Dear Mr. Scribe,
Thank you for your reply.
I certainly agree with you on the necessity of “a way of settling things once and for all.” In this case, if the key claims by PR (especially the PR of the Patent Law) can be substantiated independently, that would be a way of achieving that purpose. After all, PR is not a religion and can not stand on certain unverified myths announced by the PR founders. On the PR website, it has already put on video clips of TV shows, etc. It wouldn’t be too much to ask that they put on the video clips or articles on the Patent Law demonstration.
I think it is really up to PR to come up with some experiment procedures that its practioners have used to measured PR’s success. When it says it “worked” for many people, what exactly does it mean? How is that being quantitated? Earlier, a reader wondered why PR practioners never participated in any speed-reading test and was told PR is not speed-reading. But did that really answer the question about why PR has never participated in an event in which its effectiveness can be independently measured?
As I said above, I’m not trying to disprove PR. I’m merely raising my doubts. Deep in my heart, I am hoping they can be easily dispelled.
[This message has been edited by WestJohnson (edited April 09, 2005).]
