Coating and Drying Defects: Troubleshooting Operating Problems (Society of Plastics Engineers Monographs)

Book Description

A practical guide for ensuring a defect-free coating and drying process

For professionals in the coating and drying industry, the world is a demanding place. New, technically complex products such as fuel cell membranes, thin film batteries, solar cells, and RFID chips require coatings of extreme precision. With the bar raised so high, understanding how to troubleshoot and eliminate defects on a coating line is an essential skill for all personnel.

Coating and Drying Defects, Second Edition provides manufacturing and quality control personnel, equipment operators and supervisors, and plant engineers and scientists with the full complement of proven tools and techniques for detecting, defining, and eliminating coating defects and operating problems, and for ensuring that they do not recur.

Updating the valuable contents of the first edition, this practical Second Edition:

Describes all major processes for coating and drying of continuous film on sheets or webs
Covers technologies that have been recently developed to prevent defect formation and improve operating procedures
Provides a rational framework within which to assess and analyze virtually any defect that may arise
Offers step-by-step guidelines for conducting every phase of the troubleshooting process, including defect prevention

Going beyond simply describing a disparate set of troubleshooting techniques, this unique guide arms readers with a systematic, nonmathematical methodology encompassing the entire coating operation, becoming an indispensable resource for manufacturing and quality-control personnel as well as plant engineers, polymer scientists, surface scientists, organic chemists, and coating scientists.

Book Description

Demonstrates that the earliest humans evolved not as hunters but as prey species, based on evidence from fossil and living primates

Although "Man the Hunter" is a popular description of our ancestry, the central importance of hunting is firmly fixed only in the archeological record of relatively recent human history. Man the Hunted argues that primates, including the earliest members of the human family, have evolved not as hunters but as the prey of any number of predators, including wild cats and dogs, hyenas, snakes, crocodiles, and even birds of prey. Eyewitness accounts, data collected by the authors, and the published reports of naturalists establish the astonishing extent to which living monkeys, lemurs, apes, and even humans fall victim to a wide variety of predators, some of which even specialize in the consumption of primates. Additionally, the fossil record demonstrates that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that necessarily shaped the evolution of our earliest ancestors in body and behavior. Skillfully combining information from a number of lines of evidence, Man the Hunted casts an entirely new light on the natural history of primates and the evolution of fossil and modern humans.

Customer Reviews:

A New Perspective.......2006-07-19

As with any new or unique perspective on the evolution of humanity, "Man the Hunted" has drawn both praise and damnation. Being informed that your ancestors were little more than snacks for large carnivores may bring some human-centric reviewers down a peg or two and also induce some nasty penmanship.
I like my natural history gritty. How about pp 140 " the crowned hawk-eagle not only has the power and the momentum, the surprise and the speed, but those great talons are used with such exactitude that the heart of the prey is the target ... In one juvenile monkey the heart was triple-pierced from a single deathblow; the talon went in one side of the heart, came out the other side, and- achievable only because of the camber of the eagle's talon- curved back and reentered the heart once again."
This is an engaging and highly readable book, and its premise stands the test. Let's face it, the famous "Taung baby" discovered in 1924 by Raymond Dart was recently proven to have been the prey of a large eagle; there are the typical "can opener" marks of eagle talons on Taung's skull. The only disagreement I would have with the authors is the extent of meat eating and its time interval in our history. Hart and Sussman maintain that "top predator" status was only recently attained by humans; whereas in my opinion brain expansion = meat. The human fossil record is one of exponential brain expansion, and something must have driven that expansion; meat and society.

The authors themselves are extremely fair in their treatment of others who have been critical of their work, and also point out where their own views diverge on aspects of human evolution. There is no apparent political agenda being pushed and the quotes from Robert Ardrey and E. Tylor are placed in a fair and relevant context. There are dozens of attributions and a full bibliography, in response to another review.

Gross incompetence and dishonesty.......2006-03-06

I see from the reviews here that this book has managed to convince people so far. I hope that if I point out their methods here others will be able to see it for what it really is, a political viewpoint that they have dressed up with flim flam and lies.

In my opinion Sussman and Hart are knowingly dishonest and just make stuff up. There is a chance that they are also amazingly incompetent and lacking in any basic knowledge of the topic, but it can be hard to distinguish this from their transparent attempts to cleverly distort reality and the positions of others. At the very least, their motive to even write this book is based on their failure to understand some very basic things about evolution and genetics, and how nature via nurture results in behavior.

Given that Sussman claims to be a primatologist and that he claims to be working on preservation of endangered species in various parts of the world, we might, for example, expect something a bit beyond the following on the topic of the coevolution of predators and prey, "In other words, if prey evolve a new way to elude predators, predators evolve in the direction of overcoming the new strategy. Any major destabilization in the balance of predators and prey comes
about because the prey have evolved some new way to elude predation; the predator then has to counteradapt or give up eating the newly elusive prey (Tylor, E. Primitive Culture, 1871)." (pg. 40)

No, I did not mistype that, they use a book from 1871! By a man that specialized in the topic of primitive religions and who held profoundly racist views that Africans were in the middle between apes and white men. How can this be the best possible source on the topic of the coevolution of predator and prey? Either they are amazingly ignorant, or they set out to find a source that did not contradict their carefully constructed and entirely wrong notions. They count on the reader never looking up what that little number "18" references. Do any of you think that this racist expert in religions that wrote back in 1871 is likely the last word on the coevolution of prey and predators? So ask yourself then, why would they use him? Because their argument fails if they try to use any modern experts in the topic. Using this source is essentially a lie then.

Throughout they make use of devious methods of argumentation as they seeks to pull whatever comes to hand over the reader's eyes. In discussing hunting they admit that hunting is "common" (pg. 23) behavior in primates. This is a huge problem for someone arguing that human behavior and evolution is unrelated to hunting. But then they launch the effort to whitewash this, skipping right along and changing the subject in a way they hope you do not notice.

Fond of using the work of non-scientists from decades ago as whipping posts, here they choose Robert Ardrey, who with typical journalistic license went overboard on his assertions back thirty some years ago. Even still they twist vigorously at what Ardrey wrote. Where Ardrey says that our ancestors were "continuosly dependant on killing to survive" Sussman claims to refute by arguing against a view that "hunting could have been the main food procurement venture for early hominids." This is not what Ardrey asserted at all. Obviously, a food source need not be the main one for it to be critical for survival. Even five or ten percent of a diet can easily make the difference between health and death over a long period of time. Given seasonal changes in plant derived food sources it is also probable that hunting would be a more critical source periodically than it was on average.

It is a basic assumption of biology and evolutionary theory that animals engage in behaviors which increase their fitness, that these behaviors exist because they increased the numbers of descendants of the individuals that had them relative to those that did not and were therefore passed on, they were selected for. Therefore we work with the assumption that if a behavior is common to a whole order, the primates, as they admit hunting is, then it must be important to survival and fitness. Which should just end the debate unless they have some spectacular evidence somehow that hunting is just a random behavior that happens to be universal in primates and every single human culture. Which would make it the only known example and a huge problem for the theory of evolution to explain. They do not offer any such evidence, instead they boldly assert that they have conclusive proof against the theory of "Man the Hunter," which is that our ancestors two million years ago had teeth that were not the teeth of a carnivore. Of course, no one ever said they were. Not Ardrey or anyone else. But they are clearly that of an omnivore, which includes hunting, and which they neglect to mention. This also has to be seen as simply a lie. An effort to convince you of what is not true and to disguise what is true from your view, and to use the reader's lack of knowledge of the topic to do so.

In fact I doubt the word omnivore is in this book anywhere, they live in a world where species either peacefully chew grass until they are eaten, or they eat only meat all the time.

They also seem to avoid the obvious fact that even herbivores can compete over territory and mating with other herbivores in violent conflicts; perhaps they would see two rams butting heads as peacefull? Yet they are undeniably prey animals and do not hunt. So even if we gave them their founding assertions, what they assert follows from them obviously does not.

It is remarkable too that Sussman has such a unique opinion of what others believe. Perhaps this is not surprising given how behind the times his sources are, but still one is puzzled to read, for example, that "Conventional wisdom would picture predators formulaically thinning the size of their prey populations-mountain lions eating just the right number of deer to keep the deer, in turn, from overpopulating." (pg. 39) Perhaps this was the conventional wisdom back in 1871, but as I am not an expert in the history of science I have no idea.

Any vague knowledge of evolution would tell one that each predator looks out for themselves, there is no consideration of the health of the group they prey on. Ideas similar to this one, that individuals in groups would limit the number of their offspring to the ideal number the environment could support, were conclusively dismissed over forty years ago. That hardly makes them or their cousins, as these look to be,"conventional wisdom." Again, this can only be extreme ignorance of the topic or intentional dishonesty.

This was a funny one though, "Should we then not worry that too many chimpanzees might be obliterated by their natural predators? Absolutely not. Any substantive and long-term drop in numbers of prey will arise from a lack of resources." Huh. So all those flightless birds just happened to lack resources at the same time that cats and rats were introduced to their island homes? I suppose that one can argue these were not their natural predators, but species have invaded new habitats millions of times naturally. One gets a picture from this book of a world where species are in some magical stasis, one
would be very shocked to learn that 99% of all species that have
ever existed are now extinct.

Of course the larger assertions are just hilarious, and their books are cooked until they are pure carbon. The idea is that if we can show that our ancestors several million years ago did not hunt, and that instead they were hunted, then somehow magically it follows that human nature is basically good and peacefull and all evil is caused by evil cultures. Which is a
hilarious leap out into mid air, logically. And it means that they fully subscribe to genetic determinism for this purpose. But then they also want to say that even if we did hunt that would not mean we were by nature killers, since that would be genetic determinism; the same thing that they like so much when they make their first argument but which they are adamantly opposed to if it might result in what their politics disagree with.

In fact on page 211 they blatantly admit that their whole book is pointless ["And furthermore, research seems to indicate that the neurophysiology of aggression between species is quite different from the spontaneous violence linked to intraspecific aggression by humans (that is, murder)."], and then they just keep on going anyway. If there is no link in the human mind between murder and hunting, which of course there is not and the whole argument is just absurdly silly from the start, then how does their assertion that we were not hunters two million years ago have any particular import? The lack of citation here is also a fairly common feature of the book, and one that is highly suspect. Who did the research and how can I find it? Is it from 1871?

And of course the whole idea that a species can be characterized by looking at how it's distant ancestors lived is absurd if one does not also look at how it lives now. Sussman and Hart avoid the knowledge that all human societies ever encountered hunt. How does an anthropologist who is a former editor of a major journal avoid this knowledge? It must be simple dishonesty.

We might just as well have a book titled "Whales, the Land
Dwellers." Sure, their distant ancestors lived on land, but
obviously no whales do now. What they ate or were eaten by seems to be a question that few would care the answer to, and I see no reason for more to care what our very distant ancestors ate or were eaten by.

Sure, evolutionary psychology recognizes that there can be behaviors left over from our ancestors. Perhaps we could speculate, for example, that our fondness for petting animals is left over from our ancient bonding by grooming behavior. But given that it is very very likely our ancestors hunted, since they had the teeth for it, it is common (as the authors admit) in primates, and all human societies ever found hunt then I think we need to just admit that we are evolved as hunters. Then we can also get past all these bizarre negative ideas about it too. It does not mean we are violent or aggressive or demonic or emotionless killers. It means we were hungry.

Let me also mention that evolutionary psychology is well aware that humans have adaptations to avoid predators. That extreme fear of snakes is common in humans is frequently given as an example of evolved behaviors, behaviors that have no environmental cues and therefore can be seen as "hardwired." Infants and captive chimps that never had seen snakes before have exhibited this fear, so it does seem that our brains are born with this information and response. But I fail to see how being eaten by a predator changes the character of a person from violent to peaceful. Hitler was a vegetarian, if he had also been eaten by a bear would that indicate that he was by nature peaceful? That his descendants were peaceful? The logic of their argument simply does not exist.

Ian Tattersall contributes a forward in which he heaps scorn on
evolution (and he teaches courses with evolution in the title),
biology, genetics, the lot, and seems to hint that they should be replaced by some vague notions of "emergent events" and also
the "history" of the species. He states, "Clearly the unprecedented qualities of our species are the result of an emergent event, and there is indeed something truly different about the way we Homo Sapiens behave that seems to distinguish us from even our closest ancestors. And as a result, it is evident that we cannot attribute the ways in which we behave directly to our genes or even, more indirectly, to our history, as a bee or an angel fish might much more plausibly do."

I fail to see how anything in the second sentence follows as a
result of anything in the first, but these people specialize in
grand leaps into the void. I also fail to understand the difference between a species history and it's genetic history, he seems to suggest by this some new means of transmitting inherited traits that is less "direct" than genetic.

There are people who connect various of the following; hunting and murder, murder and war, and hunting and war. Some of these people exist in the area of evolutionary psychology (for example, David Buss) a field the authors oppose. But all of these connections are wrong, and the authors know that, as they say on page 211. The ideas are simply illogical and poorly thought through. It would be possible for a group to hunt and not make war, or make war and not hunt. The fact is that all human groups do make war except for extremely isolated or nomadic ones. The fact is that all human groups hunt. Lacking very strong counter evidence we must start with the assumption that these behaviors have genetic components which contribute to their universality. This does not mean that we cannot choose other behaviors. I am a longtime vegetarian myself. But it does mean that we need to know who we are before we can truly control these choices. We need to stand up and admit that we were born with a predisposition to make war, and then understand what the psychology of that is in our minds so that we can avoid falling into the evolved paterns. Denial will not lead to peace for humans any more than it leads to sobriety for drunks. If you want to see where that path leads, you can start here - http://theroadtopeace.blogspot.com/

I believe it is time to engage in some identity correction. These people are effectively secular creationists. Anti-science and evolution, using many of the same tactics including outright lies, all in support of their decidedly dogmatic beliefs. They are the secular creationists. Denial of the theory of evolution or of human nature will not lead to peace. In fact an unshakeable belief in one's own peacefullnes is a part of what lets us be lead to war so readily, we always think that we are truly acting in self defense. Even the Germans in WWII thought that. It is not determinism to say that we have genes that predispose us to certain behaviors, it is the first step to being able to change those behaviors.

The authors believe that their position must be true because they believe if it is then humans are basically good and peaceful, and they feel themselves to be these. Therefore they try to make this case despite all the evidence and the need to lie to the reader and to themselves. They feel that admitting that humans evolved adaptations for hunting and war would mean that there was no hope. On the contrary. Admitting these truths is our only hope for peace.

pointless exercise.......2006-02-02

After 177 pages of descriptions of predators devouring prey, the author finally reveals that she has no way to connect her thesis (that hominid development was heavily influenced by predation) with what little is actually known about hominids - that they were fully bipedal before there was any great increase in cranial capacity. She refers to our evolution as a "random serendipitous route" and asserts that "we can simply accept that it was a combination of many factors that likely made bipedal locomation advantageous..."
The primary redeeming factor in an otherwise pointless exercise is the chapter "debunking 'man the hunter,'" a long overdue admission by mainstream academics that the savannah theory doesn't square with the fossil record.

Enjoyable, informative view of early man as prey.......2005-12-06

Every few years a new theory of human evolution emerges and its authors gleefully bash all those who came before. This is highly entertaining for the general reader and often very convincing too. In this case physical anthropologist Sussman and his former graduate student, wildlife biologist Hart counter the once vaunted and lately battered "man the hunter" scenario with its opposite: man as prey.

Nobody doubts that early hominids were prey to animals like saber tooth tigers, crocodiles, bears, hyenas and many more. But after reading the first half of "Man the Hunted," you will wonder how those poor hominids ever survived long enough to develop the brains needed to defend themselves and become us. The authors amass lots of fossil data and modern studies of predation to show that primates (including humans) were and still are, prey.

Reading this impressive catalog of dangers, you can't help but think of the defensive abilities other primates have that we lack - chimps are powerfully muscled and agile in trees, monkeys have long useful tails to swing swiftly through forest or jungle, gorillas are large and formidable, and all of them are more threatening as biters.

Hominids, however, with brains not much larger than chimps, had a puny physique (although more powerful than homo sapiens became) no claws or sharp teeth, and they couldn't run very fast on their two legs or swing as easily into the trees. No defenses at all, it appears, except for vigilance and the protection of the group. How did we ever survive?

The authors tackle this question in the second half of the book, approaching evolution from a defensive posture. Bipedalism, for instance. Numerous "models" have been posited to explain why we walk around upright - to free our arms for carrying, to allow scanning of terrain, to make us more energy efficient in terms of foraging for food and heat dissipation, to look larger and more robust to predators and mates. The authors reject all of these as primary causes, but incorporate each as an advantage to a creature already "preadapted," as all primates are, for bipedalism.

First, we came down from the trees, because, living at the edge of the forest, many ground plants were available. Then, "it made life much SAFER to be bipedal." "Bipedalism is only advantageous if you leave the trees and descend to the ground for the majority of your activities, and if you do it BEFORE you have evolved enormous torsos and arms." At this point we could still take refuge in the trees fairly easily, and standing on two feet we could scan more of the area for danger.

In the last chapter they lay out rules for hominid survival which include living in social groups of 25 to 75, using both trees and ground, being able to scatter into smaller groups or come together to mob or intimidate predators, having more than one male in social groups as protection, using males as intimidating-looking (because upright) sentinels, carefully choosing sleeping sights and employing the advantage of intelligence.

"Those were the survival rules and surely our earliest ancestors must have followed them. We can state that with total authority - if they hadn't exhibited the behavior of a hunted species, we wouldn't be here debating our origins."

By this time I was convinced, but I didn't need much convincing. There's a lot of interesting material here - particularly the debunking of the murderous chimp model (which arose out of human interaction on Jane Goodall's Gombe site) a fascinating discussion of fossil teeth and diet, the close examination of the anatomical features of fossils like "Lucy" and others. And, of course, the extensive and detailed descriptions and illustrations of (happily) extinct predators like the bone-crushing dog, which weighed 250 pounds and hunted in packs, the bear-dogs, which could bound like cats and had teeth like wolves and the more familiar hyenas and leopards and lions and tigers.

Their scathing dismissal of "man the hunter" and every scientist who ever touted such a bloodthirsty beast is highly amusing though occasionally shrill and a bit puzzling, since man the mighty hunter has long been cast off his pedestal and forced to share a level playing field with woman the gatherer, for one. Primatologists have long admitted that our ancestors were prey as well and that predation certainly influenced our evolution.

The difference here is the degree of emphasis Hart and Sussman place on predation as an evolutionary catalyst and the extent of their research on predation. Their book is readable and innovative, with provocative arguments on subjects from the role of "original sin" in scientific theory to comparing the ubiquitous presence of dancing as well as violence in all human cultures.

Thoroughly annotated, with a lengthy bibliography and a good index, this is a fine addition to the growing body of well-written and entertaining books on human origins.

--Portsmouth Herald

Interesting, thought provoking, but opportunity missed.......2005-12-02

Were the ancestors of humans ever part of "the circle of life" as described by Mufasa in The Lion King? Do the eagle talon marks on the fossilized skull of the 2 million year old Taung child represent an oddity or hint at the norm? Why did Robert Ardrey push so strongly for a "Man the hunter" explanation of hominid evolution? Are current studies of chimpanzees representative of the way Homo habilis or H. erectus interacted with their environment and their potential predators?

Donna Hart and Robert Sussman tackle these issues in Man The Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution. They are not the first to suggest that early humans sometimes ended in the belly of the beast (remember the opening scene in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey). They are not the first to suggest that humans are still preyed upon by large carnivores (as in David Quammen's Monster of God). They are one of the first to lay out a thoughtful argument for professionals and laypeople alike that humans are what they are because of predation, and not in spite of it.

I agree with Hart and Sussman that early humans were shaped by the coevolutionary dance always occurring between predators and prey, and that, for reasons that are still unclear, this idea of "man the hunted" has lost in both popular and scientific circles to a "man the hunter" model to explain human evolution. They lay out the evidence for 1) early humans as prey in a predator-rich environment (fossil evidence), and 2) modern primates as prey in today's human modified world (who eats living primates).

Hart and Sussman do go off on some tangents that I found puzzling and irritating. They obviously have problems with Richard Dawkin's "selfish gene" theory, and they are not fans of E. O. Wilson's sociobiology synthesis (although it seemed they only read the last chapter in his book). They didn't reference the interesting book by David Baron, The Beast in the Garden, on mountain lion predation on humans. And they missed a wonderful opportunity to focus on the "so what" question. If modern humans truly were shaped by predation, what can this knowledge tell us about ourselves? Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams take this route in their book, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine. What can we understand about ourselves in light of the revelation that humans spent most of their existence foraging for food and avoiding becoming food? How does that relate to our interactions with each other, other animals, the wilderness, open space, caves, pet cats and dogs, parasites, and on, and on?

I enjoyed the book. It is readable, interesting, and well referenced. Hart and Sussman have opened a door. They are inviting us in to think about who we really are, and why.

Man The Hunted Primates, Predators, And Human Evolution

Average customer rating:

Man The Hunted Primates, Predators, And Human Evolution
Robert W. Sussman Hart Donna
Manufacturer: Westview Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000UIC5N2

Customer Reviews:

Phenomenal Book on Single electron devices.......2000-10-28

Anyone who is doing research on single-electron transistors and other devices employing coulomb blockade and other tunneling phenomena must have/reference this work. Most other books and journal articles on the subject use this book as a base. It is clear, concise, and shows the important derivations.

Atom Tunneling Phenomena in Physics, Chemistry and Biology

Average customer rating:

Atom Tunneling Phenomena in Physics, Chemistry and Biology

Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Agricultural Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books

All Amazon Upgrade | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Engineering | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Professional & Technical | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Science | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books
ASIN: 3540015264

Book Description

Atom tunneling phenomena are a new paradigm in the science of materials. This book provides a wealth of interesting information about atom tunneling phenomena in physics, chemistry and biology. Topics include the theory of atom tunneling reactions, conclusive evidence and controlling factors for such reactions in solid hydrogen, tunneling dislocation motion, coherent tunneling diffusion, the production of interstellar molecules and semiconductors using tunneling reactions, the effect of atom tunneling on molecular structure and crystalline structure, the suppression of mutation and cancer by an atom tunneling reaction of vitamin C, and atom tunneling reactions of vitamin E and of enzymes. This book provides graduate students and nonspecialist readers with fascinating insights into the world of atom tunneling phenomena.

Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena and Coherence in Superconducting Networks: Frascati, Italy 2-5 March 1995

Average customer rating:

Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena and Coherence in Superconducting Networks: Frascati, Italy 2-5 March 1995

Manufacturer: World Scientific Pub Co Inc
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

Quantum Theory | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

Applied | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 9810223544

Science and Technology of Mesoscopic Structures

Average customer rating:

Science and Technology of Mesoscopic Structures
S. Namba , and C. Hamaguchi
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

Tunneling Phenomena in High and Low Tc Superconductors: Capri, Italy 1-4 October 1991 : Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Josephson Devices

Average customer rating:

Tunneling Phenomena in High and Low Tc Superconductors: Capri, Italy 1-4 October 1991 : Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Josephson Devices
Italy) Workshop on Josephson Devices 1991 (Capri , Alessandro Di Chiara , and G. Di Chiara
Manufacturer: World Scientific Pub Co Inc
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

Average customer rating:

Tunneling Phenomena in Solids

Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

Book Description

A short collection of original "dirty" limericks. Adult humor, a great coffee table conversation starter, gag gift or stocking stuffer.

Customer Reviews:

PURE FUN.......1999-01-26

If you're an adult and you enjoy bawdy limericks, you'll enjoy this book... it will have you asking for more.

Not funny,not amusing, not worth the postage.......1999-01-25

These "limericks" live up to the Webster definition of Bawdy : they are often obscene, indecent, and salacious. Not a single chuckle nor the slightest mental stimulation is contained in these poems. The words are not suggestive and the limericks are not playful, they are simply graphic. Save your money.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books