polylawman

Just returned and read your reply.

Skeptic explained my statement.

Why is my argument for the truth any more laughable than yours and your machine? We elect these people, and they appoint others, to do the right thing for us. NOT THEMSELVES. We vote out a crook and another takes his place. You advocate polygraphing street crooks. What is laughable about TRYING get the truth from politicains and appointed officials with the polygraph? (That is if the truth is in them). Don't you believe in yours and your machine's ability to do this? Are you afraid of them?

I will not resort to adjectives as you did.

Quote:


Batman, would you please get out your Bat Pooperscooper? Your boy made another mess.

"polylawman', the above cited quote was written be ME, not your intellectual equal to whom you attributed it.

Quote:


Ah, the brain surgeons that populate this profession...
polylawman, read what he wrote again.  He said "roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one" (emphasis added).  He didn't say they were justified in believing this.

Frankly, I'm sure many of them wouldn't "pass" one, either, and it has nothing to do with how truthful they'd be.

*sigh*
Skeptic

I think the reason the propoly's won't touch the political question is that they know if politicians are forced to take a polygraph they would abolish it in a heartbeat. Roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one. Same goes for Judges, AG's and DA's.
We wont touch it because your argument here is not only laughable but contradicts your entire statement. You say that they would abolish it because they couldn't pass one. So by stating this you are admitting that the polygraph works.
Or haven't you thought of that?
DUMMY!!!!!

Since I have to be away for a while, I thought I would answer my own question and make an observation or two. You see, my taxes have to pay Batdung's salary again next year so, I have to start maintaining old and building new equipment in preparation for spring mining start.

I think the reason the propoly's won't touch the political question is that they know if politicians are forced to take a polygraph they would abolish it in a heartbeat. Roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one. Same goes for Judges, AG's and DA's.

Observation: The J. Edgar Hoover syndrome lives on. "Target and Smear" those who would oppose his programs. Get dirt on D. C. Politico's so he could control them. How many thousands of hours did his agents spend doing this? Did he ever have a budget turned down or even a major alteration?  This from a man who's life style had such a stink it drew buzzards off a gut wagon.To me, this is government corruption. Lyndon Johnson did the same thing. Hell, I guess they all do to some extent. Who amoung you would lead a chagre to stop government waste? A claw hammer, labeled as an "inertia impact instrument", selling for $400. Give me a break. This is theft on a federal level. Why won't federal LE go after these defense contractors and the politicians who are into their pocket books? If you won't fight it, you're a part of it.

Batdung, you are so full of hot air you could put your mouth over a horse's ass and blow the bit out of his mouth.

Now I'm having fun.

See you in a couple of weeks. Won't even be here to read the responses. If there are any.

Trees,

You must be the biggest sourpuss in your neighborhood.

Do you wanna step outside?  That's a joke son!  You know, like you and me are going at it, and I say, "Hey, you wanna step outside?"  Get it??  I guess not.  What do you do on Halloween, turn your porch light off, or do you sucker the little ones in and pour water on them from the second floor window?  Man, you just need to laugh a little.  You know that 75% of what I post to you is just sarcastic BS.  What makes it so much fun is that you take it all so damn serious.

You asked, "Isn't it funny that in all these exchanges, you just naturally assumed I have no relationship to law enforcement or the military? Why is that?"

Maybe because you come across like a pansy?

As for the debate, pull the blinders off, you'll see more clearly.  I didn't lament that you wouldn't debate, I asked what would be the point?  There would be no chance of changing your stance, even a little bit.  Unlike you, I see no reason to piss into the wind just for the sake of feeling the warm liquid come back at me.  However, you seem to really enjoy the feeling so piss on brother, piss on.

One last little dig at your roots Tree.  How come you always come to the defense of George, but he never comes to your defense?  He just lets you kind of hang out there spinning.  My money says he reads these posts and laughs his ample butt off!

As I cruise through the various threads that you so intently give your input too, I notice a common theme; everyone else thinks you’re a JERK too!


Batman

In fact I have modified my position somewhat since I first started posting here. Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph types have convinced me that certain uses of the polygraph are useful for their 'utility', i.e., tricking confessions out of the guilty.
Well said Batman.
Hey george. Do you think polygraph should be used in any way??  If not , what do you believe is better?????

Batman wrote on Nov 17^th, 2002 at 1:08am:


A fine example of defending your position. When your platform crumbles around you, resort to violence. Nicely done.

Quote:


Hate you? I don't hate you. If I gave you any thought I might though.

Isn't it sad that a simple dilletante of the travesty of polygraphy takes it more seriously han a self-professed expert, one who actually makes his living in the career of lying to others?

Quote:


Psychoanalysis now? Was it in Week Seven or Week Eight of polygraph school that you earned your degree in psychoanalysis? Perchance you have some inkblots I can look at as well.

I take the debate seriously. In fact I lead a fulfilling life away from this debate, but that doesn't stop me from illustrating the very real harm men like you cause to our society.

Quote:


In fact I have modified my position somewhat since I first started posting here. Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph types have convinced me that certain uses of the polygraph are useful for their 'utility', i.e., tricking confessions out of the guilty. It's clear however that said utility is NEVER enough for your type, and you are always seeking to use the charted results of the interrogation in a myriad of abusive ways. Did he pass the polygraph? Seek to exclude or trash the results. Seek to smear the polygrapher himself (remember Gary Condit? Like I've said before, it's so sad when you guys eat one of your own.) Did he fail the polygraph? Seek to include the results. Was the polygraph inconclusive? Seek to characterize it as a failure anyway. Didn't get the results you wanted? Polygraph 'em again. And again. And again. To conclude on this particular topic, I debate when a contrary position is raised by 'your side'-- I do this for the disinterested or vacillating third party who read these discussions. I already know how you or your type will answer. [See your next thought for proof]

Quote:


Yes, you've made it abundantly clear the reasons why you've inserted yourself in these discussions is to ridicule, prevaricate, obfuscate, and generally be a nuisance. That's fine, I suppose that could be considered great fun by a small-minded man so I'll let you have your sport. But don't you find it just a little hypocritical to then take the moral highground and lament that I won't debate you? Perhaps not, as you've shown your relationship to the truth is somewhat tenous anyway. Do you lie to your employers with the same joyous abandon that you lie to your interrogation subjects? How does the 'Dentist Simile' fly with your bosses when they catch you stretching and torturing the truth with them? Or do you only feel comfortable lying to the citizens you're sworn to protect and serve?

B.M., I allow you to believe you're rattling the cage because to do so furthers my agenda-- namely by illustrating that nine times out of ten it's a creep like you sitting across from the test subject. You're the one peering out from between the bars, not I.

Quote:


The old 'walk a mile in my shoes' lament. Isn't it funny that in all these exchanges, you just naturally assumed I have no relationship to law enforcement or the military? Why is that?

Batman wrote on Nov 17^th, 2002 at 1:46pm:
 

Dear Batman,

Thanks for bringing some humor to the discussion.  While your posts and responses might be reruns of former discussions (and reruns are entertaining to a point), your humor is definitely getting better.

Regards.

Quote:


The issue as I see it is George felt victimized. It also appears, being unable to discredit the message, that your going after the messenger. 

Judging by the attacks, it suggests that the polygraph community is beginning to feel the effects of this site. And I believe it was DR, Richardson who has stated " You can't keep on telling people that they are lying when the polygraph has no validity and everybody knows that, you can't keep up a bluff like that for long." Why not attack this messenger? Better yet why not take up his challenge?

Batman wrote on Nov 17^th, 2002 at 1:46pm:


I swear to God I'm not George. You want I should take a polygraph maybe?    

Wasn't you issue with drugs george?? Isn't that what kept you out of the Bureau?
Be honest.

Good God, this is exactly what I mean when talking about dealing with zealots. 

Anonymous, are as blind as you are stupid?  Read my last post again.  Here, I'll make it easy for you.  I said, "Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations.  Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading.  I was never asked.  Everyone just jumped to that conclusion.  I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it.  However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly."   

How much clearer can I possibly be?  I used the words knowingly and deliberately, what more do you want?

As for "control" questions, well, just how pissed off do you get at the dentist when he says this will only hurt a little bit?  Even though it hurts like a bitch, he gets the job done!  Am I supposed to feel guilty when I administer an exam with NDI results that helps to exonerate some young kid on a rape allegation, simply because of how I introduced the "control" questions?  Gee, I’ll take that one to the confessional with me so as to clear my path to heaven.

As for credibility, I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder.  My credibility is in good stead with those that count most.

(Yeah, a bunch of low life polygraph examiners!)  Beat you to it bud.

George, are these the folks you really want to align yourself with in your battle against, sorry, I mean for justice?

Batman

PS: Any way you can get that picture of Clinton off this thread?  Every time I scroll through he passes by like a bad dream.

Batman,

And just as you claim not to have intentionally and knowingly misled anyone on this site regarding your profession, I suppose you claim not to have misled examinees about the nature and purpose of control questions for the last eighteen years too, yes??  Right...go tell it to Batboy, hero.  Is there any wonder you and your colleagues have zero credibility?? 

Who rattled your cage Septic?

Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations.  Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading.  I was never asked.  Everyone just jumped to that conclusion.  I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it.  However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly.   

Exactly what do you guys want?  In my past posts I have mentioned the weaknesses of polygraph, I have admitted it is not a perfect tool or technique.  It may very well be that any scientific validity attached to it is questionable, but regardless of what you think or want to admit, it works.  In my 18 years of administering polygraph examinations in support of criminal investigations, I have assisted in identifying countless individuals involved in criminal activity, and I have assisted in exonerating an equal if not greater number alleged to have committed criminal acts.  In no instance has polygraph alone been the single factor that either led to a conviction or exonerated someone.  It was simply a tool that assisted in the overall investigation.

That, George is what I mean when I talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Simply because polygraph is either misused or has serious flaws as a "screening tool", you want to chuck it all.  You folks refuse to acknowledge, even in the slightest way, that it does have some merit, some utility.  You label all polygraph examiners as evil doers, all confessions as coerced, and all polygraph successes as the result of "naive" individuals who were too stupid to know better than to confess.

So what is there to debate?  What purpose would it serve to have "intelligent" discussions with you folks?  You are zealots.  You refuse to budge off your positions, even the slightest degree.  You simply want to attack everything and everyone remotely associated with the use of polygraph.  Well, have at it.  As you sit back and scream and yell about the injustice of it all, I'll simply go back into the room, and administer a fair and impartial examination in an attempt to assist an investigation to the best of my ability.  It doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone else.  It doesn't make me a petty tyrant, or a good German soldier simply following orders.  It makes me someone who is doing his job, in as professional a manner as possible.  We are not all asswipes, or shitbags, or fascists.

Batman

PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won’t keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site.  Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them.  Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise), and BeechTrees (possibly he’s the Penguin).

Batman wrote on Nov 16^th, 2002 at 10:43am:


Batman,
You were knowingly misleading people with your answers.  You know it and so do your readers.

It comes as no surprise to me, however, that a polygrapher would have such a casual relationship with the truth.

You know, Batman, I take it back.  You haven't made the dialogue here go downhill.  All you do is play games, and contribute nothing to the subject(s) at hand.  Frankly, I find your posts largely irrelevant.

Skeptic

Hey Pecker-Head, you wanna step outside?

Beech, do you hate me because I administer polygraph examinations, or because I don't agree with George, or simply because I don't take all this crap as serious as you?

That's your problem, or more accurately, one of your problems.  You think that everyone who posts here takes this stuff as serious as you do, therefore you swing first, ask questions later.

You say you want to have an intellectual debate about polygraph, however it is evident that nothing will change your point of view, so what's the point in debating.  All you want to do is charge at the fence, so I chose to stand outside the fence and poke you with a stick.   

As for the recent murders in the DC area, well, until you get out on the streets, or sit down in a room with someone the likes of those two, maybe you should simply hold fire!  Looking at things from the safety of your little computer room really does not qualify your to pass judgement.

On a lighter note, you're a jerk!

Batman

Batman wrote on Nov 16^th, 2002 at 5:13pm:


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmno, that one was pretty good. In fact I know it stung, as the length of your retorts is directly related to how deeply I affected you. Judging by this next verbose spewage, I got you good little man.

Quote:


No, not really. My illustration is much closer to the mark. There's no difference between your petty little word games that you used PRECISELY to give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you and the cited example of Bill Clinton giving perjurious testimony. I bet you even had the same smug little smile on your face as the Slickster had, didn't you?

Quote:


"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." -Bill Clinton


Quote:


If by 'others', you actually mean The National Academy of Sciences, Congress, 99% of the US Court systems, the American Medical Association, etc..... then yes, you're correct.

Quote:


I see the concept of 'dramatic irony' is lost on you. Oh well, judging from my Instant Messages, many others thought it was a hoot.

Quote:


No, but you're not the first dim-witted polygrapher or polygrapher apologist who has sought to quickly dismiss what I have to say by blindly compartmentalizing me into a demographic they despise (on these boards, there sure seems to be a lot of Democrat hating going on). Such is the way of a small-minded man. When asked to defend their position, they are caught off-balance and seek to hate and villify the opposition rather than actually defend their profession. "Ooo, I don't like what he's saying, he must be one of them Democrats!" 

Democrats and Republican alike in Congress refused to be polygraphed. I wonder why?

Quote:


You might want to ask for a tuition refund from the Keystone Police Akademy. I bet you were one of the expert profilers running around looking for an angry white mid-30's Southerner carrying an M-16, weren't you?

Quote:


An interesting question. It's not the right question though, so try again dufus.  

batman then pontificates:

Quote:


He then fails to take his own just-recently dispensed edict and writes:

Quote:


If you can't hang when the questions start hurting, you always have a little hook-rug on the porch, parser.

J. B.

Good to see you back. As well as I remember your posts, you do debate the issues.

What I meant by polygraphing government officials is: That they should have to be subjected to the same rigorous background check, including polygraphy, as do the prospective hires for the FBI, CIA, etc. Polygraph questions should include those stated in the open letter in the reading room of this site.

The definition of a politician is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". A lot of this back scratching is so deep (defense cantracts, medical, pharmaceutical, etc.) it causes bleeding. The blood is from us taxpayers. I don't believe LE is doing their jobs if they don't go after these highdollar crooks with the same vigor as they do the street crooks. If government corruption could be curtailed, the budget would have a surplus always.

Come on Peach Tree, you can do better than that.

A clown like you knows how the game is played.  You do a good job of taking your own quotes and redefining them when the cheese gets a bit binding.  It's kinda like when George uses the term "naive".

If you want to know the right answer, ask the right question dufuss.  That's one of the first rules of a good polygraph examination.  Oh yeah, I forgot, there is no such thing as a good polygraph examination according to you, BlockHead, and others.

One other thing, Bill Clinton doesn't have a school of honesty, you should know that!  Actually, I'm more a Rush fan myself.  You wouldn't be a Democrat would ya?  Voted for Al Gore, cried like a baby while claiming he got robbed.  It would fit your profile.  Oh, did I say that, profile?  Damn, another one of those BS Law Enforcement concepts.  They just keep sneaking out.

Well Peachy, you just go and have yourself a fine polygraph day.  By the way, you going to seek out that counseling I suggested?  Also, what about that service to your country question, you red, white, and blue bleeder you?  Does your patriotism really run deep, or do you just pull it out when accusing others of being despots, petty tyrants, and good German soldiers?   

By the way jerk-off, don't formulate opinions on how one would does his or her job based on what they post on this site.  God, if that were the case, some would assume that you carry a gun to your job at the post office every day.  As for me, I would venture to say that you are very competent at what you do, and well thought of in the work place.  It's just that when your fingers start dancing across that keyboard, the jerk in you pushes to the top.  It happens, so don't worry about it.

TwoDumb, I answered your challenge, got any others Einstein?

Batman 
(Or Asswipe to Peachy, I did laugh when I read that, thanks!)

Looks like 'ol Batman studied well at the Bill Clinton School of Honesty.

We all know his definition of 'is' now.

George, George, George,

You, better than anyone, should know when words and answers are crafted for a self-serving advantage.

TwoGoofy was the first person. that I recall, to directly ask me if I was a Polygraph examiner.  When he asked, I answered.

"Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy? ?Again, an erroneous assumption on your part."  My words exactly.  I do not believe polygraph to be a pseudo scientific fraud.

"I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph.  Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?"  My words, exacty.  I have been in law enforcement since '78, and have the experience I speak of.  I then asked the question.

"I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.  I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life. ?Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations. ?Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance. ?Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue. ?Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill. ?Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!"  Yup, I said it.  I do take offense to being referred to as a "tester".  Just a personal thing.

Anyway, gotta go.  Didn't lie, wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent!   Just answered questions and made statements much like many others who visit this site and claim to be so rightous.

Batman's gotta call (Bathroom call that is).

Batman

Twoblock,

Could you please define the conditions of the following. 

Quote:


If it is for general screening, my answer will stand as it has always.

As for your other questions, I think I have answered all but one through my previous posts here.

Batman,

You write:

Quote:


Had I passed my FBI polygraph examination, I suppose I would have have continued, as before, to have little interest in polygraphy. It was the Kafkaesque experience of being falsely accused of having disclosed classified information to unauthorized persons and having had contacts with a foreign intelligence service that first prompted me to research polygraphy and discover that it is a pseudoscientific fraud. And it was the realization, years later, that many others have been -- and continue to be -- falsely accused that prompted me take a public stance against it.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that those falsely accused by polygraphers are working to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. I make no apology for that.

Batman,

You write:

Quote:


It seems, then, that you were dissembling when you previously let on that you are not a polygrapher... 

On 25 July 2002 you wrote to Beech Trees:

Quote:


And on 27 June 2002, you wrote to Skeptic:

Quote:


And on 17 May 2002, you wrote to Former Officer:

Quote: