tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post8767175669629115910..comments2024-01-02T10:55:10.607-06:00Comments on Angry Astronomer: Book Review - You Will Forced to Become WealthyJon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-88969855560389459832011-05-10T18:25:31.271-05:002011-05-10T18:25:31.271-05:00Jon, Calling somebody ignorant when you have no kn...Jon, <br><br>Calling somebody ignorant when you have no knowledge of me or my formal education is completely off base (not to mention rude). I truly am sorry that I responded to your review at all, and will happily comment on other blog sites where people will welcome a difference of opinion. <br><br>And by the way, as ignorant as I may be, I found the underlining an effective method of pointing out certain things which sometimes readers overlook when they read too quickly. The underlining forced me to pause and reread before I moved on. <br><br>Take care.Jacklynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-17494920089606212252011-05-10T18:25:29.948-05:002011-05-10T18:25:29.948-05:00Page 7: Chapter 15 and Chapter 1 of Part 2 you mis...Page 7: Chapter 15 and Chapter 1 of Part 2 you missed completely. You are ranting more than you realize and yet, you accuse me of doing so. These are also two of the most important chapters of the book, and somehow you missed them. <br>Chapter 2 is much, much, more than you have described in two words, but you don’t even argue, you just continue your insults. <br>Chapter 3. You are wrong about the context of this chapter as well, but your insolence continues. <br>Chapter 4. Take a dictionary and learn that procreation and preservation of conscious life are absolutely two different things. On the other hand, maybe for you it is the same thing? Also, read about altruism – it is not what you think it is. <br>I realize now that chapters 5-8 are not for you. You simply are not able to comprehend their contents and because of it you do what you do best - you become very cynical and dump more insults. <br>Chapter 9. You claim that I have no imagination. Let me say that in the whole of your, so-called, review, you show total lack of imagination and your reaction on chapters 10 and 11 prove that once again. <br>Chapter 12. For quite a while, I could not pinpoint exactly why you are the way you are. I was under the impression that you are just a puny, horrible, poisonous, self-absorbed, egocentric, self-aggrandizing person. But during your discussion of chapter 12, you, yourself, showed the real problem. You write: “The author takes a success story (about Einstein) and shoehorns it into his paradigm without bothering to assess counter examples of people who went through the same steps (those underlined) and failed utterly.” ….It all comes together now – you have failed at something big time, and because you are angry at the whole world you have become puny, horrible, poisonous,…… etc., and you spew your accumulated poison on anyone or anything that you can. Look at yourself: You take sentences out of context and you have absolutely missed the main concepts and ideas of the book. That is the reason you, practically, have no followers. Who can deal with you? Look how you put down and insulted Jacklyn (the second person who responded to your review) when she dared to have her opinion. By the way, you are wrong again, the definition of ignorant does not say anything about proper schooling. <br>Chapter 13. Despite all this, I don’t wish anything bad to happen to you. As a matter of fact, I wish you to have the same kind of good habits and good health that I have (without ever taking any drugs, whatsoever) when you become my age, and yes, I do follow my “magic system” every day.FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-23482950545016698712011-05-10T18:25:29.723-05:002011-05-10T18:25:29.723-05:00I actually got my hands on a copy of this book abo...I actually got my hands on a copy of this book about a month ago (my uncle sent me a copy)...I'm halfway through, and I have to say that although I have no proper schooling on the subjects of physics, space, or the such, I found the ideas to be compelling. I had a hard time coming up with arguments against what I was reading. I am definitely going to finish reading this book, and I think your argument is unfair based on what I've read so far. But then again, we are all entitled to our own opinions. <br><br>P.S. People underline and bold things when they write to make a point stand out; to prove a point and make it a strong one. Coming from a background in reading, I can tell you that to bash somebody for underlining too much sounds like a personal issue.Jacklyn G.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-18567590339262625892010-07-16T08:02:22.835-05:002010-07-16T08:02:22.835-05:00All I can say is that you severely misrepresented ...All I can say is that you severely misrepresented my review of this book. I did point out its flaws. It's not that I went out there to give it a raving review.Lorenahttp://exfundy.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-3093978723363654162010-05-31T21:05:21.878-05:002010-05-31T21:05:21.878-05:00Page 8: Chapter 14. You say that this chapter is n...Page 8: Chapter 14. You say that this chapter is not even worth mentioning. Do you know why you say this? Because you have no clue what’s in it, since you never actually read it. Read and you shall find. <br />You are also wrong on another account. No, not everyone sees the world through those dark shades that you wear. There are only a few reviews that you can find online, but if you would see how many reviews I have received personally, you would feel like an outcast. Some of them have certain critiques which I appreciate, but for the most part, the people who wrote them, unlike you, tried to understand the book for its contents, and wrote good reviews. <br />Regarding the question of who the author is and who the publisher is – that is so totally immaterial. What is the difference? Why are you trying to dig in the dirty clothes in order to find something that doesn’t concern you and certainly does not affect the ideas and concepts outlined in the book? <br />Yes, you are right – effort isn’t everything but an open mind and analytical thinking is and you lack both of those. Now I understand why you call yourself the “angry astronomer”. <br />I know perfectly well that you will not change your mind (I think you are not honest enough with yourself) but I will give you some free advice nevertheless: <br />1. Read, read, and read my book and think, think, and think. <br />2. Try, try, and try again, whatever your endeavor might be.<br />3. Instead of being nasty and insulting people, you better listen to and read the works of Stephen Hawking (even though I part company with him on certain issues). He has a brilliant and open mind. <br />Maybe if you follow my advice you will stop being a pompous ________. <br />Without any respect, FINIFID. (Finifid@aol.com)FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-14408986895768873662010-05-31T21:04:10.511-05:002010-05-31T21:04:10.511-05:00Page 7: Chapter 15 and Chapter 1 of Part 2 you mis...Page 7: Chapter 15 and Chapter 1 of Part 2 you missed completely. You are ranting more than you realize and yet, you accuse me of doing so. These are also two of the most important chapters of the book, and somehow you missed them. <br />Chapter 2 is much, much, more than you have described in two words, but you don’t even argue, you just continue your insults. <br />Chapter 3. You are wrong about the context of this chapter as well, but your insolence continues. <br />Chapter 4. Take a dictionary and learn that procreation and preservation of conscious life are absolutely two different things. On the other hand, maybe for you it is the same thing? Also, read about altruism – it is not what you think it is. <br />I realize now that chapters 5-8 are not for you. You simply are not able to comprehend their contents and because of it you do what you do best - you become very cynical and dump more insults. <br />Chapter 9. You claim that I have no imagination. Let me say that in the whole of your, so-called, review, you show total lack of imagination and your reaction on chapters 10 and 11 prove that once again. <br />Chapter 12. For quite a while, I could not pinpoint exactly why you are the way you are. I was under the impression that you are just a puny, horrible, poisonous, self-absorbed, egocentric, self-aggrandizing person. But during your discussion of chapter 12, you, yourself, showed the real problem. You write: “The author takes a success story (about Einstein) and shoehorns it into his paradigm without bothering to assess counter examples of people who went through the same steps (those underlined) and failed utterly.” ….It all comes together now – you have failed at something big time, and because you are angry at the whole world you have become puny, horrible, poisonous,…… etc., and you spew your accumulated poison on anyone or anything that you can. Look at yourself: You take sentences out of context and you have absolutely missed the main concepts and ideas of the book. That is the reason you, practically, have no followers. Who can deal with you? Look how you put down and insulted Jacklyn (the second person who responded to your review) when she dared to have her opinion. By the way, you are wrong again, the definition of ignorant does not say anything about proper schooling. <br />Chapter 13. Despite all this, I don’t wish anything bad to happen to you. As a matter of fact, I wish you to have the same kind of good habits and good health that I have (without ever taking any drugs, whatsoever) when you become my age, and yes, I do follow my “magic system” every day.FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-79864384083970489052010-05-31T21:03:00.513-05:002010-05-31T21:03:00.513-05:00Page 5: Chapter 13. You totally blow my mind. Do y...Page 5: Chapter 13. You totally blow my mind. Do you really believe that humans and animals are the same? You certainly did not read this chapter and if you did browse through it, you did not understand a damn thing. Yes, I claim that evolution is insufficient to bridge the gap between animals and humans, and yes to become a conscious being requires either conscious thought or awareness which animals lack and evolutionary processes here are totally helpless. If you would have read the book – you might have understood this. <br />To your knowledge, all previous attempts to match humans and neanderthals DNA failed. They did not match. As a matter of fact, as recently as last year when biologists announced that they had decoded the neanderthals genome, they reported no evidence of interbreeding between humans and neanderthals. I am fully aware of the latest find of three small nanderthals’ bones in Croatia. This announcement, by the way, was made on 5/6/10 and I published my book almost a year ago. But even that is irrelevant since biologists report that only 1-4% of neanderthals’ genes are found in the human genome which means that neanderthals’ DNA does not seem to have played a role in human evolution. That is their general conclusion. So, interbreeding is just a possibility, therefore stop jumping for joy and read the book thoroughly. <br />And again, your “big” word – canard. No, it’s not a canard. <br />If you would have read the book, you would have, hopefully, paid attention to the fact that I was writing about how humans use less than 10% of the conscious mind’s capability and probably, no more than that of the brains’ capacity. <br />However, read these quotes: <br />Russian neurosurgeon and developmental neuropsychologist Alexander Luria: “The frontal lobes are mostly dormant, asleep.”<br />Other author (forgot his name) – “So, as it turns out, to say that “we only use 10% of our brain”, this is actually an infinitely optimistic, as well as a considerably reasonable and thoughtful perspective of the possibilities that reside inside our craniums.”<br /> T. Lingo, director of DBR&D Laboratory: “Today most scientists would agree without argument that the potential of the human brain is infinite. Thus to state that a person uses 10%, 5%, or even 1% of their potential brain capacity (infinity) is overly generous. Hence, the wisdom of intuitive folks was correct: {“The human brain is only 10% functional, at best.”} John Eccles, by the way, thinks that this number is too high.”<br />Sir John Eccles – Australian Neurology Nobel Laureate: “The brain indicates its powers are endless. Such a statement that “we use all of our brain” is both misleading and unhelpful, uninspiring, skeptical crumbs with barely a grain of truth, as well as not even being accurate statements regarding usage of the human brain. Humans have an unlimited capacity to learn. Unlike computers, no human brain has ever said: ‘Hard drive full.’ To say ‘we use all of our brain all the time’ says nothing about the potential of human intelligence, creativity, and problem solving. Such a skeptical rebuttal of the vast potential of the human think machine implies that we have reached our limits of brain potential – probably the most harmful dead end notion at all. We haven’t even gotten close. Our frontal lobes have been culturally and socially lobotomized. At this stage of our development, we are simply still Apes with pencils. That is actually very good news.”FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-12302883308819766502010-05-31T21:02:32.516-05:002010-05-31T21:02:32.516-05:00Page 4: Your statements are total nonsense. You wr...Page 4: Your statements are total nonsense. You write that I do not appreciate the size of the Universe and how empty it is. But I do and I wrote about that in my book which you, obviously did not read. I am a proponent of an infinite Universe, so I do know that the Universe is endless. So where is your logic? <br />Chapter 8. You either did not read this chapter or did not comprehend it if you did read it. Your solution as usual – insult the author. <br />Chapter 9. I know all about “potential” for life on Mars. Potential my foot! We are desperately trying to remove excesses of CO2 from our atmosphere and you think that one (either human or bacteria) can survive on Mars with the atmosphere consisting of 95% CO2? Good luck! Only because some ice layer was supposedly found there, that does not make it a potentially life-sustaining planet. <br />I know quite a few things about Jupiter’s satellites as well. Europa, for example, has an average temperature of minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, almost a non-existent atmosphere (yes, there is a little bit of oxygen there – but so what?) and a layer of ice encompassing the entire surface. Please! What potential? Would you like me to discuss IO, Callisto, or Ganymede? I would if there would be any point to it, or any potential. <br />As far as the asteroid belt is concerned, there are at least 2 theories: 1. It’s formed from the groups of planetesimals (as a small precursor of the planets). 2. It is remnants of a destroyed planet. I am inclined to stick to the latter. Why? Dig into the literature yourself (if you care, of course). I don’t intend to give you a course in planetary creation and destruction. <br />You accuse me of making the “absolutely bizarre claim” that the “more we learn about life, the less complicated it becomes”. Let me say this: 1. From the point of view of literature and logic – what is wrong with this statement? 2. I wish you would know about biology, inorganic and organic chemistry, and many other subjects as much as I do – you would then be able to apply your thinking. But try anyway: yes, the science of life is still complex, but it’s becoming less and less complicated the more we learn about it. Can you see the logic? Even if you will just read my book – you will learn some biology. <br />Chapter 10. This chapter is not a “screed” (again, big word) but is the most important chapter of this book for atheists and people with open minds. But to you it’s just a screed, which (I am sure) you didn’t read. <br />In chapter 12 you accuse me of the claim that the brain is imperative for life. That is a lie! I never said that and it is NOT in the book! What I did say is that even cells must have some degree of intelligence in order to be called alive. You don’t like the word intelligence, then just call it response, but you must know that the secrets of our intelligence lie within and are coming from a single cell. But you don’t know anything about biology, you know, instead, how to insult. By the way, there is no such word as anthrocentrism, it is anthropocentrism (anthropo means man in Greek), but that’s beside the point.FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-82062218090168992492010-05-31T21:01:16.248-05:002010-05-31T21:01:16.248-05:00Page 3: I am telling you again – don’t try to inti...Page 3: I am telling you again – don’t try to intimidate me or anyone else with your “fantastic knowledge” and big words, like your next sentence: “The bastardization of the term theory at the end of the chapter is likewise unimpressive”. I would like to know in what way did I “bastardize” the term theory and what did I say wrong about theory and axiom?<br />Chapter 5. Almost at the beginning of page 46 there is one sentence “…the motion is only in circular or elliptical form” and then I specified that it is because other forms of motion are impossible. What is wrong with that? About the analogy of the rocket to Venus. When engines are stopped – no rocket’s energy is being used. As for the suns gravitational energy, it is good only if we fly to Venus (which was offered randomly, as an example only) or Mercury. What if our destination is Mars or Jupiter – then your suggestion does not make any sense at all. So, where is the “blatant oversight”? <br />As for another big word of yours, “momentum”, let me say that I am quite familiar with classical and relativistic mechanics. I know that momentum is the product of the mass and velocity, I know about Lorentz factor, also about linear and angular momentums, I know that momentum is a conserved quantity and many other things. That knowledge does not allow me, however, to push all this in the throats of the regular reader. I am just trying to show a point, the ideas, and I am not presenting scientific tract. <br />By the way, you totally missed chapter 6 which is very important for an atheist that you claim to be. <br />Chapter 7. If anyone is confused it is you. Yes, I do reject the big bang and explained the reasons why in the book and also here in this response. When I dismissed the big bang in the book I didn’t speak of it anymore, I simply went on to discuss possible scenarios about formation of the stars and planets and this discussion has nothing to do with the big bang. You would understand that if you had read the book. <br />I will not go into a very lengthy discussion here, but I can say that you being such a big astronomer and astrophysicist could simply point out some mistakes that, of course, could have happened (for which, by the way, I apologized for in the book in advance) but you, obviously, have a sick pleasure to continuously repeat the same things; “the author is confused, he cannot understand, he is ignorant, he didn’t master high school and college, and has a total lack of any knowledge, etc.” <br />Believe me, I know what a Nova and Supernova is. I know that expanding shock waves from a Supernova explosion can trigger the formation of new stars; I know that only organic material can vaporize instantly, inorganic, on the other hand, has to burned first (planet, for example); I know quite well that stars operate through the process of nuclear fusion whereby multiple atomic nuclei join together to form a single heavier nucleus (and this process is accompanied by the release of huge amounts of energy), etc. But again, this book is not intended for “super-knowledgeable” people like you – it’s for normal people.FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-40741594600684934432010-05-31T21:00:45.222-05:002010-05-31T21:00:45.222-05:00Page 2: I don’t “claim” anything, it is a fact tha...Page 2: I don’t “claim” anything, it is a fact that there are two lists in this world and my intention is to explain that to regular folks using regular words. You prefer to call them the “haves” and “have-nots” – fine, but don’t try to intimidate anybody with your big words which I see you like very much. You have to understand that anyone can use a thesaurus if they wish to do so. <br />Your statement “this is the logical fallacy of bifurcation” is pure non-sequitur. Why is it logical fallacy and what am I trying to divide into two branches? Whose logic is abandoned now? <br />Yes, I do claim that time existed 50 billion years ago. Moreover, I insist that time is eternal. Trust me, I know all about the big bang theory (when it did, supposedly, happen, how time and space were, supposedly, folded, etc.) You are telling me that I cannot perceive any other options – you are wrong and illogical. It is precisely because I do perceive other options that I do not agree with the big bang. <br />Have you ever read the works of Ernst P. Fischer, or Halton C. Arp, or Hans Fahr, or James Trefil? What about plasma cosmology by Eric J. Lerner? There are many more authors and quite a few other models of the Universe. But they are all just theories and unless it will be determined for a fact that one model is an axiom, I am going to stay as a proponent of a Steady State Universe. Fred Hoyle, by the way, died at the age of 86 still rejecting the big bang theory despite the fact that he was the one who coined the term. Big bang, if you think about it, is the most “religious” model of them all since it presupposes creation from nothing. <br />Because you have learned only about big bang and only because the majority of scientists today support this theory, it does not make it correct. For thousands of years the best minds of that time were sure that earth was flat. So here you have it – another “logical fallacy” is lifted.<br />By accident or intentionally you have failed to mention chapter 3 in which I, quite simply and logically, have proven that the Universe is infinite. <br /> Read again what you wrote regarding chapter 4: “Same problem is repeated, but instead of time, the author extends personal incredulity to matter and energy” and then “this is mostly true, it’s not strictly when you get to the quantum level”. Do you really think that regular people want to know about the quantum level???<br />Now, about wood burning. Are you for real? Here is a quote from a high school chemistry book that you brandished so easily: “combustion or burning is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel (wood in this case) and an oxidant (oxygen, air) accompanied by the production of heat (energy). Fuel + 202 CO2 + 2H2O + energy.FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-30045418903997489822010-05-31T21:00:07.720-05:002010-05-31T21:00:07.720-05:00Page 1: Jon,
You are correct when you say that t...Page 1: Jon, <br /> You are correct when you say that the author must risk public humiliation by requesting reviews from others. But reviewers must be subject to the same thing, especially when they are utterly unfair. Because you have been so unfair, I felt compelled to defend my work and myself. In the beginning I wanted to let it go, but later I realized that if I did not respond to your venomous falsification of my book, then that would be as if I was agreeing with you, which could potentially harm my reputation. So, here is my response. <br /> First, the title of my book is “You Will be Forced to Become Wealthy”, not “You Will Forced to Become Rich”. This blatant mistake goes to show how much attention you devoted to this review. <br /> Second, your reply to my publisher (Mark Ofshtein) was on 5/19/10 at 4:00pm. Here is your reply (from the e-mail) verbatim: “Mark, I did receive the book. I haven’t yet finished it. I’m about 60 pages in and have found numerous fundamental problems. In response, I have put it down temporarily in favor of something more substantiative , but will likely be returning to it once I finish the other book. Jon.” …. Yet, you posted your review exactly on that same date, 5/19/10. That means that in a few hours time you were able to read about 220 pages, think it over, type it, and post a quite sizeable review. I think not. By the way, the word substantiative does not exist, not in English, anyway.<br /> Judging by these two above-mentioned points and by your horrible review, I came to the conclusion that you did not read the book at all, but just skimmed over it. Let’s go step by step, exactly as you did in your review. <br />On the first and second pages of the introduction, I explained why I decided to rewrite the book (from its’ original content) which was at that time almost twice as big as it is now. Let me give you even more details about that decision… My intentions were and are to appeal to the masses, to “simple” people, to those who are hooked on religion without understanding much of its’ lies. I think that a more sophisticated and filled-with-scientific-details book will have a limited readership because it will not attract the average population that I want to draw towards the book. That was the reason that I omitted lots of scientific details. <br />A sophisticated reader like you should have realized that fact from the get go and should have been able to read between the lines as far as science is concerned. That would have been possible, of course, if you would have actually read the book. <br />I never (and you will not find it anywhere in the book) said and meant that anyone disagreeing with me must be thinking incorrectly. It’s simply a lie on your part. As a matter of fact, in those participating pages I provided a choice (agree, partially agree, or disagree) and if you disagreed I invited you to argue with me. As far as: “read it again, and again, and again” – among all people you should know that that is what studying is all about. Repetition is the key, and I’m sure you provide this same logic to your own students. So it is logic, not brainwashing, as you state.FINIFIDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-40081112982575816242010-05-26T19:08:12.122-05:002010-05-26T19:08:12.122-05:00My calling you (and FINIFID) ignorant is perfectly...My calling you (and FINIFID) ignorant is perfectly accurate. It simply means you have no knowledge of a topic. As you yourself admitted, you have "no proper schooling on the subjects of physics, space, or the such." FINIFID admitted as much as well.<br /><br />This is <i>by definition</i> ignorant.<br /><br />Your opinion is perfectly welcome, but it will not be free from critical analysis here. Uninformed opinions are worthless. Feel free to go somewhere where you'll get praise for such things.Jon Voiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-28554455143571487262010-05-26T13:18:42.104-05:002010-05-26T13:18:42.104-05:00Jon,
Calling somebody ignorant when you have no ...Jon, <br /><br />Calling somebody ignorant when you have no knowledge of me or my formal education is completely off base (not to mention rude). I truly am sorry that I responded to your review at all, and will happily comment on other blog sites where people will welcome a difference of opinion. <br /><br />And by the way, as ignorant as I may be, I found the underlining an effective method of pointing out certain things which sometimes readers overlook when they read too quickly. The underlining forced me to pause and reread before I moved on. <br /><br />Take care.Jacklynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-29877213414564954412010-05-25T19:03:09.578-05:002010-05-25T19:03:09.578-05:00Jacklyn: In what way is my argument "unfair&q...Jacklyn: In what way is my argument "unfair"? Is it "unfair" to point out errors in logic and basic misunderstandings of science, both of which are abundant in this text?<br /><br />It's easy to be suckered in by something through ignorance. Saying you find something compelling simply because you don't understand it is not the high praise you seem to think.<br /><br />Yes, bolding and underlining things is a great way to emphasize things, but when you seem to think that nearly everything you say needs to be emphasized, it shows a distorted view of things. That's not a personal issue.Jon Voiseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-91483190161311480512010-05-25T16:02:52.374-05:002010-05-25T16:02:52.374-05:00I actually got my hands on a copy of this book abo...I actually got my hands on a copy of this book about a month ago (my uncle sent me a copy)...I'm halfway through, and I have to say that although I have no proper schooling on the subjects of physics, space, or the such, I found the ideas to be compelling. I had a hard time coming up with arguments against what I was reading. I am definitely going to finish reading this book, and I think your argument is unfair based on what I've read so far. But then again, we are all entitled to our own opinions. <br /><br />P.S. People underline and bold things when they write to make a point stand out; to prove a point and make it a strong one. Coming from a background in reading, I can tell you that to bash somebody for underlining too much sounds like a personal issue.Jacklyn G.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-21750276418780873022010-05-25T10:04:52.524-05:002010-05-25T10:04:52.524-05:00I got a copy as well about a month or two ago. I&#...I got a copy as well about a month or two ago. I've not made it past the first chapter yet as my unemployment and knee surgery took center stage pretty quickly. But even in that first chapter I was raising my eyebrows more than once. <br /><br />I plan to eventually get around to reading the rest of it as the publisher contacted me to ask if I had any comments. I had a feeling it was going to be somewhat woo-woo-ish so I'm not surprised at your review.Leshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380336412943872376noreply@blogger.com