This is a rather uninspired book. I found the story line very familiar due to the fact that I think I have seen it in a number of other books. The cast of characters was very small (at least the ones the author spent time on), and they were a bit boring. The one positive was the correctness in the details of the tradecraft used. Why did I finish it? My mother bought it for me at a garage sale and I felt obligated.

This text is highly reductionist. From the beginning his only concern is argue for protecting from monitary loss (he describes unethical behavior based on how much money you loose). In summary this is a book designed to develop a background for understanding why we have corporate security on IT/IS systems. The book really should be titled "MIS and Corporate Security the Current Social Backdrop".

There is nothing real for the student to grab ahold of from an ethical stand point. Use this as source book for indentifying the current trends but don't expect it to cause your students to think.

Richard Grant, the son of the more famous Grant, proves in his own words that a less than intelligent person can succeed, if they are lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family. Grant rambles on and on in this book about how he didn't really know what to do with his life. But it didn't matter, he had a rich daddy. He knew that he would succeed on his name alone, and he did.

There is not really much of anything worthwhile in this poorly written, sorry excuse for a work of literature. This book further proves the old saying: it's not what you know, it's who you know.

As an employee of Reynolds & Reynolds, I was anxious to read this book. It was given to myself and all of the other employees and I enthusiastically opened the cover, hoping to be filled with inspiration and admiration. I got neither.

Freewheeling tells the story of Richard Grant Jr., a man who was born into a wealthy family, was uncertain about his future, but succeeded anyway because of his last name. What I thought would be an inspiring "rags to riches" success story turns out instead to be a biography of a guy with little direction who had a love for cars and boats. Richard's father, Grant Sr., appears to be the real inspiration in the family. It would be interesting to read a book about his life and his ascension to success and fame.

Grant readily admits that his last name helped him. Working for a nepotism- crazed company like I do, I know exactly what he means.

This is the worst Black Lace novel I have ever read, and I've read quite a few. There are too many characters, and they are all interchangeable. There is not one likeable person in the entire book. One knows to expect lots of sex in a Black Lace book, but it gets a little too strange in this book. For instance, there is one man who gets his jollies by making his wife live like a dog, including making her sleep in a dog basket, beg for food under the table, and use a tree instead of a powder room.

If you're looking for a good Black Lace novel, skip the ones by Fleur Reynoldo, unless your taste runs to books featuring cruel, humilating sex scenes strung together by the flimsiest of plot lines.

Terrible, terrible, terrible. There's the expected amount of sex in this book, of various permutations, but the character-development and dialog were just awful. More than once I laughed out loud at the sheer clunkiness of the cliches the author brought into play. The author may learn her craft in time, but the reader is best advised to stay away in the meantime.

Law professors should never co-write a book. Therein no two people should ever co-author a manuscript. It is obvious that Peter Kutner, tort expert, is the predominant voice in this book. Research on the background of Kuter and Reynolds shows a research professor pitted against a trial, classroom professor. Kutner is seen all the over the book due to his complexity. This is why the book is so distasteful is because Kutner like his usual style makes tort law too hard to understand and he cannot communicate effectively. The only area where Kutner shines is in the defamation section. Kutner is an expert at defamation, libel, slander, public figures, the First Amendment, and the best serum against defamation, la verdad: the Truth which as Jesus said sets you free. But, Kutner still cannot communicate the point effectively. For example, Kutner could take a whole hour explaing third party liability and no one would understand. And the simple explination could be done by a high school history professor. If a man parks too far out into the street and one car must pass the wrongly parked car, and thus a wreck insues due to blockage of the street the man who parked wrong is liable. And there you are, the explination. Kutner also shows too much focus on Enlgish common law and there by assumes that the US system of injustice is based on English common law for interpretation of American juris prudence. While study of all forms of law indicate the American system of injustice is based on both common law and statutory law combined. The American system of current injustice is based on the evolution of good statutory law such as the Code of Hamurabi, the Code of Justinian, tribal law (which Osborne Reynolds does write about quite well), the Bible, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the rights of man, and the Bill of Rights itself, definately inspired by Divinity HIMSELF. Also, Kutner does not build up a good background and backup of simple torts in reference to complex Torts 3. People must totally know Intentional Torts, negligence, product liability, etc. to apply to intentional causation of breach of contract or marriage torts. In all, stay away from this book. Stay away from Kutner's classes, because complicated writing leads to complicated discourse which leads to madness on Kutner's final. Finally, stay away from the so called College of Law in which these gentlemen teach. Remember birds of a feather flock together. And in all cases this probably means there are others there who can't explain property law, or make criminal law way too ward due to musician genius, or all zealous in preserving the law school, or just can't help you learn the law. In the end, most of what you study for 400,000 hours to survive and end up to get a B-/C+ from these people is not worth the effort. English common law and American common law/statutory law/historical law mix have nothing in common and should not be based on each other. Trust me I should know about this a little since ah live in Scutland. My voice never seems to translate to enscription.

I can't beleive this book is for ages 9-12. It has adult topics and themes. I don't know what the author was thinking.

It's about a kid name Bernie Magruder. He noticed some strange thing about the Bessledorf Hotel. A lot of bodies in the hotelrooms. The bodies would be there the next day and gone. So, Bernie and his friend Lester made there own case. Jackson Prather did it.This case is closed.

While Reynolds occasionally shows some originality, the majority of this book conatins spells that have already been covered in other forms. The Books of Eldritch Might would be a better bet.

The authors have taken a pick and mix approach to a variety of theories and have come up with a half baked product. If you want counselling theory look up some Rogers; for organisational models try some Weber; for Transactional Analysis refer to Berne or Harris; the list could go on. In this work you will get selections from a number of sources but some key points are overlooked, mis-interpreted or badly applied. Without presenting evidence to support the basis for this editing of other (better) material Client Centered Consulting does not hold water.

It is a real glum book and gives a false impression of thepotential for intellectual property and inventors. He is right thatmost inventions don't make money for the inventors. But this is due to many factors --mostly business and/or marketing skills. Surprisingly, his attitude is typical of some members of inventor's groups. The type that can never get anything off the ground. Who always come up with reasons why something can't be done and if can be done it isn't practical, and it can be done and is practical it shouldn't be done. Why they become members of inventor's associations I'll never know. Perhaps it is just to rain on someone's parade. I would advise people to not waste their money on this book.