word, Church, and State edited by Anne M. O'Donnell, S.N.D. (Sisters of Notre Dame) shows this skepticism was well founded.

The book is 343 pages and consists of papers presented in Washington, D.C. at a Tyndale conference convened by Miss O'Donnell in 1994. Of the 30 papers presented at the conference, 20 were selected, and then edited for publication by Miss O'Donnell and two scholars she selected.

In the book's introduction, Miss O'Donnell gives an overview of the book's contents. Here the reader is informed that the papers selected will provide the reader with a scholarly review of various aspects of William Tyndale's writings. The papers are presented as taking the reader to the 'grammatical depths', 'the theoretical heights' and finally to 'the aphoristic levels' where 'we breathe more easily.' We read comments such as 'McCutcheon sensitively contrasts the thirteen letters of More and Tyndale', and 'with this thorough assessment of Tyndale's opinions on English foreign policy'. In fact, the papers, for the most part, are neither thorough nor sensitive. As 'Biblical scholars' have developed the Documentary Hypothesis to tear down the Word of God, so Miss O'Donnell has denigrated the writings of William Tyndale under the guise of scholarism.

The only valuable paper this reviewer found was the first paper by Mr. David Daniell and Mr. Daniell's writings can be found elsewhere. By the time the reader finishes the book he will have been told that Mr. Tyndale's writings are arrogant; that his arguments for providing the English Bible are 'hypocritical'; that Mr. Tyndale made himself a 'mediator' between God and man; that his doctrine is 'contradictory'; that he was completely 'ignorant' of English foreign policy; and that there are ''gaps and inconsistencies' between Tyndale's theory and practice.' Not surprisingly, Mr. Tyndale's view that the Pope is the antichrist is denigrated. Tyndale's translation of the word 'ecclesia' as 'congregation' and his theological position on the 'bread and wine' are undermined with sophistry. Finally , we are told that Tyndale 'regularly appropriated [plagiarized] the words of others' &c.

This reader is left with the conclusion that the little praise Tyndale receives is feigned to appear as though the scholars are 'fair' in their treatment of Tyndale. If you enjoy the writings of William Tyndale, save your money for writers such as Mr. David Daniell.