I have to help my 5th. Grade daughter to understand this book, can anybody help me first! If you have read and have a summary could you share! Thanks

I can tell you this is probablt the hardest book you'll ever read. Its uses differrent language that you cannot understand. The boy Jethro talks so wierd my mom couldnt even understand. If you have this book as a book report tell the teacher everyone who read it told you it was hard because it really is. I have a Civil War book report due and I picked this book because my brother read it but he's some kind of genius. So I hope this will help you to pick another book.Unless your in Middle School or 8th Grade this book is way to hard unless your some kind of genius.

This is a very good book and the writer has great taste, it is boring at first though. I know that i wouldn't want my book to be talked bad about, so I will say that you should definitely get this book, but don't expect something right off the bat. Read it and about in the middle, it'll get good!

As a college student in a second year french class, I can easily tell you that my french I and french II books from high school were better. I find it difficult to learn the language when various words are dispersed throughout an intensive culture lesson. That's basically what the book is: english text about french culture, with an average of about 6 french words per page. After each culture lesson, there is a page of expressions that students are expected to just memorize. The text does nothing to really teach the mechanics of the language. While the book may be a good alternative to a phrase book when travelling to a french-speaking country, the book has missed it's targeted goal to actually teach fluency in a foreign language

The book's assumption is that we can learn a foreign language the way we learn our native one by hearing it. However our native language surrounds us 24 hours a day. The book's title is substandard French as is some of the text. It is not made clear which is and which is not. The basic grammar rules are not explained or reinforced leaving students to puzzle over a language construction. While they may parrot phrases I have noted they have a lot of problems with construction because they don't know the rules.

A must is the workbook and the tapes if you intend to use this system. The workbook has meatier grammar skills than the text. The tapes have rapid-fire speakers that are hard for first year students to understand. The tapes are conversations not repetition exercises. The intent is to gain understanding of the conversation however when one doesn't know the words or how they are said it is hard to follow or understand at the pace the speakers set. There are a nice variety of voices but in learning attempting to adjust to someone who is very soft-spoken may not be the best idea. Clarity in speakers would be much nicer since the idea is to learn French at this stage. The conversational reinforcement for the chapters is lacking.

Advice: Save your money and look elsewhere. At least look at the book and system personally before buying and compare with other systems. Plus: colorful text and good

it's very elementary so for a college or high school student it might be a little boring, but for someone who has never taken french or another romance language, it's a good introduction.

This is a horrible book. Rice claims on page 22 that Plato did not understand the fact/value distinction. This is absurb; moreover, it is Rice who is baffled by the fact/value distinction as is evidenced in the example he gives. He says water has two hydrogen molecules for every one oxygen molecule. He calls this a fact. He says a chemistry professor who stated that this was unjust, would be making a 'value' statement, an absurb normative arguement since tha 'fact' is so obvious. But is it? In truth, the 'fact' of H2O is a product of a 'value'; the scientific or philosophical 'value' that originated in Greece before Socrates and was made possible for human beings through the life and work of Thales, Socrates, Plato et al. The 'value' to look at water in a scientific way- to discover it's molecular composition, as opposed to simply drinking it or worshipping it, as is still done today by Priests who sprinkle drops on the head of newborns in front of church congregations, is the philsophic 'value'. Plato understood the fact/value distinction and rejected it. He tried to define philosophy as a search for truth, a serch for what is, this 'value' precedes any 'fact'. Again, on page 22, ice moronically states that Plato thought values were facts. Garbage! Plato articulated the exact opposite opinion, he struggled to show 'facts' were 'values'. This is what is radical about philosophy and why Socrates had to die at the hands of the state, he undermined common beliefs, religious myths and laws. Rice has inherited this endevour without fully understanding t's origins. He has no right to interpret 'The Republic', if right is understood as being correct or accurate. He impairs direct access to Plato's texts by skewing the words with his own unexamined prejudices. He is a modern day Thrasymachus teaching for money and wasting his time 'interpreting' Plato to his tution paying students. This book is pitiful because it robs a student of an education; it fails to treat the dialogue as a dramatic work abd hodge-podge picks out things to further his own unexamined assumptions and academic conceits. For shame- the book is unjust.

This book is clearly written, and broadens the debate towards later philosophers who were inspired by the Republic. As to the fact/value distinction (see the previous review of this book), it was indeed not used by Plato (as Rice correctly explains) since it is Hume who is credited with creating these concepts.
Rice writes on p. 22:
"Plato does not divide the cosmos into a world of facts, which we can know through the senses disciplined through the methods of the sciences, and a world of values, which we can know through normative inquiry. Rather, the whole cosmos is a moral one through and through; NATURE (the Greek word is Physis) includes not only facts such as those regarding water, but also facts about values, and sure knowledge of nature only comes through philosophy."
But this book is to short to be of any real use for an in-depth reading of the Republic. For example the crucial allegory of the Cave is only discussed in 1 & 1/2 pages. The best guides for a serious study of the Republic remain, in my opinion, Julia Annas' and Nicholas White's.

Allready sai

As an avid Burroughs collector, I awaited the receipt of "Collecting Edgar Rice Burroughs" with great anticipation. After reading the book, I debated whether to return it for a refund. It is of almost no value to a collector. First, it contains no information about any of the Tarzan books. Secondly, it contains no information or valuation for any of the A.L. Burt or Grosset and Dunlap editions of Burroughs books. Thirdly, valuations for first editions are only given with the dust jacket, no value is given for the book without the dust jacket. Fourthly, the values given for those first editions are grossly inflated. I regularly buy those same books in Burroughs auctions for approximately 1/10th the price at which Erardi valuates them. Fifthly, none of the information needed to discriminate between a first edition and a second printing is given.

There is really very little information in this book. It consists mostly of color pictures of various dust jackets and paperback and pulp covers. If pictures of the artwork are what you want, this is the book for you. If you are looking for a reference book to help in your collecting of Edgar Rice Burroughs, look somewhere else.

Rice's primary purpose of this short book appears to be to counter Paul Feldstein's Health Care Economics text. Mr. Rice must have spent all weekend writing this disappointing book, which meanders through the whole spectrum of health care socialism.

It was written in 1993. If you're a technical professional, stay far, far away from this title. It is 114 pages that could have been boiled down to a quick reference card. Twenty pages alone are dedicated to e-mail in HP-UX.

Some of the tips:

"Try moving your mouse around on its pad; you should see an arrow move across your scren..."

"Check mail regularly... mail that could be read and deleted takes up valuable disk space"

This was a waste of $29.95. I urge anyone who considers it to look elsewhere.

Texas certainly needs a good book on its flag history; unfortunately, "Flags of Texas" isn't that book. This is a revision of "A Concise History of Early Texas" (1964), which itself was based on the Mamie Wynne Cox's greatly flawed "The Romantic Flags of Texas" (1936).

Mistakes abound--the silly conception of the "Indian Flag," the use of archaic French and Spanish flags no longer in use at the time of the exploration of Texas, the use of the current Mexican flag when the text speaks of "Mexico's Historic Flag," a discussion of the "De Zavala Flag" when no such flag existed, the apocryphal designation of Charles Stewart as the designer of the current Lone Star Flag, and the statement that the Confederate "Star and Bars Flag" was "the first official Confererate flag." There is no bibliography, probably because most--if not all--of the research came from reading Mamie Wynne Cox's book.

Fortunately Texas flag scholarship is improving with newer works such as Alan K. Sumrall's "Battle Flags of Texas in the Confederacy" and flag entries in "The New Handbook of Texas."

The disk basically provides what any good workbook would do.