The book is a useful analysis of very agressive tactics that sometimes cross over the legal line...I understand the author later spent some time in Jail. It is also nearly 2 decades since this book came to print, so many of the tactics are dated and of little or no use.

Its quiet good book for novices. Using this book we can learn how to create plug-ins and other things like how to install plug-ins, uses etc.,.

I was IMMENSELY disappointed with this book, as I was expecting more versatile information. ALL the scholarships in this book are exclusively limited to schools. But what about the national scholarships that seem to appear throughout the country no matter what school you go to? This book ignores those, and truth be told, you could save yourself the money and just ask the schools that you find in your search what scholarships they offer yourself. I would recommend this book as a good buy.

The problem with this book is that the scholarships listed are based on the SCHOOL/COLLEGE that gives the scholarships. In other words it will list (in alphabetical order) for example: Juilliard. and then tell you the scholarships that JUILLIARD offers. It doesn't have much of a listing of national scholarships that can be used at any school. It makes this book pretty useless, because once you choose what school you're going to, all you need to do is ask the SCHOOL what scholarships they offer. About 95% of this book is useless because 99% of the schools in there were schools I was not going to even APPLY to, so I didn't even need to know their scholarships.

don't get the book, call the school you're going to and ask them. OR search for scholarships on the internet.

The sad fact is that not all schools offer scholarships for students in the arts. On the other hand, almost all schools offer scholarships for athletics. This is one of the few books that brings attention to schools that appreciates those of us in the performing arts. I would choose my school based on this book alone, just because someone in my field is getting money. It's nice to be appreciated. You could simply contact the schools directly, but this is easier and worth the price.

One of my authors asked me recently about whether I wanted footnotes in a piece that he was writing. I told him that if he was making any claims that people might dispute, he should footnote the h... out of it. Michael Shelden doesn't do this. His biography is full of controversial claims but his critical apparatus is very weak. In fact, one of his claims, that a gardener at an uncle's home was a central figure in his life, doesn't seem to have any documented source at all.

If the claims were restricted to gardeners, this would not be an important detail, but Shelden makes an assortment of claims, identifying Greene as a homosexual, an antisemite, a closet fascist, and even insinuates that Greene was a murderer as well. Of all of these claims, only the antisemitism claim seems to have any merit and what merit there exists is for a weaker antisemitism than Shelden claims. The claim of homosexuality doesn't jibe with Shelden's own account of Greene's life.

Perhaps most amusing is that while Shelden is eager to point out Greene's fondness for deception, he doesn't seem to acknowledge the possibility that he himself was being deceived.

The negative reviews preceding mine certainly do not mince words in castigating Shelden's biography of Graham Greene. However, they offer nothing to refute Shelden's well documented research; they are simply expressions of displeasure (and possibly embarrassment--how do you reconcile your world-class super-sophisticated British novelist toting around a teddy-bear like Radar O'Reilly?) Although I have been fascinated by much of Greene's fiction, and will continue to read and re-read his best works, I think Shelden makes quite a good case that Greene was an extremely manipulative, bisexual, anti-Semitic, hypocrite who stood for nothing in his personal life. Indeed, Greene belongs with Rousseau, Hemingway, Brecht, et al., in Paul Johnson's famous book of misfits, Intellectuals. Greene's sham Catholicism is particularly galling, since he converted as a young man only as a means to win Vivien's hand, yet he used it for the rest of his life as a bogus defense against those who might question the sincerity and depth of his religious sentiments. As Shelden says, if one did not know that Greene was (allegedly) Catholic, it would be very difficult to read works like Brighton Rock or The Comedians as some kind of theological statement about grace and transcendence. Let's face it: Greene was only looking out for number one. There is nothing wrong with that, except if you are passing yourself off as a humanist.

I read the other reviews and I think people don't like a biography that doesn't polish a popular authors life. i found this biography to be very good. It piqued my interest in Graham Greene. I shall read another biography and compare the two. I will also read Graham Greene's Memoirs. No biography or autobiography should considered 100% fact because a biographer may interview someone with bad memory and miss certain cluw along his or her investigation. And autobiographers also tend to embellish things. So it's better to read more than one account of a persons life before making conclusions.

Jillian Ashcroft is determined to lift the curse that haunts her family. Ever since a witch put a curse on the Ashcrofts years ago, tragic deaths and tragedies have plagued them. In order to break the curse, she needs to get her hands on the pendant of Laura Endicott--her arch enemy (though she's never even met her). So she enlists the help of Sir Richard Blackwood, Laura's fiance.

But Sir Richard isn't eager to help, for he doesn't want to dupe his fiance like that. Jillian resorts to blackmail to enlist him. Very cruel blackmail. And her character just declines from there...

Jillian is a hoyden whose manner of speaking borderlines on scandalous. She is an eccentric, selfish little tart. I really didn't like her. I'm sure she had SOME redeeming quality, but I can't really think of anything right now. Richard's character seemed rather comatose. Richard and Jillian spent 95% of the book bantering with each other. It gets old. Even in the end, their romance wasn't very convincing. However, I DID like Laura, Richard's fiance. She was very sweet, innocent--she was the equivalent of a Regency Snow White. Laura, the gypsy lady in the woods & Jillian's scheming cousin were the only redeeming aspects of the novel.

I wouldn't recommend it. It's not unreadable, but there are better choices. (I'm kind of curious as to whom is featured on the cover of the novel. Is it Laura... or Jillian?)

This is another Regency-era romance novel in which the amount of enjoyment you get is going to be a matter of personal taste. I found myself not liking either the heroine or the hero very much -- I actually liked the "other" woman a lot better and found myself wishing that Maria Greene had spent a great deal more time on her and her (potential) romance!

Miss Jillian Ashecroft is determined to end the curse that has dogged her family for centuries. Apparently hundreds of years ago, a powerful witch, Lucinda Endicott, cursed the Ashecrofts for all time, and the family has floundered ever since. Now Jillian is afraid that she is next in line to suffer from the curse and she has decided to do something about it. Using the research that her father had done before his death, Jillian comes to the conclusion that the only way to break the curse is to obtain a magical stone in the possession of the last of the Endicotts, Miss Laura Endicott. Laura, however, seems to be a bit of a recluse, never leaving her Cornwall estate. And so Jillian decides to blackmail Laura's fiance, Sir Richard Blackwood, into obtaining the magical stone for her.

Sir Richard is, of course, furious. But while he refuses to do Jillian's dirty work for her, he does agree to get Jillian and her aunt invited to Endicott Keep. It will be up to Jillian to get the stone by fair means of foul. Once there, however, Jillian finds her plans are in jeopardy of coming undone. To begin with she finds her hostess, Laura Endicott, to be not quite what she was expecting. And there is her reaction to the maddening but extremely attractive Sir Richard. He seems to despise her, but Jillian cannot deny how he makes her heart race. What's a beleaguered young lady with a curse hanging over her head to do?

My main problem with "The Ashecroft Curse" (and I freely admit I'm biased here) was that I really took against the heroine, Jillian Ashecroft. She was pushy and rude -- and I really don't like people who resort to blackmail even if the ends seem to justify the means. I think she was supposed to come across as determined, intelligent and practical -- unfortunately the authour forgot to make her heroine courteous, warmhearted and kind as well. This lack shows through especially when one is able to compare Jillian's character with that of Laura's. Some readers may find Laura to be a bit insipid, but I found myself warming to this character and wishing that Ms Greene had spent more time and effort on Laura. And there was the problem of Sir Richard, who came across as stiff, bad humoured and totally lacking in any kind of integrity. Well, I suppose that it is difficult to be upright and sunny natured when you're being blackmailed by someone you're attracted to. But I was glad that Maria Greene paired off Jillian and Sir Richard -- they did deserve each other.

On the other hand "The Ashecroft Curse" did possess a rather interesting storyline, and one that I felt compelled to read all the way through even when Jillian's actions exasperated me no end. The prose style was good -- no glaring lapses into 20th century Americanisms, and the story did unfold smoothly. So, all in all, a solid 3 star read.

This book has one single aim: to help students select the appropriate test for experimental designs (as stated in the preface). It is a basic book for real "beginners" and covers introduction to experimental design, non-parametric tests and parametric tests, including 51 exercises and statistical tables. It takes the student on a very practical tour finally reaching one- and two-way ANOVA, repeated measures and mixed model. The theoretical explanations are extremely sparse and nothing is mentioned about fundamental statistical concepts like sampling distributions, assumptions or the linear model. The explanation of the function of parameters and statistical inference is extremely thin. There is an obvious risk that this book leaves the student very ill prepared for further studies in statistics. Any interested reader is recommended to compare the approach taken in this book to the deeper perspective in books by e.g. Pagano, R.R. or Howell, R.D.

This book is ideal for researchers who are familiar with statistical procedures but have problems choosing which one to use etc.

I purchased this book for an undergraduate psych course, "Psychology & the Law". As I have a BA in psychology, I've read quite a few psychology textbooks in the past few years, and this might possibly be the worst of the bunch.

Generally, the book is somewhat disorganized and the chapters don't really seem to flow together. The text gives the feeling that the reader is jumping from topic to topic without any sense of cohesion between the chapters. The authors try to bind the sections together with the running theme of dilemmas in the legal system, but this strategy just strikes me as contrived, especially since some of the so-called dilemmas are rather commonsensical. Also, the authors' writing style is lacking, and I find myself with many questions after reading the chapter - certain topics just aren't explained very well, or very efficiently, for that matter.

Overall, I think the textbook is adequate for teaching the material but I'm convinced that it can't be the best choice out there. As a fellow reviewer mentioned, the text mentions nothing in regards to rehab of criminals, which seems like a huge oversight (after all, isn't rehabilitation half the battle?). So please, PLEASE, if you're a professor who's considering using this text to teach your class - DON'T!

I bought this book for a course entitled Psychology and the Law, which I am taking as an elective course, and not as part of my areas of concentration. Although I am a Sociology and Women's Studies major, you don't need to be a feminist (or even a sociologist for that matter), to see where this book is lacking vital information on the criminal justice system, and on rehabilitation techniques used in North America.

As a Canadian student, I did find this book useful, although it is primarily focused on the American model of criminal justice. The basic theories and ideologies are pretty much the same for both Canada and the United States, so in that respect, the information is still valuable. Some Chapters of interest to sociologists, law students and forensic psychologists alike are entitled "Lawyers: Socialization, Training and Ethics" , "Theories of Crime" , "Forensic Assesment I & II" , "Jury Trials I & II" , "Psychology of Victims" , "The Rights of Special Groups" and "Punnishment and Sentencing". What seems to be lacking in these chapters, upon quick glance, is that there are no questions at the end, just a quick summary and a list of key terms. Personally, I find I perform better on an exam when there are questions left unanswered at the end of a chapter (gets the ol' wheels in my noggin' turning away ...), but for whatever reason, there isn't any. Also, the glossary doesn't contain all the the 'key terms' at the end of a chapter so sometimes you have to use another psychological or legal dictionary to find the definitions.

Another critical area that is lacking in this book, is any research from a feminist perspective. There is a paragraph here and there regarding 'feminist jurisprudence' and a brief mention of Carol Gilligan's conception of women's moral development, which, by the way, has paved the way for many rehabilitative programs not only in North America but world-wide. There is no mention of this ANYWHERE in the book, even though empirical evedince has proven that rehabilitative techniques of this nature are for more successful in preventing criminals from repeat offences. Also, many of the theories of crime are outdated (a good number of them are biological theories) and there are NO theories of female criminality what-so-ever. The critiques feminists have made of these male-dominated theoreis are not listed. Apparently women just don't break the law!

All in all, it's a good read if you're a student in the field, but remember to think objectively and keep an open mind. It does take a kind of male-oriented pro-punnishment type angle but it you can look past these details and remind yourself that this is only one point of view, it does provide alot of information. To top it all off, the examples used to demonstrate the points in the book are all fairly recent, like the O.J. Simpson trials, debates on censorship on the internet as well as debates on doctor-assisted suicide. It's a book I plan to keep on my shelf throughout my studies, but not one I can really say was "remarkable" or "accurate". I'll likely reach for this book when I need a more traditional opinion for a gender studies assignment with regard to the law ... it only emphasizes one side of the story.

She has valid things to say, but seems more intent on demonstrating her intellegence with grammatical gymnastics. I have to read this for class, and it has been an excruciating experience. Very disorganized thought, poorly edited.

After reading and then re-reading this book, I am impressed only by Ms. Greenes ability to ramble on for 134 pages without making a point.

This book is easily the best and most important book that I have read since I started going to graduate school in 1996. It has truly changed my way of seeing certain things. Dr. Green's vision of freedom is presented by examples from books and other media, and makes the subject both understandable and affecting. If a teacher were to follow her vision and her suggestions, his or her classroom would be the most dynamic one in almost any school. If one is a teacher, or if one merely likes good writing, get this book. It is truly visionary.

There is one,and only one reason to look at this book: the illustrations. They are really quite good. But the narrative is flawed in the extreme.
The author has a real flair for misinterpreting the actual evidence and then coming to completly insupportable conclusions about the way the famous fight took place. For example: he contends that as the fight began Doc Holliday drew his "nickle plated" revolver and began blasting away with it--even though he was holding Virgil's Greener shotgun under his coat. Even the author admits that it was odd for Holliday to draw a pistol and begin shooting while holding a much deadlier weapon under his coat, in what had to be a very awkward position. But he dismisses all reasoning, testimony and criticism to the contrary by simply saying "...but that's what he did." Apparently Hickey thinks Holliday did such an unnatural and counter-intuitive thing for no better reason than to make his theory of the gunfight come out right. There are several other examples of the same sort of invalid reasoning throughout.
In short, there is no real insight in this book; the evidence is misstated, the reasoning is strained--to say the least--and the conclusions are clearly erroneous to anyone who has devoted any time at all to the study of the event. But the pictures are nice.

This book is a strange mishmash of other authors beliefs about the Gunfight at the Ok Corral mixed in with some really corny drivelings from the author (My God, where did we get such men?).

It's quite apparent that the author Hickey merely rewrote the works of Ben Traywick and therefore the works of Glenn Boyer.

Nothing original here, no primary research-all sources appear secondary.

The author also has a rather arrogant way of presenting himself to his readers which merely makes him less likeable.

What happened on Oct. 26, 1881, when Wyatt Earp, his brothers and Doc Holliday walked down to confront the Ike Clanton, his brother and the McLaury brothers? It's something every 'Earp buff' would like to know. In this book, Hickey gives the 30 second blitz a shot-by-shot, who-stood-where, who-shot-who fresh new look. His conclusions are based on documents and written facts. In addition, he offers rare and recent unpublished photos and beautiful oil pantings which gives the reader an idea of what happened on Fremont Street those few and precious seconds.This is the first of three books in a trilogy series and no library should be without it!

This is a really boring book. Things start to jump within two pages, but all that happens is that the setting gets murkier. My growing feeling as I struggled to follow the story was, with each new twist, "So What!"
This book is about stringing together an author's notes. It's not about realistic people. Dont waste your time or your money.

This is one of the most boring books I have ever read and I sure wish I hadn't bought the second one to go with it before reading the first. It takes place around Area 51...very appropriate since I feel like I have lost my way the entire time I've been reading the book. I can usually read a book in a day or 2, but I have been on this one 2 weeks determined to give it a chance. I can't believe the front of the cover compares this to Janet Evanovich's books. What a Joke!

To be very blunt, this book is dumb and disjointed. Previous books by this author are much better, especially her early novels.