Yediiklim 2018 Kpss Ales Dgs Sayısal Sözel Çözümlü 50 Mantık Denemeleri ücretsiz kitap indir

Octavian Nanu octaviannanu — While I do not think this is Barbara O'Neal's best book, I still enjoyed it. The beginning was a bit choppy and slow, but the second half pulled me into the story. I give it 3.5 stars.

Annika Sorjonen annikasorje881 — As a huge Atwood fan, this was probably my least favorite of her books. There were a couple good stories, but overall I didn't feel it had the same voice that I've come to expect from Atwood.

Carles God carlesgod — A sick and twisted but humorous account of a sex addict and con artist.

Cristhian Merino _ixel_ler — It was good, but I would've seen more of lucy.. I liked their story more :) but really a must-read book!

Ben Herrera _en_errera — It could be like a delicious but scary bedtime snack! Coraline totally blows Goosebumps into smithereens. It's creepy in the way that Goosebumps should have been, but oftentimes was not. Some find it hard to believe that this could pass as a children's book, but I say any child looking for some delicious ghost story (not that Coraline has many ghosts) or shivers down their spines will find Coraline to their satisfaction. Those not looking for nightmares need not venture any further. Complete review on my blog

Wenyu Zhou _iki_hou — This is the first and only book of theory that I have really loved. I can't stop thinking about it and puzzling over the hitches I see in the argument.

Chastelia Creath chasteliac749e — A random note I made while reading: 10/07/2011 "To me, so far, "The God Delusion" is so far stating the obvious." Though I agree with the author's views I don't find this work as compelling as I expected it to be. In my opinion this book has too many vague references to works and concepts that I have yet to read and get acquainted with, which made the book very incoherent to me. I had to Google various bits before I could proceed with this book. That made it a slow read for me and there were times when I simply lost interest because my reading got broken up too many times. I wish that the author would have used more foot notes in his references, that would have made it a much nicer read for me personally at least. Is this vagueness a flaw in Richard Dawkins’ style? Well, as I mentioned, as a simple courtesy towards the reader he could/should have added more foot notes. He shouldn’t assume that every ready is familiar with everything that he mentions. Readers who are already familiar with them can simply skip them and then everyone is happy. So Dear mr. Dawkins: you should never assume that every reader has read/knows all the works you mention in your book (same goes for some of the concepts -especially those of a more philosophical/abstract nature): short summations are just what footnotes are for! So to me this was a slightly incoherent and disappointing read. That said, I did enjoy reading it. I liked how much Dawkins bases all his examples on actual facts and studies - it’s NOT an atheist’s rant against religion: everything in this book IS well founded and I’m grateful that men like Dawkins and the now unfortunately late Christopher Hitchens had the guts to write the books they did. Not many have the guts to openly criticise religion and the people who are following it it blindly. I’m tired of all the tip-toeing and beating around the bush when it comes to criticising religion and religious institutions. Why is the subject so sensitive that the we are not allowed to voice our opinions? Why are religious followers so keen on protecting their all mighty God? You’d think that their fictional fantasy would be able to handle it - especially if there was something to it. You’d think, that God would be big enough to handle the opinions of us mere atheist mortals - but apparently the frosting on the fictional cake is too delicate to handle reality and facts. Reading a book such as this one does not convert a believer to a non-believer - I was already an atheist long before picking it up. I would recommend this book to anyone who’s interested in having an open dialog and in general learn more of where we atheists come from. Unfortunately that automatically excludes the ones that actually should read it.