The Wizard of Oz Collector's Treasury: Collector's Treasury

Book Description

All the excitement and enchantment of over ninety years' worth of wonderful Wizard of Oz memorabilia awaits you on every page of this deluxe, full-color tribute to the collectibles and merchandise inspired by America's foremost fairy tale and everyone's favorite film! Oz experts Jay Scarfone and William Stillman have--for the first time ever!--compiled an astounding assemblage of over one thousand "Ozzy" artifacts documented and categorized for convenient reference in sixteen different sections. Autographs, books, buttons, dolls, games, puzzles, figurines, drinking glasses, postcards, novelties, publicity and promotion, posters and lobby cards, records, sheet music--it's all here AND SO MUCH MORE! You'll be amazed at the wealth of offerings to be found along that Yellow Brick Road of "Oz and ends." Supplemented by a timely value guide, this comprehensive volume is an absolute must for collectors of movie memorabilia, dolls, toys, Judy Garland, or anyone devoted to magical mementos of Ozmania!

Customer Reviews:

Oz-some book!!.......2005-11-02

I only have 1 complaint about this book: it needs to be updated every few years!! This Oz "reference book" is an absolute must-have for Oz fans and collectors. It's like looking through the Christmas "Wish Books" from the department stores when you were a kid, saying, "I have that......I want that......I need that...!"

The photographs are a feast for the eyes! The text is perfect. The research that went into this book is unbelievable.

If you can get your hands on this gem, BUT IT NOW!!

Wizard of Oz collector's treasury........2000-06-24

Very imformative.Exactly what I have been looking for. I have seen the book before but never bought it until yesterday. It is a must have for any Oz collector and I am an avid collector. I love Oz.

The Marvelous Land of Oz (1976 Marvel Treasury of Oz) (Special Collector's Issue)

Average customer rating:

The Marvelous Land of Oz (1976 Marvel Treasury of Oz) (Special Collector's Issue)
L. Frank Baum
Manufacturer: Marvel Comics
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Comic

General | Comic Strips | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books

General | Graphic Novels | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books

Marvel | Publishers | Comics & Graphic Novels | Subjects | Books
ASIN: B000MBZ8H2

Book Description

First time in paperback: A leading critic asks the provocative question, Is jazz dying?

Once a thriving body of innovative and fluid music, jazz is now the victim of destructive professional and artistic forces, says Eric Nisenson. Corruption by marketers, appropriation by the mainstream, superficial media portrayal, and sheer lack of skill have all contributed to the demise of this venerable art form. Nisenson persuasively describes how the entire jazz "industry" is controlled by a select cadre with a choke hold on the most vital components of the music. As the listening culture has changed, have spontaneity and improvisation been sacrificed? You can agree or disagree with Nisenson's thesis and arguments, but as Booklist says, "his passion is engrossing."

Customer Reviews:

a bad idea poorly executed.......2007-06-11

I found this book to be astonishingly contradictory and not really seeming to have any point to it. There is little concrete evidence given and some of that provided is indefensible and left without elucidation.

Nisenson says, "For example, Hawkins listened almost exclusively to opera, and certainly its influence can be heard in his dramatic, bravura style much more than that of the blues. As we shall see, this insistence on the primacy of `blues expression' in jazz is part of a particular agenda rather than a clearly thought out principle." Now if I read a statement like that, I think that deserves some specific musicological explanation. None is provided.

Worst of all, Nisenson says, "What disturbs me about Marsalis is that he seems to believe he has the right to dictate to the jazz world a very strict set of principles that define jazz and its so-called tradition." Funny enough, this seems to be Nisenson's sole purpose in writing this book. He seems to feel he has the insider status to "know" what is jazz and what isn't and who should be playing what. I don't understand how someone who places individual expression as the foundation of his aesthetic theory could tell someone else that what they are playing is not how they feel or what they think. This seems especially rich from someone who is not a musician himself and subject to the same pressures and environment.

I would only recommend this book to someone who is interested in studying the usually over-zealous dialogue between the two sides of the recent "jazz wars." As a book about music, aesthetics, musicians, the industry, or anything else that may be informative, this book will only disappoint.

A bloated and self-indulgent polemic..........2006-06-06

There are some judgements in this book that I agree with. Stanley Crouch is indeed an arrogant,aggressive blowhard. Albert Murray is a barely-veiled Crow Jimmer. Much of Wynton Marsalis' playing is dull, and some of his larger-scale works just don't come off at all.

Yet the book is rather silly. I use the word "book" out of courtesy and for lack of a better one; this is a collection of columns or articles rather than a real book. What we have here is a long magazine article stretched out to book length by endless repetition of the same arguments, evidence, even the same anecdotes and turns of phrase. A good editor could, by eliminating the sloppy, overblown writing and the numbing repetitions, easily have cut this book by scores of pages without doing any violence to the author's argument.

That argument has some very serious problems. It rests on the following assumptions, never argued for but simply asserted. 1) History--not just jazz history but all history--is divided into discrete "times", epochs, or periods; 2) each of these eras has one and only one spirit or way of thinking which is unique to it; 3) artists, and jazz musicians in particular, must "reflect" or "express" that spirit if they are to make vital, living, valid art, art that "is based on the lives they are living in the here and now". This pop-Hegelianism sometimes takes downright laughable forms--Charlie Parker's music speaks to us about the era of World War II, the Holocaust, the atomic bomb, etc.,etc. But the way in which an abstract, non-representational art such as music relates to the larger world of opinions, emotions,events, and attitudes of its time and place is far more complex and controversial than Nisenson seems to realize. Why, for example, doesn't Charlie Parker's music arise out of his listening to the playing of Lester Young, Chu Berry, and Don Byas? It's much clearer, and more consistent with the testimony of the musicians themselves,that jazz musicians play what comes into their heads as a result of listening to other jazz musicians past and present, than that they are expressing or reflecting some "spirit of the time".

It's abundantly clear what Nisenson doesn't like: Wynton Marsalis,Joshua Redman, Lincoln Center jazz, Crouch, Murray. It's absurd and offensive, however, to speak of these men as "murdering" jazz, i.e., committing on the art form an act of deliberate criminal violence. But more importantly, despite his calls for "innovation" and "creativity", it's not at all clear what jazz the author does like after Coltrane,Coleman, Miles Davis,Cecil Taylor, and fusion. Has nobody done anything good in jazz since then? If yes, then jazz lives. If not, then, as another reviewer says,jazz has problems far deeper than the evil machinations of a handful of stiflers and mummifiers. I'd make the following (not at all original) suggestion. It took jazz about sixty years (1920-1980,more or less) to avail itself of all the resources developed in the Western musical tradition over five centuries--polyphony, harmony/tonality, tonal ambiguity, polytonality, atonality, etc. It has tried to assimilate/utilize various sorts of folk music, Western and non-Western, so far without much success (except for the blues, of course). It might be that jazz is now an improvised music which is at the same resourceless, audienceless dead end as contemporary composed music--"resourceless" in the sense of having nothing available to serve as the basis of some new development comparable in magnitude to, say, bebop. Some presently unforseen and unforseeable person or factor may arise that will change this situation, but we can be pretty certain that strident demands for innovation, creativity, and "music that reflects the actual lives we live in the here and now" won't do so. And, given that situation, it's not clear that the "repertory" (what Nisenson calls the "revivalist" or "neo-classical") response is in principle invalid, let alone murderous. As far back as the 1940s, James P. Johnson, for one, spoke of a jazz future in which all jazz musicians would be able to play,and would play, in the styles of more than one period of jazz, just as classical musicians may play Bach one night, Bartok the next.

In the end, I'm not sure just how interested in jazz as music Nisenson is; as another reviewer notes, there's no discussion of even one specific piece of music in the entire book. Nisenson seems interested not so much in jazz as an art form, but in jazz as an "expression" or "reflection" of other things; in some vague way the music speaks to him of personal growth,self-transformation, creativity,freedom, democracy, equality, giving voice to the spirit of the times, and so forth. But whether jazz does this, ever did it, or will do it in the future, is quite beyond the ability of any polemic to influence in the slightest, particularly one as poorly argued and poorly written as "Blue".

Worth reading........2006-01-02

Though repetitive towards its conclusion, this is one man's passionate exploration of an opinion; to expect a technical analysis of music or a thorough presentation of the history of jazz is to miss the point of the narrative. Nisenson was accused of not addressing the music he discusses specifically, but in all fairness, he does so on general terms with the clear aim of appealing to both musicians and general listeners. What emerges from his observations is not so much an adequate thesis on the so-called "death of jazz," but rather an attack on pretense, namely that of the neoclassicists who have deemed themselves the torch-bearers of the "jazz tradition." In this respect, Nisenson is correct in his assessment of those who judge the parameters of jazz too narrowly and impose their views as objective historical assessments of the genre. However, stressing "innovation" is in itself a limitation; I share Nisenson's view that jazz throughout its history and via its most notable artists has exhibited a profound vitality that can only come from searching for new directions and nurturing personal styles--but "innovation" is only one factor that may shape an art form. One of the reasons people still enjoy the jazz eras that produced Miles Davis, Coltrane, etc. is because these artists were in an ideal environment to create and shape their visions. We live in an age where music, unfortunately, is no longer about just music. Consider the media baggage: videos, promotions, images, websites, endless recordings in a variety of formats, hybrid genres, gimmicky categories--it's a whirlwind of clutter. Add this to the fact that everything is studied by marketing, advertising, and focus groups, and it becomes impossible to wade through it all; one may lack time, interest, or both. What is actually "new" anyway? Don't we get into philosophical problems here? Coltrane was new to me the first time I heard him; I wasn't alive when he was playing. Then you have bands that "innovate" just to show people that they can; I've heard unclassifiable music (which can be a great thing) that comes across as a chopfest, with musicians trying to stick everything they know into a piece. Though awed on occasions--and certainly respectful and open-minded, I can't say I would want to listen to it repeatedly. Finally, all of these so-called "jazz wars" come down to the ear of the beholder, so to speak. Each listener has unique expectations; for some, all music must be meaningful, profound, and innovative; for others, it doesn't even matter. Nisenson has a point when he emphasizes that no one should have the audacity to declare himself an authority in what is or isn't the "jazz tradition" and who can or can't play it. Marsalis has said that "innovation isn't necessarily art," and I agree with that as well. All in all, there's nothing wrong with personal preferences as long as you withhold judgment. We look at our past and declare certain artists as shapers of the genre's direction (i.e. Miles Davis)--but at the time, I believe they were just being themselves, and we, with the benefit of hindsight, construct these neat histories to make sense of it all. This book poses good questions to think about, so most jazz fans should find this an entertaining read.

Many points made, many left out........2005-09-30

Nisenson's central premise in "Blue" is that it is the very spirit and nature of jazz to be played 'in the now', music representing the specific time and place of its practitioners; this is the reason why he denounces Wynton Marsalis and his 'neo-classicist' ilk, as they have removed a music from its original context and rendered it empty, inauthentic, narrowly defined and devoid of freedom and innovation.

This is a valid enough point, but Nisenson is missing something when he specifically cites these latter-day musicians for the 'murder of jazz'. He breaks down, era by era, the history of innovations (and resistance thereof) in jazz, leading up to the advent of fusion. He then accuses the 'revivalists' of "building a bridge to the past, not to the future" by reinstating what many consider to be the most truly evolved version of jazz, the style of post-bop or hard-bop as played in the '50s and '60s. I would submit instead that Marsalis and company filled what had been a void altogether with this re-establishment of jazz; by the end of the '70s, there was basically nothing left of jazz, the promise of fusion having long since become a corrupting, distorted, commercialized monster in which all the depth, vitality, and nuance of jazz had been vanquished. This reactionary re-affirmation of real jazz was probably necessary and far from the heinous, stifling occurance Nisenson makes it out to be.

It is true, however, that such a revivalist movement was only useful in this original context, as a means to the end of putting jazz back in the consciousness of people, recreating a backdrop which had withered into nothingness, out of which new evolutions and innovations could emerge and again propel jazz forward - rather than the end in itself its acolytes obviously intended it to be. Marsalis and his arrogant, narrow-minded cronies like critic Stanley Crouch have indeed done harm outside of their initial usefulness by imposing a conservative agenda and a false, confining definition of a 'jazz tradition' which they seek to preserve under glass and celebrate as an inert art form denied of its inherent essence to be improvised or evolved any further. Nisenson does jazz a service by calling them on it, but this should not have blinded him from the reality that jazz had already dried up before the Marsalises had even registered on the scene, and that intitally, even in giving jazz old life, they also gave it a chance for new life. Indeed, there are a host of worthwhile, challenging jazz artists, stretching forms and pushing boundaries, who have arisen in the past two decades amidst the presence of a jazz establishment that may not have been there without Marsalis' (or Columbia's) call to arms, and jazz once again is alive and has a real future. Even as opposed as the Marsalis/Crouch mentality is to new developments, these people did help ensure that jazz survived through a period of dryness unprecedented in its history, and should at least be credited for that. It's clear that, even if Marsalis and his Lincoln Center program isn't ready to move on, many others far outside the realm of its overstated influence are. The future of jazz, much like its present, lies in individual contributions, singular rather than congregational interpretations of 'time and place'.

Another fault I find with Nisenson is that he throws a blanket statement of irrelevance and inauthenticity over anything created in the vein of earlier forms of music (implementing dogmatic demarcations of purity and impurity similar to those for which he criticizes Crouch), ignoring some of the very original and compelling artists and compositions which should not be condemned simply because they have incorporated a pre-existing form. Certainly genuine creativity and expression can still be achieved even though the form doesn't 'belong' to the 'realities of their generation'. If a music has been refined to its ultimate incarnation as it was in the heyday of Blue Note, Impulse, and Prestige, then who is anyone to say it must never be played or touched again? Surely jazz can not be restricted to this form alone, but there just as surely is room for its occasional re-creation, rather than relegating certain forms as rigidly belonging to specific eras of the past and hereafter banished from contemporary performance. Additionally, one may well ask in the directionless wake of the self-implosion of free jazz and the nightmarish dead-end of post-Miles Davis fusion: epochally speaking, where else, exactly, could jazz have gone, and where else can it even be expected to go in the furture that can be truly different from anything done before and still resemble jazz?

Nisenson's historical narrative was enlightening for me, but even though he uses it to illustrate his point of the changing nature of the music and how it contrasts with the staid mindset of the conservative 'young lions' of the late 20th century, it may be tiringly pedantic reading for those more familiar with the chronology of jazz. (Incidentally - or perhaps not - as already cited in many of these reviews, Nisenson's prose leaves much to be desired. But then, so does mine...) "Blue" is a passionate, provocative polemic which is certainly worthy of consideration, but I think his indictment of the neoclassicists for 'murdering' jazz is rather hyperbolic. In truth, they did their part to sustain it and, insomuch as that any form of jazz, past present or future, is flexible enough to accomodate new voices and expressions within it, it isn't something that can ever really die completely as long as creative, expressive musicians exist.

Eye-Opening.......2004-01-04

As a 46 year old European who moved to the US three years ago this book was something of an eye-opener. It was helpful in understanding the tensions and in-fighting that takes place in American jazz. Although I am no longer sure what I call "jazz" qualifies as the real thing. My impression from the book is that in many American circles music produced by white Europeans cannot be described as jazz.

I agree with the book in that I don't hear a lot of interesting new jazz music coming out of the US at the moment, but probably I am looking in the wrong places. I would like someone to write a book that explains why there seems to be a dearth of US new music at the moment - is it all the fault of Marsalis?

For me the great jazz years were the 1970s (this could be my age, or I may be a moron). I started enjoying American jazz around 1972. Initially it was Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, Weather Report and Gary Burton. Gradually I got into John Abercrombie, Oregon, Pat Metheny, Miles Davis, Bobby Previte, Bill Frisell, John Scofield, Larry Coryell, Mike Stern, George Russell, John Scofield and Carla Bley. Up to the end of the 1980s there seemed to be no end to the talent coming out of the US, and American jazz musicians seemed to have an amazing level of creativity. In recent years this flow of talent seems to have slowed down.

I think that the jazz critics are a major part of the problem. They tend to believe that the golden jazz years occurred before Miles went electric. The US jazz scene as presented in magazines like Downbeat seems caught in an insular time-warp, focusing on aging artists long past their peak, making music that sounds like stuff I have heard before. The music of Marsalis and the new traditionalists is popular with critics, even though it seems like a pointless exercise in pastiche.

The critics have a problem in accepting jazz with electric instruments or use different rhythms. They also tend to snobbishly promote difficult music e.g. Coltrane. Most critics don't really understand rock or know a lot about classical music. For people of my age, rock was the music of our generation.

Annoyingly in his book, Nisenson writes about the technical superiority of jazz musicians over their rock counterparts, but I am not sure this is always the case. A lot of the old jazz musicians were self taught, and 1970s rock pianists like Elton John, Billy Joel, Rick Wakeman and Nicky Hopkins were probably "technically" better than Monk, Ellington or Basie who did not go to Music College. However, there is more to musicianship than technique. In his Kind of Blue book, Nisenson names Joaquin Rodrigo as Rodrigos, which is a small mistake, but more worrying I did not get the impression that he had heard Concierto de Aranjuez as a classical piece. With Spanish guitar and a symphony orchestra the music sounds a lot better than the version on Sketches of Spain recorded with trumpet and jazz band.

Average customer rating:

Uh, this is satire, right?

Marilyn Manson Murders
Pastor Paul Sherman
Manufacturer: BookSurge Publishing
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Murder & Mayhem | True Accounts | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
True Crime | True Accounts | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1419631780
Release Date: 2007-02-05

Book Description

Homosexuality is a sin. Families are destroyed, especially in the military. Gay children are coming out of the closet at 14 years old and having sex as early as 12. The backlash is a social retardation, distracting them from purpose. Homosexual teens do poorly in school, tend to be more promiscuous, and lack the schooling or testing skills to advance their education. The social disease is unproductive. The answer for most delinquents is America’s military. In 1999, I began cooperating with the Pentagon. Military officials began to listen to Christians.

Customer Reviews:

Uh, this is satire, right? .......2007-06-13

Because if not, we got some seriously stupid people walking around.

Blue: The Murder of Jazz. 1997. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY. 262 pp.(Review) (book review): An article from: Sensible Sound

Average customer rating:

Blue: The Murder of Jazz. 1997. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY. 262 pp.(Review) (book review): An article from: Sensible Sound
Karl W. Nehring
Manufacturer: Sensible Sound
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

Book Description

This digital document is an article from Sensible Sound, published by Sensible Sound on May 1, 1998. The length of the article is 321 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Blue: The Murder of Jazz. 1997. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY. 262 pp.(Review) (book review)
Author: Karl W. Nehring
Publication: Sensible Sound (Magazine/Journal)
Date: May 1, 1998
Publisher: Sensible Sound
Page: 83

Article Type: Book Review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Book Description

If you haven't yet tried sudoku, you're missing out on the most addictive, fun puzzle sensation since the Rubik's Cube. So pick up a pencil, get set, and solve away!Features: The "wordless crossword puzzles" that are taking the world by storm! 100 top-quality sudoku from easy to hard edited by Will Shortz Introduction and solving tips from legendary puzzlemaster and editor Will Shortz

Customer Reviews:

Will Shortz is *the* editor for sudoku.......2007-05-30

I rated this a four only because the paper quality is not as nice as "The Little Black Book of Sudoku", also by Shortz.

Let me tell you something, .......2006-06-27

Let me tell you something: Since I started doing sudoku, less than a year ago, my life has changed in numerous impressive ways. My reflexes are sharper. My attention and concentration have improved. I am meditating again. My blood pressure is lower. My heart rate is lower. My tendonitis has been healed. Believe me. My finances are finally in order. I forgave the people that have wronged me. I asked for forgiveness from the people that I had wronged. I thanked the people who deserved my gratitude.

The brain is like a muscle. It needs exercise. Ordering bad American movies on Netflix does not work out your brain. Puzzles do. Sure, you can do crossword puzzles, but they are really annoying with those stupid little clues. I know those so-called crossword puzzle experts have just memorized a bunch of useless clues (like soap opera star names) and common three or four letter words that no one uses in everyday speech. I like the jumble a little, my mother pushed those on me in exchange for attempting sudoku. They are a little crossword puzzle-ish but you are rearranging letters, running through different combinations and permutations in your head, so a little more satisfying to me. But I don't want to knock anything. Do what you like.

But, we know from published studies in the Geriatric Psych literature that elderly people do better mentally and physically when they exercise their minds. So learn knew things. Do sudoku. Read good books. Write your family's history. Even if you don't think you're old yet. You're not as young as you used to be, so keep those new connections sprouting (it's not the number of neurons, not the size of neurons, but the number of synapses, the number of unique connections between neurons within the brain).

This is a good sudoku book. Nice balance of skill levels. Will Shortz always does a good job with these books.

Buy it. Buy it for an elderly buddy who thinks they're too old to learn new things.

Book Description

A concise and user-friendly guide to the essentials for conducting a meeting by the official Robert's Rules of Order authorship committee.

In a club, a condo association, or a board of overseers, how is business carried over from one meeting to the next? How is a meeting best kept on track? Who keeps the order and who decides what the agenda will be in the first place?

The answers to these concerns of assembly can be found in the rulebook of orderly meetings: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th Edition. But weighing in at over 700 pages, at least 80 percent of its content will be needed less than 20 percent of the time. Those not well versed in parliamentary procedure can find themselves lost while trying to get guidance on the everyday basics.

The solution? Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised Concise. Written by the officially sanctioned Robert's Rules of Order authorship team, this short and user-friendly "cheat-sheet" of a guide briefs readers on the rules most often needed at meetings--from debates and amendments to votes and nominations. With sample dialogues, helpful references to the "big" book throughout, and handy tips for elected or appointed officials, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief is the essential abbreviated meeting rulebook.

Customer Reviews:

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief.......2007-10-03

The Rules You Need In A Meeting (made simple and easy) is a must for anyone conducting or participating in a meeting covered by the Robert's Rules of Order.

Excellent, of course!.......2007-09-26

Just can't beat Robert's Rules of Order. Purchased to bring to Board Meetings for our regular monthly Home Owner Association. Would make a perfect gift to new Board members, or for the entire group as a handy reference.

A handy reference.......2007-06-11

A concise, well organized list of the important Rules Of Order in a size that easily fits into a brief case or purse. It even tells you which chapters are most important to read based on the amount of time you have to invest.

Just what my family needed.......2007-06-10

I've felt for years that dinner conversations among my wife, my son, and me have lacked any kind of formality. It seems that synopses of the day's events, proposals for upcoming family activities, and decision making about such matters as "in what order should we wash the dishes...silverware first, or glassware first?" were being made in a way that could, at best, be described as wildly haphazard.

And so it was that my wife proposed (and my son seconded) that we impose a bit of rigor into the proceedings of the evening meal. This seemed, at first, to be the ideal solution to the chaotic approach to eating to which we had become sadly accustomed. But a new problem immediately arose: Who will decide on a set of guidelines by which we can all abide? We wanted rules, but we had no set of "metarules" to guide us in how to develop, vote on, and approve the dinner rules.

Needless to say, whenever our family is stuck in this kind of self-referential loop of "what rules do we use to guide us in creating a set of rules?", we consulted Amazon. I soon stumbled upon both Roberts Rules of Order, and this "Brief" version of the original. I laughed immediately at the idea of using an unabridged version of Robert's Rules to govern our family dinner conversations. To impose that level of formality on something as informal as dinner seemed a bit crazy, if you ask me. But the "brief" version of Robert's Rules is just what the family needs.

Family conversations in the evening have improved (as best we can measure) threefold. My seven-year-old son has learned to listen attentively to proposals, and to consider all discussed points before voting on issues such as what time to go to bed on school nights, and whether to eat a piece of fruit or a piece of candy for a bedtime snack. My wife has learned that the minutes she prepares for the evening meal need not be (indeed, should not be) filled with details about what was said. Instead, she focuses on "what happened" at each meal. This has cut nearly in half the amount of time it takes her to write up the minutes, giving her a little extra time to focus on preparing the martini she hands me when I get home from the office. That little extra time has made the martini both a little dryer, and a little dirtier (she now has time to add a little olive juice...try it!).

In short, if you are looking to better organize your family's dinner meetings, and your martinis are becoming rather lackluster, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief might be just the solution.

Clear and concise.......2007-05-21

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, does precisely what it says it will do: it sets out clearly and concisely the distillation of decades of parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately (unless the organization is writing laws that will affect people's lives and livelihoods), if one needs this book in order to resolves disputes, the organization is probably in deeper trouble than can be fixed by a mere book. Still we soldier on. This is one more tool to assist in developing effective leadership, but isn't much help when it comes to coping with troublemakers.

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief (Roberts Rules of Order (in Brief))

Average customer rating:

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief (Roberts Rules of Order (in Brief))
III Henry, et al Robert M.
Manufacturer: Da Capo Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
ASIN: B000OSVOY4

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books