Georgie!  You resorted to sercasm.  Nonetheless you have been kind enough to acknowledge more than once you disregard any ethical concerns regarding your site.  My only response to your argument of accuracy is it doesn't wash the hands of dirt.

By the way I have reviewed the strings you suggested and you do not make any better argument there.  Take care.

Boy1der,

You write:

Quote:


I see. Perhaps compilot34 was unaware that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is freely available to (egad!) anyone with Internet access. It's a good thing you warned him/her of this dangerous and little-known fact!

Now that compilot34 knows this sordid truth, what inferences should he/she draw regarding the accuracy of anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

Quote:


The information about polygraphy available on AntiPolygraph.org can assist criminals only to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscience. That polygraph "tests" are handily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect is reason enough not to rely on polygraphy. Rather than reproaching us for pointing out that the polygraph emperor is naked, perhaps the polygraph community should put some clothes on?

My only advice to compilot34 was to be aware of where he was getting his information; from people who are willing to assist criminals and the like without regard to ethical behavior.  I am certainly glad you are willing to concede that in the process of helping those you feel to be innocent or potentially hapless victims, you also aide those much less than innocent and criminal.  I'm sure it is a cozy blanket you have yourself wrapped up in.  You and others have claimed that polygraph has made victims out of good and decent people, hence your justification for this site.  What of the criminals you have assisted in making victims out of good and decent people?  Using your mentality there should be an "Anti-Antipolygraph" site (which I'm sure you would gladly endorse, free speech and all).  This has been fun, but your point has been made:  You do not care about the ethical considerations regarding countermeasures and are more than willing to help criminals make "real" victims out of good decent people.  No doubt you will have a self-rightious reply and again ask me to argue the accuracy of your information.  I posted for the benefit of compilot34 and others reading this string.  Be aware that Antipolygraph sets ethical considerations aside to put forth their personal agenda.

Boy1der,

You've correctly understood my point that the accuracy of information does not rest upon the ethics or morality of the provider thereof. An unethical person can speak the truth, and an ethical person can be mistaken. You had told compilot34 "...if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted." But this is not a rational argument for disregarding any information on polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures available on AntiPolygraph.org.

You erroneously inferred from my foregoing point that I somehow "agree that (I) and others on this site are socially iresponsible and or lack ethics regarding the information (we) provide." I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.

AntiPolygraph.org makes information regarding polygraph policy, procedure, and countermeasures publicly available and free in order to help truthful/innocent persons protect themselves against the significant error associated with this invalid diagnostic technique. This information cannot be provided to those who need it without also making it available to everyone. We make no apology for speaking the truth about polygraphy openly and plainly. (For a more detailed discussion of the ethics of making such information publicly available, see the discussion thread, A word or two from the "other side.")

I note again that you have not given compilot34 any compelling reason to disregard anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


What was innocuous or misleading?  You stated (correct me if I misunderstood the point of it) that accuracy and ethicality do not go hand in hand.  Just because you feel correct and just, does that absolves you or anyone else here at this site from having to be ethical?  The message I got was you are not concerned about the ethicality of providing countermeasures.  If you are concerned please describe to me how you justify aiding true criminals in evading law enforcement, even if you do not believe in the validity of polygraph testing.  I have read in past postings how you do not take responsibility of who visits your site.  Since you are a reasonable man, do you think it is only those truthful people who are trying to ensure they are not wrongly eliminated from a potential Job?  Will you concede and admit that your efforts have directly benefited those wishing to evade law enforcement or commit crimes?  I hear you beckoning me to disprove anything you say here.  Do you here me beckoning you to account for your complicity in assisting criminals or potential threats to our national security?  Instead of urging me to discuss this elswhere, just answer the question.

Boy1der,

You write:

Quote:


Not at all. My post indicated no such agreement, either explicitly or implicitly. By blatantly mischaracterizing my remarks thus, you have provided a vivid illustration of how polygraphers (perhaps unwittingly) may twist innocuous remarks into damaging admissions. (This is a reason why all interrogations, including polygraph interrogations, should be video- or audio-recorded.)

If you wish to discuss the ethics of making information about polygraphy (including polygraph countermeasures) publicly available, I'd be happy to address that. Note, however, this is an issue that has been discussed at length in previous message threads, which you may wish to review, and which may be more appropriate for this topic. You can search these boards by clicking on the " search" button above (or the preceding link) and typing "ethics" as a key word. (Be sure to change the default search parameter from the past seven days to a larger number, like "1000," which will cover all posts on this board to date.)

I note that you have still not given compilot34 any convincing reason to disregard anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Is it the case that you are not able to point to any information therein that you believe to be incorrect?

compilot34,
Man you are trully taken a beating here. Personlly most who have replied (no personal attack on anyone, though I'm sure I'll receive a public lashing for my post too) live in a fantasy where LE officers just do their jobs, and never wonder into the dark side themselves. Ah, Utopia what a beautiful place. Modern Society has decided that marijuana (a hallucigen) is bad and people who use the natural herb are bad. On the other hand alcohol (a depressant)a processed chemical specifically designed to intoxicate our minds is perfectly legal and controlled by our government, both easily accessable for abuse. Little known fact, alot of juries and judges do not convict DWI's for fear that one day it may be them sitting in the defendant's chair.

Personally, I had a real hard time getting into LE. The process really sucks, and the entire decision of wether you get hired or not rests on the hands of one individual, usually a polygrapher or Background Investigator. 
If you have trully changed your ways, then use all the resources available to you to fulfill your dreams. At the end of the day you are only accountable to answer to one being for your actions. I think most who have replied previously would have to eternally punish themselves, if they were to measure themselves with the same ruler with which they have measured you. A person's character and "standards" is not based upon wether they have obeyed all the laws written by modern politians. Nope, a person's character is measured by something much higher. 

My humble advice, if it doesn't have a paper trail and you are only accountable to yourself and the supreme being, then as far as anyone else is concerned,it never happened.

Regards,
Taz


PS Save your posts about letting serial murders, rapists, robbers, burglars etc getting away with crimes if it doesn't have a paper trail. My post has nothing to do with those type of people. Thx.

Quote:


So you agree that you and others on this site are socially iresponsible and or lack ethics regarding the information you provide.  I would again caution anyone who would follow such advice.  My advice is to find a more positive avenue in which to discuss your disagreement or disent.  Certainly a well educated person such as yourself can think of a more ethical manner in which to protest, or can you?  Does it take a national security incident or the victimization of a child to express your concern?  No doubt you will not acknowledge any culpability in assisting truely dispicable people.  Thats O.K. your own words have made it clear.

Boy1der,

You write:

Quote:


I agree with you that compilot34 should think very clearly about the foregoing. You seemingly suggest that the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures found on AntiPolygraph.org should be disregarded because those providing the information are, in your view, socially irresponsible and/or unethical. However, your reasoning here is fallacy of the ad hominem variety. The accuracy of the information presented here and/or the adviseableness of any advice offered here is not dependent upon the social responsibility or ethics of those providing such information/advice.

If you believe that any of the information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is either untrue or otherwise misleading, why not say so and explain your point of view? (We even have a forum dedicated to such discussion.)

To All,

compilot34 raised a question that has been raised here before and has only been answered in the veil of selfrightiousness.  You advocate the circumvention of a legal, acceptable form of investigation (polygraph).  It does not matter to those "anti" persons if they assist potential or real spies and terrorist, as long as they can "save one more innocent victim of a false positive examination."  They do not care that a child molester may victimize another innocent child, as long as they didn't unzip his pants.

compilot34, you should be absolutely honest on your application as everyone here has stated.  However, if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted.  You made a mistake when you were a few years younger because you were not thinking clearly.  Think very clearly about this!

compilot34

I believe that any applicant should be totally forthcoming in his or her attempt to acquire a job. This includes any DQ factors that may be painfully or embarassingly a part of one's history.  

I do not find fault with anyone who is honest on their application using countermeasures to ensure the results of the polygraph exam.  I would have trouble with someone who was deceitful on their application, and then used countermeasures to further skew the results of the poly.

So long as Americans are subjected to this type of luncay and witchcraft, I believe that those who are knowledgable, intelligent, and desire to further the good of our way of life here should not be denied employment paid for by my tax dollars.  The polygraph does, in fact, disqualify many honest people and in effect, robs this country of greatly needed assets.

Ultimately the choice to use countermeasures or not is yours.  

Best,

Batman,

Sorry, got a little of the point on that!!

First of all, I apologize if someone chose to take it personally. I came to ask a simple question, which, after much reading through other posts, I see has been answered already. I am not "angry" at anyone. I just don't like self-righteous sermons. 
While there may be a few true saints on this forum, I am quite certain most people here are just as human and imperfect as myself. I just choose to be forthcoming about my past misdeeds and current intentions. If I thought for a second that the truth would prevail in this situation, I wouldn't have asked in the first place. My problem with this whole fiasco is that it seems people want to judge which lies are bad and which are ok. In a perfect world, none are ok. It's either black or white in Utopia. So someone tell me what justifies a lie?  If  the majority of people were completely honest with the control questions, wouldn't most of them fail? So we are told to lie because the polygrapher wants us to/expects us to, but these lies are only acceptable for the presumed "honest" people! That's the message I'm getting here. If I had been pointing fingers, I would surely have mentioned names. It wasn't personal.

I think you misunderstood my statement about background investigations. I was referring to their use, and that of drug testing, to weed out applicants in lieu of the poly. I don't believe in the polygraph for employment screening, never have.

No hard feelings intended guys!

compilot34 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2003 at 9:54pm:


compilot34, 

Be careful how you paint a picure of those of us on this website.  Your broad brush of accusations may splatter paint where it not need be.

Many on this site do believe in countermeasures, and some don't.  Some of those are for the polygraph and some are against.  Not everyone who comes to this site has something to hide.  Some come here after hearing the horror stories of the falsely accused, and some choose to protect themselves during the polygraph test with countermeasures, even though they have nothing to hide.  So be careful where you aim your anger.  

Quote:


I think you are still new to this whole polygraph thing, because as you may or may not know, background investigations are not done when an individual fails a polygraph.  They are only done when an individual passes, and little entusiasm is given to the investigation under the guise of "they must be truthful if they passed a polygraph."

Again, these are more reasons why people come to this site.  Please don't judge eveyone while in anger over your own situation. 

Chris

Mr. Fonda,

I loved you in Easy Rider dude!   

I know that by living in caves and hanging upside down I can get a bit disoriented, but your post down right confused the hell out of me.  I read it over a few times and my headache got worse with each reading.   

What are you talking about as it relates to my response to Compilot34?  Help me out here, please!


Compilot34,

Easy bud, I see a heart attack or worse coming on here!  Just go in and lay down the truth on whomever you're dealing with.  If they can't live with it, tough shit, but at least you won't continue to got through what you're putting yourself through right now.


Steincj,

Wow!  Does this mean I can call you Robin?

Batman

Dear Compilot34,

I have always advocated treating your application as if the polygraph never existed.  I agree with you that alcohol is a drug as bad as any.

Regardless of what the rest of the world says, you create your own standards when you look in the mirror.

The best way to start off a new career is knowing that you did not need to make any personal compromises in order to attain it.

Pursue the other employment opportunities that you can without a doubt qualify for.

Regards.

Could a cop arrest someone for beating their kids or hitting their wives if they have done this in the past themselves?  Can a cop give someone a ticket for an open container when they know they have done the same in their past? DUI,
Pissing in public, keeping incorrect change from the cashier, hitting someone, adultry, pornography, alcohol abuse(why is this legal?)verbal abuse,Speeding? (They break that law 100 times a day, sure it's technical, but nonetheless). That being said, where do you propose we find a couple million saints to do this job across the country? How many of those law virgins are going to work for $25K per year?

There are good and bad just like everything else in life. I know some that are as good as it gets, I know others that couldn't practice what they preach if their lives depended on it. The past is the past, it can't be changed. There are plenty of places that have a 2 year rule. Some folks can change their whole life in 2 years, some shorter, some longer. 

I used to run with the party crowd at an old job I had. I drank too much one night and took a hit off of a joint. Alcohol was involved in every time I ever did it. I got home late that night and needless to say, my wife wasn't a happy camper. It caused marital problems which in turn made me very aware of my priorities needing to be put back in order. I chose not to partake in that kind of behaviour from that point forward, haven't partied it up since! I believe that alcohol was the root cause of it all, so I contend it should be illegal as well as pot. It's mere politics that differentiate between the two anyway. Either way, my life is better now as a result of doing away with all of that crap.

My point was that almost everybody has done something that could effect how a polygraph turned out. Mine was a few uses of pot. It's all my fault, I blame no one else. I served more than long enough in the military to know about taking responsibility for my own actions. I wasn't looking for a sermon. If you guys are going to tell people it's ok to lie about polygraph knowledge and countermeasures then you can't tell someone not to lie about something else in the next breath. You tell that to the ones you "believe" are honest, yet you have no way of knowing they are. So is it ok for "honest" people to lie about the poly knowledge and countermeasures?
If many of them truly had nothing to hide, why would they be coming here looking for advice?  I know I'm a good person and could honestly answer everything but that one question. It's the only thing I've done wrong in my life.

The bottom line is that this bullshit shouldn't be used for hiring, period. If these weren't used for hiring, none of us would ever have to come here looking for ways to circumvent our past transgressions. The problem "users" would be eliminated through hair strand analysis and other measures. All other crimes would be discovered through a thorough background investigation. Potential employees are not criminals and the fact that so many honest people fail these damn things sickens me. I'd be here even if I believed I didn't have to tell a lie.

Batman,

Just a little reflection on your comments!! The public has the right to expect police and others in authority to live by what they now preach...Can a police officer "Bust" a person for drugs, when they themselves abused drugs just two years ago?? I say not! I have a company and some years ago I hired an  old friend that was a cop for many years..Called a lot of people scum bags. He carried the rightous flag! After a few years of employment and the smoke cleared.. I found he had embezzled my company out of tens of thousands of dollars. Point being, I think that if a person has been a criminal, he has no right applying to be a cop..Finally..do we want thieves, and former drug abusers..enforcing our laws????????? Do you think when they catch a person with drugs, who claims that this was their first time, and they are sorry, they won't be arrested???  I think not.  They will be arrested.  The officer will care less if this is their first time, kind of ironic, isn't it?  As most of us agree the machine is bogus and the results of the machine should NEVER be a determining factor for employment or a crime. Can we not agree, that if by intimidation a person confesses to previous
or current wrong doing that the end result has indeed been achieved?

Batman wrote on Feb 18^th, 2003 at 7:52pm:


compilot34,

As painful as this is, I have to agree with Batman on the issue of standards.  It should not be the world's fault that you smoked pot, and now you aren't eligible for the job you want.  I am a firm believer in standards, whether they be for admissions, security, etc.  The moment the standardis compromised, the system is weakened.

That being said, Batman's suggestion is probably the best for you -- be honest with the time frame.  Perhaps there is an unwitten rule behind the satndard which allows for such a situation.  But if you don't get the job, please don't blame the world for your mistake.

I'm not saying that you are a "bad person," but I disagree with your claiming this is an unfair standard.   It is unfair in your eyes.  If this standard were "unjust," I'd be on your side.  But this is your mistake.

If this job was that important to you, you should have known the admission stadards and lived accordingly.   You could still have a life in politics - it worked for our last president.

Chris

Compilot34,

You are stuck between a rock and a hard place simply because of your own actions.  You were the one who chose to smoke a little of the funny weed a few years ago, so how does that make the standard unfair?  What would be a fair standard?  Should it be two years, one year, one month, one day?  Should the standard be whatever fits the individual applicant's needs and desires?

I'm sure you have no intention of using illegal drugs ever again.  I'd bet you had that same intention just after you used drugs prior to this last time.  I've sat across from many a criminal who swore they never intended to commit a crime again.  Intentions are a funny thing, they seem to change like the weather.

Here's a rather novel idea, why don't you just go in and tell them that you screwed up, that you used illegal drugs within their cut-off, however you want to be totally honest and hope that your other qualifications will override this one mistake, that maybe they will consider waiving the standard?  What is the position you are applying for?

One last thing, you mention that there is an age cut-off for the position you are applying for.  Does your signature indicate your age, 34?  If so, that made you about 31 when you made your "bad decision".  If that is fairly accurate, don't you think that is rather old to be making "bad decisions" regarding the use of illegal drugs?  Maybe the agency you are applying with has set their standards in such a way as to weed out individuals who are so immature they make "bad decisions" such as the one you made.

Bottom line is you made one "bad decision", do you really want to compound it with another?

Batman

I was going to just let this rest, but something bothers me here. Lying about polygraph knowledge and the use of countermeasures seems to be generally accepted, if not condoned, on this board. Who then wants to be hypocritical by attempting to make me feel guilty over my situation. Is a lie not a lie? Is the chance of a fulfilling career, knowing that it's the last chance,  not worth lying about something as insignificant as smoking pot in a given timeframe? Everyone has skeletons. Fortunately for some, there are many moral issues that cannot be brought up.

Well that probably sounded bad, didn't it. Poor choice of words, but to a point, I guess you nailed it. I'm facing an age cut off for this position. The five years will be up after I 'm too old to re-apply. My point is that this is the only thing I've ever done in my life that I would have to be less than truthful about. I could be screwed by waiting or screwed by admitting the actual dates. I have no problem with the "less than 10 times" standard, I just made a bad decision about 4 years ago that I would love to be able to re-live. We are not given that option, however. Smoking pot about once every 3.33 years does not make one a bad person. Many people have more than enough good morals to outweigh that in my opinion. It's an unfair standard. Once a person admits that their past decisions have been pretty stupid, they can change their future so that it won't include those bad behaviors. I have no intention of ever using the stuff again. I feel like I'm between a rock and a hardplace here.

So what you are saying is you don't plan to lie unless they ask you about your drug use - which you admit would disqualify you - and then you will have to "fudge" a bit.

Well, the time has arrived later this week. I have read everything in "The lie behind the Lie Detector" several times. I have no intentions of being deceptive unless they plan on getting over technical on marijuana usage dates. In that regard, I will need to fudge a bit as I miss their "window" by a year or two. Is the info on countermeasures adequate enough in the articles, or do I need to purchase something like Doug Williams "Sting" product? Also, if sweat is measured, wouldn't it make sense to be a little dehydrated when taking the test?