OkieBoy wrote on Aug 25^th, 2003 at 5:39am:


Nods......nods......

Hey Chris.......good to see you back!

Just where has my favorite El Guano been on this one?

Regards,
Seeker

I will reply for Saidme.
When he comes to an intellectual standstill (which he does often) and is unable to counter something he will say:
"See George, arn't you proud of the people representing you" or some other one liner of that nature.

-OkieBoy

So where's the saidme rebutal?

Saidme wrote on Aug 21^st, 2003 at 6:11pm:


No you don't.  You knocked me off so you could get on.   

Quote:
 

First of all, how you get off saying that the polygraph only has "percieved" failures is beyond me.  I sat in your damned chair.  I was told I was a spy and unfaithful to my nation.  I saw the failure of the polygraph firsthand, and watched 2 friends fail in similar fashion, at the hands of the same man and his foolish machine.  These failures are in no way "percieved."

I have been around LE all of my life, and the polygraph has always been a favorable tool, when used properly.  But the widespread jurisdiction it has been granted well exceeds its narrow window of accuracy.  Yet our agencies still hold blind faith in its effectiveness.  Until a major incident opens their eyes, it will not change, and you will remain as self-righteous and arrogant about how wonderful your profession is until that day.

  Quote:
 

Funny you use the word "countless."  The numbers are countless, because they can't be counted.  No lab can accurately reproduce real life polygraph test stressors, so your accuracy numbers are bogus.  And how is it that polygraphers "count" their numbers, anyway?  How can they know their failure rate if they don't know whether they let a deceptive individual pass?  How many polygraphs did Aldrich Ames pass?  When he did pass, was he "counted" as an accuarate test?   

Quote:


I stand corrected.  Overreaction and bitching and moaning -- THEY are the American ways.

Quote:


Once again, a polygrapher questions my patriotism.  See, I would NEVER hope and pray for some major disaster.  And I wouldn't ask anyone else to do so.  That's a line I refuse to cross.  But your DoDPI training teaches you to cross that line, doesn't it.  Work that reaction out of the subject, right?  It's the only way to "ensure the DI."

It's your soap box, Saidme.   

Chris

Ahh!  Methinks Saidme ist a convoluted ignoramus mit einer verdienstvollen Richtung des Schicksals.  Wenn er dieses übersetzen kann, möglicherweise wurde der ursprüngliche Schlamm nicht auf einigem vergeudet.  Ich hoffe einen Tag, dieses pseudoscience, das ein menschliches Leben wird nur überlassen dem Menschen beeinflußt, der ihn wünscht.  Er ist die Plakatverkollkommnung des 3. Reich und der rassischen Reinheitbewegung, die ich wette.

Aldo

Saidme wrote on Aug 21^st, 2003 at 2:07pm:


What is the criterion for being in the bottom tier of the food chain? Who are you to judge? Is this your idea of humor?

CC

I like some of your thinking; you wrote:


"because of the untold numbers of successes the poly has had,"

At least we can agree on that.   

Regarding the false positives I do believe it's a concern and I think the polygraph community believes it to be a concern.  All examiners (that I know) do their very best to avoid it.  I think the majority of these cases probably occur in the pre-employment screening process which as I've stated in earlier posts, I don't support.  While you're reading some of my masterpieces you might look for that one as well.

Saidme,

Your reasoning that because of the untold numbers of successes the poly has had, the false positives and failed dreams of many applicants should be of little concern rings of the foundation of communism.

Are you a communist.  Screw the few for the betterment of the many?

I will be getting back to your other post regarding continuing the poly after detecting CM's. I just have to wade through your 250 some posts to find it.

steincj

Hate to knock you off your soap box but comparing the perceived failures of polygraph to a terroist attack, space shuttle disaster, or the northeast blackout is ludicrous.  For every perceived (stress perceived)injustice with polygraph there are countless positive cases that will overshadow them.  The only thing you were correct on is that you all bitch and moan.  In the mean time you and your pals can hope and pray for some major disaster to further your cause.

Saidme,

When will you and your community realize that you are all on borrowed time?  You are one major incident away from the polygraph being put to sleep forever.

We are a very reactionary society.  Our airliners got hijacked, so we locked cockpit doors and gave pilots guns.  We tripled security in the terminals and x-ray everything in sight.

The 20 year old space shuttle crashes.  We blame it on old systems and engineering and now we pour money into a new space progeam.

The northeast blacked out, and we blamed it on antique power systems which we will replace with new ones immediately, again abandoning the old systems and pouring money into new ones.

For Americans, it doesn't matter how old or poor a system is until it fails.  And when it does fail, beware those involved with that system, for the index finger of blame holds much weight in the arena of public opinion.

For every one of these examples, there have been people (like all of us here) who bitched and moaned about how poor the current system was.  Whether it was slack airport security, overused spacecraft, or old power lines, there have been people who have complained before the major incident hit.

It won't be a Barbara Walters 20/20 expose or a snipit on the evening news.  It will have to be big.  Real big.
So the next time a spy causes major havoc in a government agency, or some polygrapher "ensures a DI chart" on an innocent who happens to be the child of someone very important, it may be the spark that lights our overreaction fires.

And trust me, polygrapher, you will see how fast you are turned on.  Those who say how great your profession is today will turn on you and tell you how sick an individual you are for manipulating peoples's lives.  You will be spun around so fast, the only person you will be able to relate to is the pre-9/11 airport security guard.

Overreaction -- it's the American way.

Chris

PS - nice to see all the debate didn't die down while I was away.

Onesimus

Let me clarify my blah blah blah whine post.  I don't advocate any examiner pushing an exam to DI or NDI.  I simply say let the chips fall where they may (as it should be).

I think it's good examiner's have a healthy sense of humor.  Afterall, 90% of our time is spent with the bottom tier of the food chain.

I think earlier posts have put this issue to bed once and for all.  Apparently there was no seminar given at the APA that advocated ensuring DI charts.  And yes, I'll stand by my earlier statement that I believe Gino and George jumped the gun on this one and made fools of themselves.  They saw (what they thought) was a golden opportunity to stick to the old polygraph community and it backfired.  I would think they even realize that at this point.

Time machine?  I haven't a clue.

Quote:


There's no computer error. This message thread was linked to in a number of weblogs. Note that the number of views indicated does not include instances where messages in this thread have been viewed using the "recent posts" feature.

Saidme,

I wasn't able to discern from your "blah blah blah whine" post whether or not you're for the behavior described in the quote.

Do you believe it is good practice to ensure you get a DI chart on someone you "know" is DI to provide leverage for a confession?

Saidme wrote on Aug 21^st, 2003 at 2:08am:


It's good to know that the polygraph community can have a good laugh at the trouble they cause for their victims -- real class.  Even given the foolish assumption that this forced DI chart thing has never happened, there is plenty of abuse in the polygraph community, and I don't think its the least bit funny.

As for making fools of themselves,

"I'll still wait for confirmation on this one" from Scalabrini

"[I] would not believe that there was a widespread market within the polygraph community for the sort of outright fraud described in this thread" from Richardson

...looks like pretty guarded responses to me

There certainly wasn't anything in the original quote provided that would have clued people in that the speaker was being facetious.

And what was the reference to the time machine supposed to mean?

Saidme wrote on Aug 21^st, 2003 at 2:08am:


Oh yes, you are soooo correct about that. I have absolutely no idea about bamboozling a polygrapher, none whatsoever, no siree. Everyone in your profession is sharp as a tack, quick to point out the use of countermeasures. I can hardly wait to spend a few weeks in training, lay out some large bills for questionable software and equipment, and render "expert" opinions on an examinee's veracity. I want to be part of that gravy train just like you. I promise to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession. Christ, with all that high tech polygraph equipment and expert training, I won't have to troll for the truth; I'll be able to divine it with the pneumo tubes/GSR/BP cuff. If there is smoke, there is fire. That will be my motto/mantra. A little spike there in blood pressure? Aha! Caught another lying son-of-a-bitch. Chalk one up for the god guys, oops, I mean good guys.

Mr Truth (or is it Mark Spitz) you know not of what you speak.

Gino, I think the reason this thread got so much attention was because of the fools you guys made of yourselves all over someone's sense of humor.  By the way, I like Black and Tan's.

The 2500 views appear to be accurate. Seems like this one was big news within the polygraph community.

George et al,

Did you happen to see the number of views for this thread alone?  Over 2500.  Is that a computer error or did you strike a cord with someone?  2500 sure seems out of place considering the replies and other threads.

Polygraphy is like trolling for the truth. It is out there, but you don't know for sure where it is or what's being done to cover it up. Sometimes you come up empty-handed; sometimes you strike pay dirt. Some people get caught up in the net; smart swimmers know how to avoid being caught.

Saidme wrote on Aug 20^th, 2003 at 9:57pm:


Hmmm...is it "name-calling" to describe someone's actions accurately?

Skeptic

George

Name calling seems out of character for you.  Relax, don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff.

Quote:


SecondChancePoly,

This troll (Saidme) is proving our points in ways we could not possibly hope to.

Saidme wrote on Aug 20^th, 2003 at 6:45pm:


So why can't you and your fellow polygraphers demonstrate this claimed ability to outsiders?

PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!! 

George

As I've stated before, we (examiners) do it day in and day out.  Regarding the challenge; I've already offered my services to Dr Drew.

Quote:


I would think Saidme, with his oft-stated ability to detect countermeasures, would be the perfect man for the job...

Skeptic