It is disappointing, if what you say is correct, that Paul has included a phantom endorsement of his text on Photoreading.
I know is that Photoreading has been working for me with astounding results.
I was a great skeptic of PR, when I began, and if I had seen this recent thread, when I was starting, I would have thrown photoreading out the door. However, I know photoreading works and has turned my academic and vocational practices around positively 180 degrees!!
I am sure there must be a reason that John Grinder's endorsement was put in there, and have faith that Paul or Alex will soon have an explanation. Even if they don't I am not going to throw out a system that works for me and I will continue to recommend it to those who are interested. I just know there must be an explanation?? Alex??!! Paul??!!
Pete????
As for the negative research against PR that is being sited, -- that research effort to debunk PR has already been addressed in earlier threads over the months I have been using photoreading.
If people are looking for a reason to prove something doesn't work, they can usually find it. People criticize the education offered at Harvard University, the validity of Einstein's theories, the ethics of Rush Limbaugh, the motives of the late Mother Theresa--- nobody is exempt.
I hope these threads do not discourage any new beginning photoreaders, as they would be losing out on learning a great system, in my opinion.
