I said DUD, rhymes with STUD, and that is exactly what I meant - you simply show your abysmal profound ignorance with every post.  DUD - of little or no worth, one that is ineffectual, failure, misfit..... a perfect description of you you crappity smacking idiot.

ISBS,

Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy not only pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years, but also by the fact that he first made these criticisms he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.

Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.

I would think that if you understood the testing process you would understand the control questions are vitally important and based on your assumption would generate a reaction based on the knowledge that you must respond to those questions. If you did not understand that as your post suggests then it is more evidence of the damage other sites are doing to innocents.

But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah.  Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.

We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination.  With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application.  A simple yes or no will do.

Ray, 
 
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety. 

Ray,

The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.

...We all know George questions the integrity of  polygraph examiners....

Examiner:  
 
You say in part:  
 
“…Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here…”  
 
     You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:  
 
(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.   
 
(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.   
 
  
(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.  
 
(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.   
 
  
(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.  
 
(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.  
 
 
(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…  
 
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:  
 
(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.  
 
(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?  
...

Talk about an illiterate ignoramus, you freaken moron, you can't even spell "dude" right. It's dude, not dud idiot. Look it up in the dictionary, or do you even own one dork. You are a dunce, and a disgrace to everyone on this web site. If you are in law enforcement, get out, you are a danger not only to yourself, but everyone around you.

P.S. I apologize to everyone else on this web site, for the immature level I have descended to regarding this member. I have had enough of this criticizing bafoon.

Good by

Hey Dud, I PITY you too, you illiterate ignoramus.

If you're in law enforcement, I pitty the dept that has to put up with your pathetic excuse of a human being.

You are right titty.  Georgie is a real sweeheart.  Why don't you join him and Farty in a trio and give us another song, here we go....howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-weeee-liars, oh how we lie and shoot the steroooooids, howl-we-liars...... Very good!  But titty, you are a little flat - perhaps a push up bra.......

Farty, he asked for a yes OR no, not a yes AND no.

In the very specific context George answered, I would say no. However, if I agreed with your assessment, that he was suggesting a lie  by omission of specific information asked I would have said yes.

-Marty

Drew and Marty,

You both failed to answer my original question.  Let me repeat it.  

We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination.  With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application.  A simple yes or no will do.

Drew and Marty,

You both failed to answer my original question.  Let me repeat it.  

We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination.  With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application.  A simple yes or no will do.

ISBS2,

Service? What service?

I guess George's detailed polygraph facts both bother you and leave you little outlet other than rather childish prattle. Sad.

-Marty