Quote:



Breeze,
By any chance, do you have more than one person posting under your name?  You seem very unaware of what "you" have posted previously or the context in which people reply to you.  In a prior post, "The Breeze" did indeed taunt Beech Trees regarding danger he's faced, saying that "calling [you] a liar" was about the closest he's come to danger.

At the very least, you are sometimes extremely unclear.

Skeptic

Beech Trees
I am not sure if you finally felt a need to prove you are not a desk bound geek or what caused your latest incident of venting, but Im sure we all admire you.  I do not believe I seriously talk about dangers I have faced, but you on the other hand may feel you need to prove something.  If I have brought up the issue of background, it is because some one that has experience with the polygraph (to me at least) has more credibility when talking about the manner in which it is used.  You have instead taken this to mean that I or others are comparing our courage, character, or worth of profession to yours. I have no idea if you are a lion or a weasel, but I do know that you will borrow a passage from a traitor like Ames (Aftergood letter) rather than provide something original.  What you do lack in experience you make up for in hysteria and that is why people interact with you poorly.  I will just ignore your personal remarks in the last post where you made yourself look like an ass.  If you want a lesson in communication without condescension, see most of fair chances responses or even Mark M's.  As for replying to me, you have nothing I need.
George?
Since we understand that you are the reserve officer who asked to remain anonymous (asked who?) please explain why you felt it necessary to caution me on authorship.  I am who I said I am, as you know.  But how can we believe any testamonial presented here in these circumstances? and why not just be up front?? By the way on this topic, what did the agency fail you for, since it was not a test for espionage.
If you want, I can approach my Sheriff about an honorary commission in the reserves, or maybe the mounted patrol.  Let me know.
Your other site is quite interesting...
Pissing on nettles indeed!

Dep Dawg,

FYI, if you search the archives of the (I think) Washington Post (maybe the NY Times), Late 1999/early 2000, I do believe you will find an interview conducted with GM concerning polygraph.  In this interview the ever mysterious Capt Jones is reveled to be our beloved founder George Maschake.

PS:  George update your photo on the UCLA web site http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 21^st, 2002 at 8:14pm:


It is your fabrication, not mine The Breeze, when you write 'intellectual inferior'. Please do not attribute words or thoughts to me that I have not written.

Quote:


Your characterization, not mine.

Quote:


My goodness detective, are YOU about to lecture me on the rules of decorum? Is there no end to the depths of your arrogance?

Quote:


No, I did not detective. I merely questioned seeming inconsistencies within your first few posts and asked for clarification. What is the problem with that? 

Quote:


I've made it a consistent rule to not comment in any way about my profession nor my life experiences, because (as I have always asserted), they bring nothing to the validity of the debate surrounding the abuse of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy-- not to mention the fact that my stance could, if discovered, bring an end to my chosen career. Nevertheless, you caught me in an especially cranky mood, breeze.

On September 14th of last year I led a three man team onto the pile that was formerly known as The World Trade Center. The group with whom I went to New York handed out Ultrathermic torches (which burn at 8900 degrees instead of 1800 like an acetylene torch). We handed out IR pole cams, which had a chest monitor and a pole that would extend to about fifteen feet... these could be probed in the pile to see if there were bodies or hazards before they were uncovered. We gased, oiled and handed out small portable generators that could be taken on the pile to run light equipment. We taught ESU and firefighters going on the pile how to use the equipment. We also took the equipment from those coming off the pile, refilled the oxygen tanks, replaced the used batteries with new recharged batteries and re-outfitted the new guys going on the pile. In addition, I worked two thirty-six hour shifts at Ground Zero NYC excavating and searching for survivors.

Guess what? None of the above means jack to our discussion here-- just like the number of times you've faced danger yourself likewise means jack. It's irrelavent. Batman is fond of the piss analogy, so I'll use it here-- it's a pissing contest that has no bearing whatsoever on these discussions.

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:


I find your posts quite lucrative.

Quote:


To the best of my recollection you have only raised one ethical 'conundrum' here, one of your very first postings questioning the ethics of using countermeasures (and by necessity lying about their use) when applying for federal law enforcement (FBI I think). When thoughtful replies concerning that aspect of polygrapy were posted, you somehow morphed our responses into a discussion about the court-sanctioned technique of lying to suspects, or undercover law enforcement lying during the course of an investigation-- a cognitive leap that still leaves me scratching my head.

Quote:


Indeed, how could you? The fact that your vituperative, non-stop boorish spew reflects badly on your character, your department, and most importantly your intelligence would be of little importance to you since you hold everyone on these boards who does not think exactly the way you do (or indeed, is not similiarly employed and does not have the same political affiliations) in utter contempt. I ask you, given the transparency of your loathing, why should we likewise care what you have to say?

Breeze,

You write in part:

Quote:


As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings (including your own).

Wow Breeze...another amazingly short week since we last were subjected to inane commentary from you.  Perhaps in the next week (???) you might care to peruse the NAS panel report.  It might suggest something meaningful for you to bring to our attention...  With regard to your stated intended behavior regarding frequency of message board posts and your credibility deriving from actual practice, I personally could care less.  It is not your credibility with regular contributors to this site that is at stake for you though but with those not aligned and whom you might care to influence and who might consider the apparent (or lack thereof) stability of your thoughts and intentions…

BT
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down.  Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard.  This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you.  I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post.  Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face.  I will let others decide if you could ever have anything original to bring here.
Skeptic wonders if I want to debate the polygraph.  Check my posts for my interests.  I have always been mystified at the sloppy legal advice and guidance given by a few posters here to applicants and others, who are merely trying to educate themselves and unfortunately landed here.  My focus has been the ethical considerations, more than the technical. (which I am not qualified to comment on)
Far from being ashamed at what I have written friend skeptic, perhaps someone who has not bought into the victim mindset in vogue here will actually think and consider before gratuitously clenching thier buttcheeks or attempting to manipulate thier breathing.  But I think you know this, when you make your attempts to marginalize my comments.
But lets talk about something else, if anonymous agrees.
Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder.  Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission!  It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation.  So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:


To my knowledge, I have never made an ad hominem attack on these boards in lieu of a reasoned counterpoint to an argument in which I am engaged. If you would care to point out where I have done so, I'd be happy to reconsider that position. When the debate breaks down (as it inevitably does when you or one of your ilk becomes frustrated that the smoke-and-mirrors crap that you're taught to say in polygraph school results in howls of laughter from our side), I usually try to refrain at least for a little while from wallowing in the gratuitous insults.... however...

Pinhead replies beget fullbore retorts. I don't back down from the debate and I certainly don't back down when the bullying starts from your side.

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:


I'm sorry, Breeze -- was there a point to your complaint about my posting methodology, aside from avoiding what I wrote to you?

Quote:


In fact, IIRC, I have criticized ad hominem attacks made against pro-polygraph people.  Of course, "everyone does it" is hardly a defense, wouldn't you agree?

Skeptic

Anon.
I believe I have recently said I would minimize involvement. 
Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?  How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site? some here need this for validation, some say its relaxing, others say they just like to argue.
Nothing any of you say affects me in the least, and Im sure I wont be on the calendar when it gets published.
Skeptic....nice dodge.  No one noticed, really.
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

Breeze,

If memory serves correctly, on at least two occasions in the past you have informed us you were leaving us (message board participation) for more meaningful pursuit with the intention of not returning to those who you generally characterized as not appreciating your input.  The merits of that input not withstanding, I believe your continual "bad penny" returning act has led to a credibility problem for you (Are you hoping if you do this enough we will eventually beg you to stay??).  By contrast nothing, including your cowardly and libelous innuendo, has in any way tarnished George's credibility, unlike your own words that have tarnished yours.

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 9:06pm:


Sigh.  did you bother to read anything from what I posted, Breeze?

Anything at all?

Really, I was trying to make things as easy for you as I could...rather than post links, I even brought the relevant information here to you for your perusal.   

Obviously, it was my mistake to assume you are interested in honest debate regarding the polygraph.  Others have evidently picked up on this; I must be a slow learner.

Skeptic

Skeptic
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about.  Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity!  I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams".  In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion.  You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 8:30pm:


Breeze,
You'll note that no one has claimed the above -- someone's background may indeed have a bearing on what they espouse.  You have simply failed to show how George's background has anything to do with his arguments here.  That's called argumentum ad hominem.

For your reading enjoyment, here is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

     The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
     argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
     person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
     Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
     gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
     attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

     There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
     (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
     the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
     (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
     assertion the author points to the relationship between the
     person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
     (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
     person notes that a person does not practise what he
     preaches.

Examples:

     (i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
     following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
     (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
     taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
     hominem circumstantial)
     (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
     are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
     circumstantial)
     (iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
     more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

     Identify the attack and show that the character or
     circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
     or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:

Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80


George didn't come up with the idea that the polygraph is flawed and easily beaten, nor is he remotely alone in his claim that he was wrongly tagged as deceptive.  Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences said just this in their recent report.  Thus, 
your assertion that his character in any way influences his message is completely bogus and ad hominem on its face.


And since you said people here claim background never has anything to do with the positions they espouse, let me add the following:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Straw Man
Definition:

     The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
     usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

     (i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
     wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
     Canada.
     (ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
     the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
     should realize that there are more important things than
     convenience.

Proof:

     Show that the opposition's argument has been
     misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
     argument. Describe the stronger argument.

References

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138

Dawg
You have hit on a key point that makes the faithful here nervous....did the leader make admissions that show the polygraph functioned correcty, leading to a proper DI call?. (As polygraphers see it)
Always someone will blurt out that this does not matter, that George could be a rapist etc. etc. and that has nothing to do with the arguement over validity.  As if someones background, ethics and history would never have a bearing on what they espouse currently.  Mark Mallah said recently that I was the only person following this line, which is clearly not true.  I guess what we do Know about George's lack of candor is looked at like some kind of diversionary tactic instead of what it truly is. ( A fairly serious credibility dilemma)
Credibility.....that abstract and quaint notion when you have been so very wronged.
Two Block, sorry I ignored you.  Just what would said politicians be polygraphed on? What is the topic we are discussing here.  A polygraph to see if they have done exactly what? you may be getting little response to your question because it shows little understanding of how the tool is used.  Our applicants may be tested on material presented in their applications. Criminals are tested on specific acts.
Refine your idea and run it through the backchannel committee for re-submission.
As to mining, sounds like hard work.  I did see the mining/prospecting channel on Dish but you are clearly on a different level than those chucks.  Bears? I have already checked that block so no worries, you keep bulldozing the countryside, and Ill shoot them when they flee your mining tool.  Set it up!

And by the way, Breeze, I'm sorry you feel my insistence on holding you responsible for your own words constitutes "hysterical" behavior.  You'll pardon me if I disagree, as well as if I determine for myself what "my role" (if one can be defined) is in these discussions.

Skeptic

Quote:


Mr. Dawg,
Although it seems like a favorite topic among polygraphers here, I would like to point out (again) that George's background or credentials have absolutely no bearing as to the accuracy of his information or the ethical questions regarding his position.

The continual attempts to redirect the debate through ad hominem arguments and credentialism fallacies should be duly noted by all readers for what it is: forfeiture of any debate about the polygraph.

I believe George Maschke, like myself and all other posters, have the right to provide as much or as little information regarding themselves as possible.  The arguments either stand or fall on their own, and George's are well-documented and referenced.

Perhaps should the day come when polygraphers address those arguments and the definitive findings of the NAS report directly, musing on the motives of individual posters will be worthwhile.  I am doubtful that day will arrive soon.

Skeptic

"Instead, you demanded that I prove my innocence by posting my FBI HQ file and that I discuss my security clearance. My reply remains that "regarding security clearance matters, I have nothing to add to my remarks at the NAS meeting, and I see no compelling need to post Privacy Act information about myself to counter your completely unsubstantiated accusations against me." To date, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your libelous claim I was untruthful in my FBI application."


George,

I believe that The Breeze suggested that you post Privacy Act information concerning pre-employment documents related to your application with the FBI. Permit me if you will.

1) On the "Personal Statements" link of this site, there is a posting by "Captain Jones."  It is my understanding that this is you.  My appologies if I am wrong. Throughout your statement, we learned all about your exploits. How you attended the USAIC and the DLIFLC.  We are able too read with great envy the numerous Letters of Appreciation you received from the likes of William S. Sessions, Bruce Canaga, Louis Freeh, Bill Perry, and General Gordon Sullivan.  We learned about your work you did in NYC and in LA.

2) On your other web site, www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/

We learned much more about you.  Upon entering the site, we find another photo of you, the one with the dashing bolo tie. We learned that you attended and graduated from East Moriches Union Free School in 1978.  We learned that you then graduated from Westhampton Beach High School. You were in the Band, the Drama Club, and the French Club. You then obtained your undergraduate degree from UCLA and went on to work on your graduate degree.

We learned about your translation of Habib Levy's work and how you moved to The Hague, Netherlands where you worked for the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

You talk about your favorite platform, the Apple Macintosh and all the macros that you've written for Nisus Writer and WordPerfect.  Of course we can't forget all the translation work that you've done.

We get the honor of reading your copyrighted work such as the "Clintonic Verses" and your "Sundry Prose & Poetry." Heck, we even get to read all about your participation in the 3M marathon in Leiden on June 14, 1998.  "Hup George!" "Hup George!" This written account is also copyrighted.



Now, I am not a profiler, but I got to wonder why a guy who posts all these details about his life, won't put these silly accusations to rest. What was said during your FBI polygraph examination? Did you make damaging admissions? You see George, you love to see yourself in print, on the web. You love to tell us how intelligent you are - not directly, but by posting all of the boring details of your life. After all, East Moriches Union Free School? Your favorite platform? The Clintonic Verses?

Under Privacy Acts laws, former FBI SA Jack Trimarco can't give his side of the story, but one person can and that is you George! I feel that I can safely assume that you long ago filed for a copy of your FBI polygraph examination report and all the associated pre-employment documents.  What is one more document about your life posted on the these sites?

If I were interested in learning more about the polygraph and the authors of this site, I really would like to know the true motives of the individuals.  No one can deny that you are a highly intelligent person, but maybe you were outsmarted on the day of your polygraph examination and you gave that one disqualifying admission. I certainly don't know, but inquiring minds want to know!   

Breeze,

I feel slighted again. You didn't include me amoung the gainfully employed. You should get away from your machine
and come mining with me. You would be supprised how some real heavy duty work builds muscles, clears the mind, lifts the spirit, keeps you young and generally makes you feel worthwhile. Your hands will be more happy on the controls of a D9G Dozer than they do on the controls of a polygraph machine. I wouldn't be afraid to bet the profitability would be much greater. If your trigger finger gets itchy, you might get a chance to pop a cap on an attacking griz. That is if your hand is not shaking so bad that your finger can't find the trigger. You, too, would wish it never to happen again. I would have to warn you of a big difference between the D9 and a polygraph subject. You lie to the D9 and it will kill you.

On a serious note: You haven't answered my question about  the politicians and appointed officials having to pass the polygraph in order to assume or keep their positions.

Another question: What percentage do you think would pass.

Mark
You and Fair Chance seem to be the only critics around this site both gainfully employed and having some integrity, so I wish you (both) good luck.  I just cannot see your view of eliminating polygraph, simply because it may have problems. I have already pointed out some of the people that would of been hired if we shared your view.  Not acceptable.
Gail (ill leave off the "the") I thought I was pointing out a hiring hurdle that was at least as fraught with error as polygraph, but you had the light from GM's picture in your eyes and may of missed it.  Had I cried on any of my several psychological exams (not a bad idea) I might be making money now! like alot of really useful ideas, yours came too late.  Besides, If I was doing something other than picking up human filth, I could never of met you or beech tree's and been humbled and humiliated by your blistering wit.
And skeptic, Im not quite sure how pointing out a silly post of no quality makes me culpable, but its your story to tell.  Frankly you have grown more hysterical lately and seem to be taking your preceived role here far too seriously.
And finally everyones's favorite, BT, I realize you got concerned when I said I would minimize my involvement. But in this very small and inconsequential corner of cyber space a posting a week should still be considered wasteful.  Still I will value your insightful law tips and lessons on police responsibility.  Your contributions to law enforcement have not gone unnoticed.
But why risk carpal tunnel or your manicure on someone so unworthy? why dont you re-gain that enlightened state where you had washed your hands of me? Will I ever be rid of your obtuse "I gotcha" observations?

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 6^th, 2002 at 11:21pm:


He didn't write 'guilty', detective, he wrote 'accused'. See, unlike your personal system of beliefs, here in the US citizens enjoy the supposition that they are innocent until proven guilty in court. Nice slip, Freudian or otherwise.

The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might.-Mark Twain

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:18pm:


Breeze,

Can't argue about the enemy or ex-spouse doubt.  Seen it happen and it is not pretty.  Like Mark, I am just trying to clean things up alittle.  The polygraph pre-screening can be uglier than the divorce because at least you know why the divorce attitude is happening (does not justify the attacks but helps one to deal with negative emotions and outcome).

If you do not post for awhile, I have enjoyed the exchange.  Good health and good hunting!

Enjoy Life!

Quote:


Congrats, Breeze -- I guess casting aspersions towards anti-polygraph people isn't fun anymore for the kids.  Your turn...

Ever so sincerely,
Skeptic  8)

breeze,

i've read through several of your posts-- you seem to rail at the unfairness of the psych exams time and time again. what were you accused of? did you psch interviewer make you cry or something?