[These comments are a continuation of the thread entitled, "Still Skeptical."]
Several people have asked whether I've made any progress since my original posting.
The jury is still out, as we say. I do feel as if I've gained a good deal from the course (I probably won't return it), but the entire program is not at all what I expected. There appears to be more art than science here.
The PR step fosters expectations of drastic changes, but the advertising only suggests "3 times faster," something any rapid reading course or study improvement guide could easily claim. It goes without saying, however, that I'd love to be able to read the way Pete claims he can.
The weakness of the course, in my opinion, is in identifying the factors that block progress toward the PR skill. In hindsight, I'm sorry that I took the dictionary challenge up front. I should have waited until I understood what I should expect. The main thrust of the course is learning to read with your peripheral vision--something I've not seen spelled out anywhere but in the archives. Instead, there's the quasi-religious tone of the course that requires you to "believe" that the system works.
Apparently Paul hasn't discovered techniques for directly addressing the peripheral reading issue. Instead, he depends on the skill to "kick in" with practice and, I suppose, confidence. I'm hoping that by applying the steps as outlined in the course and PR-ing at least 7 or 8 books a day, that this will happen for me.
I suppose I should request a tutor. I haven't done that yet. If I can make real progress over the next few weeks, I'll gladly sign up for the live seminar, too. I am deeply grateful for the support on this forum, both for me and for others like me.
I apologize if these thoughts seem negative. 
Actually, my intent is to remain objective and to document my experience, not to challenge anyone's individual claims or their experiences.
