Quote:



Hey, I'm all ears.  Why???  Oh please, go easy on me with your rapier wit Mr. Fish.  Thanks.

Kona

Quote:



Like I said. There are maybe two dozen people in the United States (and the world for that matter) that have the qualifications and experience I have to do the particular job in question. Of those people, none of them are willing to work for less than $80k per year (most make more than $100k). Trust me, the recruiters jumped all over my employment application like white on rice. They probably shit their pants when I agreed to sign on for GS12/6 pay. Even the government knows better than to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Thanks for your curiosity though. I'll keep you informed of how it goes...

Quote:


Yeah, that's probably a good idea.  After all, you've got to be the first person I've ever run into that is OVER qualified for a government job.  CIA will jump all over you.

Have you taken the time to read through any other threads on this board?  The countless experiences of people who admitted to NOTHING and were disqualified anyway?  If they aren't given a second chance, why would you expect one?

Here's what I'm trying to understand - the polygraph is used to verify the information you've disclosed to the agency to that point.  So, during the pretest phase you pretty much confirmed that you lied somewhere on your application materials - the examiner didn't even really need the box for that.  What is it that makes you believe you'll be processed further?

Kona wrote on May 27^th, 2004 at 1:44am:



Anybody want three guesses why this sorry piece of trash "Kona" feels such a kinship with scum-sucking polygraphers?

Anyone?

Anyone??


Bueller???

Quote:


Let's see.......the polygrapher got you to admit that you LIED on your background package, and you think that you are going to be approved for further processing?  Yeah.......they're going to process your application all right.....right into the shreding machine.  Better ease up on the crack pipe, you're starting to hallucinate.   

Who knows though......with your qualifications, integrity, and people skills, I'm sure you won't have any problems landing a quality job somewhere in the bowels of our government where you can really "break it off" into someone.   

Best of luck in your quest for employment.

Kona

Quote:


All right, don't go having a hissy fit here.   

You might already be too late trying to pull your application package, because you may have already been DQ'ed.  Maybe you should call them and use your superior people skills to try and acertain that fact.   

Kona

Actually, on further thought, I don't think I'm going to rescind my application. Considering my qualifications and the fact that this really was a minor instance, I feel certain that the adjudicator is going to either approve me for further processing or want to re-poly me. I rely am interested to see how this is going to play out. I'll wait until they make a move before I do. I'm not due for another BI for my current clearance for at least another 3-1/2 years, so I've got plenty of time on this.

I'll probably wait until they decide what to do and then break it off in their asses at that point...

Quote:



Gee, thanks for the advice and admonishment. Don't know as I should take it seriously considering it comes from someone with poor reading comprehension skills, bloviated  opinions, and a presumptuous nature. But thanks anyway. Have a nice day.

Now, is there anyone out there with two or more synaptic gaps to rub together that has an opinion on this??

Very well.  Given your concern:

1.  Yes, withdraw your application.
2.  Yes, you probably could be in a world of trouble with your current employment for that stupid admission 

There you go, no assumptions and I've only addressed your CONCERNS.  Now, stop blaming the polygraph examiner and get over it - you lied.

Although you are not a particularly pleasant person and I will make the reasonable assumption that I would NOT want to work in the same office as you, I do wish you luck as I don't like to see anyone experience the hardship of losing employment.  However, I reiterate that, regardless of your "tremendous qualifications," you need to work on heading back to Earth and getting over yourself.  Obviously your qualifications didn't get you anywhere with that polygraph exam...

Kona wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 11:05pm:




How many times does the obvious have to be re-stated. As I have said numerous times in this thread, being DQ'ed is not my concern. It's really the very least of my concerns. What I want to know is how to get out of having this mark placed upon my record.

I figure a "first strike" approach might work well: I rescind my employment application before they get a chance to DQ me. Since it is in fact the CIA that I applied to, and I can't get my Poly/application info via FOIA, I can't be held responsible by any other agency doing a BI on me for why the CIA DQ'ed me. It's like having the right to face your accuser. And I can always claim that I didn't know I had been DQ'ed because I terminated my application process.

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about here?? It seems like I typing to the air...........

Quote:


You are absolutely correct.  I suppose it is possible that you could lose your security clearance.  Hopefully this won't happen.

You can call it anything you want, "duped," "tricked," "coerced," "bamboozled," "intimidated," or "pressured," the end result is still the same......the polygrapher got you to admit to an ommision of drug useage on your background package, and that was all he needed to DQ you.   

Good luck.

Kona

Quote:


Sweatin,

Here, let me explain it to you.  It's called Interrogation 101.  The polygrapher can say anything and do anything in order to elicit a confession, an admission, or a contradiction to anything already listed in your background package.  If he is successful, then he has accomplished his mission.  He has exposed one more person that has either lied about or ommited something from their background package.  We all know that the polygraph can't detect lies......that's not the point.  It is however, an excellent intimidation device to get examinees talking, and to confess to things not previously exposed.   


When pillpopper talks about you being the posterboy for the polygraph community, he is right on the money.  All they have to do is point to you as a prime example of someone that lied on their background package, and the polygraph "process" (read: pre-test interrogation) surfaced the truth.   

Are you starting to see the big picture here?

Good luck.

Kona

Jesus H. Christ, Spookster, you sure do seem to have reading comprehension problems! More and more unsolicitied and unfounded ASSUMPTIONS. Please show me where in this thread I have denied lying? or where I've implied that no one meets any agency's drug standards? One bogus pitch after another ... you're about as laughable as that inane polygrapher ... I wonder why?

And stupid too. Apparently you don't understand that first post that I made very well. You know, the one where I expressed that "concern"... Here read it again:

"Probably the worst thing about this was that I already have a security clearance required by my present job, and had it when I had my lapse in judgement. My concern is not so much being considered further for employment with the organization as it is that I could potentially lose my security clearance for this admission that the polygrapher duped out of me because of my ignorance."


Go ahead and re-read it again until you understand it. Try sounding out the tough words. When you're done, go back and re-read the questions that immediately followed in the post. Let me know if you need help with those too. I'll wait here until you figure what this is all about...

Even if just out of sheer boredom, you are quite involved with this thread wouldn't you say?  I'm truly saddened that I don't live up to your expectations with regards to debating skills.   

I guess I see why pillpopper has apparently given up.  You don't seem to get the point here - you intentionally chose to not disclose information relevant to employment suitability prior to your polygraph examination.  Regardless of the reason, you chose to admit to this failure to disclose during your examination.  I don't think anyone has really indicated that you were not within policy (altough based on the timeframe you indicated I'd be inclined to say you are not) but why is it so difficult to see that you LIED?  Many agencies will work with you on issues liked drugs, incidents in earlier years, etc.  One issue they won't work with you on, however, is lying.  And that's what you did.  Regardless of what role you THINK you might play were you to gain employment, even as a career liar as you imply, do you really think the employer wants you to lie to THEM?   

Anyway, I did give you the benefit of the doubt and reread your original post (see my prior post above, however, the one where I QUOTED a portion of your original post - see, I was paying attention!).  After rereading, I find that you in fact do NOT have a legitimate concern.  You lied during the process and you got caught.  Although I don't agree with using the polygraph in pre-employment screening settings, it is currently used in that capacity and did just what its' advocates claim it can do - caught you in a lie.

Tough shit man, move on...  you're obviously quite gainfully employed now so just get over it - get over yourself as well...

As an aside, it's interesting to note the assumptions that have been concluded about me by the detractors in this thread. For instance, it has been assumed that I was applying for work with the CIA, that I admitted to smoking weed more times than the respective agency in question allows, that I failed the polygraph test, etc. ad nauseam.

I almost feel like I'm getting boxed right here in this thread.

Let me guess: You losers are polygraphers? Whoda thunk it? Is that what the government pays you spooks to do all day? Sit on your fat assess detracting from an internet message board? Pathetic really...

Get your asses back to work! I ain't pay'n taxes for you to sit around gabbin' all day SPOOKS!

Quote:



Why don't you read the original post I made at the begining of this thread and then answer my questions? I have a legitimate concern that I'm dealing with regarding this process and was looking for legitimate comments regarding it.

I could give a hoot whether or not you are impressed, and I certainly could give two squirts whether or not you are sympathetic. My guess would be that this website is routinely trolled by Intelligence Agency polygraphers, and I was especially soliciting their opinions on my circumstances. As far as the rest of you cyber-freaks are concerned, I could give a bucket of warm rat piss what you think. If you have something constructive to say, then feel free. If not, step.

Most of the rest of my engagement with pillpopper was satire I contrived out of boredom. He's a meodiocre debater at best. YOU, on the other hand bore me considerably.... <YAWN> ...

Sweatin,

All of your arguments and hinting that you were probably trying to get a job with CIA aside, what exactly is your purpose in posting here?

Forget sympathy or understanding - you lost that as soon as you mentioned the phrase "which I had not indicated on paperwork."  Your implications that NO ONE applying for any of these jobs is within the stated drug policies is just plain stupid.  Many people meet the suitability policies for a given agency and yet still get disqualified by the polygraph.  Those people have my sympathy - not you.

In any event, the polygraph is in place and is not going anywhere in the near future.  You obviously feel very sorry for yourself because you were "duped."  Bitching about it here won't change anything.  If you admitted to nothing and were falsely labeled a liar, you might have other avenues to look into.  But not only did you admit to smoking weed, you more importantly admitted to lying.  Do you not see this?   

And finally...

Quote:


I was wrong about CIA - you're applying to be in Under Siege 3, right?  Steven Seagal's replacement, maybe?  Are you crappity smacking kidding me?  You're not impressing anyone with this bullshit man...  If you're so qualified to be the new 007, why the crappity smack are you smoking the wacky weed while under a government granted security clearance?  I guess all that military and commercial experience you mentioned doesn't cover common sense, does it?

Bill Crider wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 7:43pm:



Nope. Still don't see it. If a polygrapher tells you that the box is indicating deception, when it is in fact NOT, in an effort to coerce an admission... he's duping you.

This is not a polygraph "examination" (or and "examination" of any kind for that matter), it is an interrogation. The whole polygraph process is a sham to dupe unsuspecting individuals who feel little if any guilt (becuase their crime is fairly innocuous and innocent in their own eyes) into confessing every last modicum so the polygrapher can be judge, jury, and executioner.

The process is by it's very virtue a "dupe session", and the dupe most certainly can be (and routinely is) duped during the dupe session. And if anyone should know, it would be me, because you just so happen to be corresponding with a noted Grade-A "dupe" at this very moment. (Fool me once, shame on me...)



And your answer about "who would be honest and stuff" is a bit vapid and lacking.  There is very little reason TO LIE except for personal advantage. 99% of all people do it every single day. The job I applied for required it.

It's not like I can't see the merits of a implementing a "lie detector" if it actually had the ability to detect lies. Such a machine does not exist though. What they use now victimizes the innocent (and the marginally guilty for that matter) and rewards the guilty.

Ultimately though, you are correct. I LIED on my paperwork. I do not deserve the job (or the pay cut, or having to lie to my friends/family about my employment, or having to relocate to DC where I'd not be able to afford a home on the paltry sum they'd be paying me, or the DELMARVA traffic jams, or the requirement to violate the laws of foreign nations risking imprisonment in some third world hellhole, nor applying my decades of noted military and commercial experience in the field while working under the duress of an employer who could terminate me at any moment that the so-called lie detector says that I'm being "deceptive", nor any of the headaches). No, I don't deserve the job. You're absolutley right. We need someone with "integrity". We need the best of the best. We need the guy that cleans the Cincinnati Reds bus:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040519/news_lz1s19glry.html

Give him the job. I'm sure he'd appreciate it!

ok, my last try....

polygraphers are duping you about how the polygraph really works. they are not duping you into an admission of something. 

it would only be duping if they said for example, only drug usage in the last 12 months is relevant and after you admitted to it, they told you the standard is actually 5 years.

as for the quote about who would be honest about stuff. thats simple. A person of integrity does not apply for positions if they do not meet the drug usage standards. if you are willing to lie and rationalize just for your own advantage, you should not get the job.

And furthermore, how exactly could a polygrapher justify his or her job, knowing quite well that they themselves could easily be "duped"? How could one live with ones self, knowing they may have put real criminals, moles, or miscreants into employment just by virtue of the fact that the  polygraph process does in fact NOT really work?

It makes no sense. If these people gave a squat about national security they'd resign their postions and go back to college to learn a legitimate profession...

The logic upon which you base your position is about as circular as a lunar orbit. It is basically: 

“Polygraphers must lie to you in order to find out if your are lying, and therefore they are not “duping” you. As long as there are people willing to lie applying for Government jobs, polygraphy is justified.”

You could use a refresher course in deductive reasoning and logic.

Of course I would not have made a substantive admission if I knew beforehand that it was implausible for a polygraph to discern a lie. Who would? Answer: “No one”. What would be one’s motivation for revealing information that knowingly would get him DQ’ed? Answer: “None”.

This has little to do with whether or not someone is willing to lie to get a job. 99% of all people are willing to do that. In fact, as I pointed out, the very nature of the job in question requires a willingness to be deceptive. Hell, it should be a mandated requirement!

What it has to do with is that both the process for determining deception and the criterion for DQ’ing based upon what amounts to be human instinct flawed. Yes, I took two drags off a joint two years ago and yes I did not disclose this relevant information until tricked into doing so. Now suppose I had was a mole trying to infiltrate a national security agency? Do you suppose I’d admit to that? Do you assume I wouldn’t know how to beat the box? Or perhaps I should just be an honest guy and not apply for a job? Get real.

If you put my admission into perspective with those of Aldrich Ames, and the fact that I couldn’t get through a polygraph/interrogation but he could, you just might see the ridiculousness of it all I think.

Not to mention the fact that I did eventually admit to it when confronted. Why would I do that? Guilt. A desire to be completely honest. I revealed it knowing quite well that it would likely get me DQ’ed. But does that get taken into consideration? Not likely.

On someone like me, a polygraph test would only work once. I’ve completely lost my fear of the box, and I’m one of the good guys. Doubtful a person who was truly guilty of anything significant and who wasn’t gullible would reveal his crimes under the poly.  If I were to get called back for a re-poly it would be a different story the second time around. I guarantee the charts would show “truth” and the polygrapher would get nothing of substance from me. If he failed me it would be based solely upon instinct. 

im not agreeing that you were duped. the hyporcisy I refer to is the fact that they must deceive you for their machine to "work" and that you must lie for it to be scored to your advantage.

your argument basically is, I would not have admitted to it had i known their method for uncovering the truth is flawed. 

one is never "duped" into making a truthful substantive admission. you are by normal ethical standards, REQUIRED to have candor about potentially DQ-ing information, regardless of what they may or may not do to try to get you to admit to it. 

the fact that you WERE lying or willing to lie gives the poly community its mandate to uphold the status quo. You are a poster child for the polygraph community when you say "I would not have admitted to anything had it not been for the polygraph"

many of the pro polygraph sites will say that 85% of the people who fail will admit to something. if they can psych you out into admitting something, more power to them. its no different than using interrogation techniques such as being falsely sympathetic or trying to confuse a lying person by re-angling the questions over and over unti the lie breaks down.

Bill Crider wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 4:02pm:



I'm glad to see that you now agree with me that I was duped into making a substantive admission.  Quite a change from your last post claiming you were not able to recognize that I was "duped".

Considering now that you've admitted to being wrong once already in this thread, maybe you'll be able to admit to being wrong twice? Let's find out...

The so-called "policy" that I admitted to being in violation of is utter-bunk in itself. How can you look into someone's soul and claim he or she is not trustworthy when they freely admit to you their transgressions? Especially when it's something as slight as having smoked a single joint?

Truth is, YOU CAN'T!

But to eliminate someone from the employment process based on an extorted admission during a polygraph, while knowing that the process is beyond problematic and that it is likely others (who are far, far worse) are most likely seeping through the cracks is ... patently absurd!

I do not know that I have been eliminated from the employment process ... yet. I have tremendous qualifications that make it likely they will be willing to work with me in this situation, provided it is properly adjucated and they just don't throw my paperwork out based on this one admission. Even now, after the fact, I am confident I did the right thing in being honest, and believe if they don't offer me the postion they are the fools that the media makes them out to be. That may sound like I have a big ego, and I most certainly do. But the truth is the truth.

Anyway, as I previously mentioned, it is not likely now that I would even accept the postion at this point, having been mal-treated and conned and placed in a position of duress. Why should I want to work under those conditions? The position I was offered sounds extremely exciting, but the job itself requires me to lie to friends, family, and to violate the laws of foreign nations. All of this for an Agency that would treat me poorly and place me under duress for being honest and admitting my guilt? Again, patently absurd...

because of my experience, I am sympthetic to your anger over the hyprocrisy of the polygraph situation. However, you, by your own admission, violated a drug policy. in this case, the polygraph did what is supposed to, even if it involves trickery and was not related to the physical charts.

i personally am not against the poly as a tool among many. where it is used to elicit a confession, it is useful. it is absurd to use it as an absolute standard of esatblishing "truth" to the exclusion of all other evidence and investigation.

Bill Crider wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 3:14am:



I was duped because lie detectors can NOT detect lies, and had I known this, I would have NEVER admitted to anything. In short, they were forced to repeatedly lie to me in order to get me to admit to anything. Why is it unacceptable for me to conceal anything from them, but yet they should get a pass when lying to me? 

I don't get it.

Honestly, at this point I could not care less if they want to hire me or don't. I will not be taking the job if it's offered, as I refuse to put myself in a compromised employment situation with my government owning me as an indentured  servant. I would have been taking a serious pay cut anyway, as my COE offered me significantly less than I currently make. It was foolish of me to even pursue this employment opportunity as I've jeopordized my current job by doing so, ex post facto.

My only concern is whether this failed process is going to screw up my current security clearance and jeopordize my current employment situation. Other than that, screw 'em ... I don't want the job anymore.

On a side note, the reason our national security is in such a shambles is because the Government can't afford to pay quality people what they're worth, and when one steps up to offer assistance they trip him up and hire somebody that knows how to beat the machine. 

But I digress...