[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the book is "good". But it's not the most readable book in the world. Some may read that and say "well it's difficult, not everyone can handle it, multiple readings will be rewarded, blah blah blah." But I'm not letting the authors off that easy :-)

I do think it's a technically good book, but it could have benefitted from the "Miller treatment" (to paraphrase what I heard another 2+2er say recently.) All the technical information needs to be there, but the book could have been improved by melding the examples and stats with better prose that explains the concepts and principles and overall approach better.

[/ QUOTE ]

jeffnc--

Careful, bud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain?

[/ QUOTE ]


Try doing a search on Nate's posts in the books forum over the last couple of months (or maybe slightly more). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]