Quote:


You can interpret my response or non-response to any of your feeble points any way you want, George.   As I've said before, it is my desire to respond only to statements that are worthy of a response, and some of your statements are so outlandish that I simply laugh at them and move on.  But since it seems so important to you that I respond to that statement (I guess my opinion is very important to you) I'll answer it.   NO, I don't concede anything with regard to that statement because it is absolutely true.  As I stated before, outright failure of the polygraph is rare.  Inconclusives are more common, of course, and you keep equating inconclusives as failures.  If you actually failed ALL of the relevant questions on your exam, you are indeed an extreme anomaly.  Failing an exam is uncommon, but failing ALL of the relevant questions on one screening test is outrageous.  In fact, I find it "baffling" that you could have the nerve to claim that you were completely truthful on your failed exam.

I truly don't know of any department or Federal agency that will disqualify applicants for inconclusive results.  Perhaps that occurred way back in the analog days when you took your polygraph . . .   However, if anyone IS doing that, it would be an erroneous administrative policy, not a policy condoned by a knowledgable polygrapher.  

Please answer the following question, which you have dodged, if you wish to continue with this discussion. Do you concede that your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph" is not true when it comes to pre-employment screening? Again, if not, please explain. I shall interpret your continued failure to address this question head-on as confirmation of insincerity on your part.

See my post under "Sphincter's Policy."  It's tedious and repetive to post long replies to every point you're trying to make.  It begins to feel like he who writes last is the "winner" of a meaningless exchange.  You'll have the last word, George, don't worry.  You have too much of yourself invested in the silly website, so you'll be here long after I'm gone.  That's ok with me.

Oh, and I find it equally "baffling" that you only see what you want to see, George, which is only PARTS of particular studies that seem to support your agenda.  You have no experience as anything but a failed examinee.  I can trade regurgitations with you, but to what end?  You base your "information" on only one side of the picture, and your suggestions that people actually use countermeasures to ensure that they pass an exam is at best unfounded, and at worst a disservice to honest people everywhere because it MAY assist the guilty somehow in getting through the net.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 26^th, 2005 at 7:28pm:


You haven't addressed the point of the links I provided, which is to show that your oft-repeated assertion that "the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph" is not true when it comes to pre-employment screening. Do you admit that you were mistaken?

Quote:


I listened to your countering viewpoints, and provided what I hope were thoughtful and polite replies, directly addressing the points you raised. I regret that you seem to be unwilling to respond in kind.

Quote:


I reject the notion that one must have experience as a polygrapher (a vocation that requires less training than that of a hair stylist) in order to rationally discuss polygraph matters.

Quote:


Would you be so kind as to direct me to any references that refute the citations I provided indicating that numerous law enforcement agencies have polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%?

Quote:


I find nothing humorous in the fact that you forged posts on this site. By doing so, you undermined your credibility and raised serious doubts about your motives for posting. Your continued flippancy after having been caught red-handed tends only to deepen such doubts.

Quote:


It is not at all hard to understand why false positives occur. All it takes is for a truthful person to be more concerned about the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than he/she is with regard to the more general and less serious "control" questions.

I still disagree with you, The tongue biting cannot be seen if practiced even if they are watching you.  Many will disagree but then can they say they have done it?  My polygrapher was FBI, DODPI grad but I guess everyone will say he was one of the polygraphers who was not good at his job.....

The NSA has a small camera, mounted on the top of
the wall, for each interrogation room.  Biting one's
tongue probably wouldn't be recommended there, since
it can probably zoom in real close.  They used to have
one-way mirrors, facing the applicants, and I am sure
they got a few good "panty shots", and did their 
business behind the mirrors (I am sure THAT change
met with a lot of resistence !)  I haven't seen any
wires coming out of the bottom of the chairs, for an
anal pad, but who knows, what they are up to.  

Ghetto_Trooper wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 3:48am:


Not exactly accurate as most polygraphers still have you face away from them and not to mention the fact that you do not answer then bite down, you bite as you are closing your mouth from answering the question as it does not show irregular jaw movement.

Nice scare tactic though, where is a better radar gun comes out someone always comes out with a better detector

George, I really enjoyed the link to the thread titled "60% CT State Police Polygraph Failure Rate!"  There are a few very knowledgable "pro" polygraph people who posted on that thread.  I found especially revealing the statement that 85% of those who failed the polygraph for a particular department made disqualifying admissions AFTER failing the polygraph.

Rehashing those arguments, as well as my own, is boring me to tears.  

It's tough to convert people who don't listen to countering viewpoints, but instead just sit there ready to fire out rehashed rhetoric they picked and chose out of purely self-supporting, refutable studies.  It's especially difficult to do so when those people have absolutely no experience on the other side of the polygraph table.

To make this post short, I have read many refutations and studies that refute everything you just posted.  As for the Loopy references, if you don't buy the explanation, I'm not going to try to convince you of that either.  It was humorous, to say the least!  

Now some bad news for you, but some good news for me.  I will be leaving this forum in due time.  (Do I hear cheers from the peanut gallery?)  The Cinderella ball of the Sphincter on AntiPolygraph.Org must reach its inevitabe end.   I believe it was PG111 who recently said that I must be retired because I post on this site so much.  Actually, it takes me about two or three minutes for an average reply to a thread--it's not complicated stuff, and I type very, very fast.  But continually fielding weak pop flies on this forum is quickly losing its entertainment value, which is the only true value this website had to begin with.

Before I "retire," though, I may offer at least one parting post, purely speculative but stemming from common sense and experience, about why George and a tiny minority of examinees might actually jump the vast chasm from non-deceptive to deceptive EVEN IF WE JUMP OUR OWN CHASM AND ASSUME that they ARE being truthful to the relative issues on a polygraph exam.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 25^th, 2005 at 7:00pm:


The results of Honts et al.'s own peer-reviewed countermeasure studies support the contention that polygraph "tests" should be easily beaten, considering that some 50% of deceptive subjects passed the polygraph after receiving a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in countermeasures.

Quote:


The "spontaneous" countermeasures mentioned in the passage you've cited refer to untrained countermeasures, that is, things that examinees who are not familiar with CQT procedure may "spontaneously" employ in an attempt to influence the outcome of a polygraph examination. Common examples include thinking calming thoughts or focusing one's attention on a point on the wall hoping to minimize reactions to questions.

Spontaneous countermeasures are not the same as "practiced" countermeasures, such as those that an examinee who has researched polygraphy might employ. A person who has educated himself about polygraph procedure and trained himself in the application of countermeasures such as those outlined in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may be said to employ "practiced" countermeasures.

Quote:


To my knowledge, there are no peer-reviewed studies refuting the potential for countermeasures of the kind outlined in TLBTLD to influence the outcome of a polygraphic lie test. On the other hand, we do have two peer-reviewed studies (again, by Honts and collaborators) that strongly suggest that countermeasures may be effective in influencing polygraph outcomes. As the National Academy of Sciences noted at p. 214 of its report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."

Quote:


Opposing views are certainly welcome on this message board, though it seems to me that you often choose ad hominem rather than rational argument, as above. I also recall that you regrettably chose to forge posts (those by LoopyLuWho) to bolster your own arguments.

Quote:


Indeed, I would not leave things to chance if my future employment were riding on the results of an invalid polygraph test. Especially considering that many pre-employment polygraph programs have failure rates on the order of 50%.

Quote:


The fact that you have repeatedly said so does not make it so. While some polygraph screening programs, such as the Department of Defense's counterintelligence-scope polygraph program, do indeed have very low failure rates (almost everyone ultimately passes), the same does not hold true when it comes to pre-employment polygraph testing by federal, state, and local agencies. The FBI, for instance, has a pre-employment polygraph failure rate on the order of 50%:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=...

The Connecticut State Police have reported employment figures indicating a 60% pre-employment polygraph failure rate:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=...

In 2002, Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks stated that 50% of applicants were being eliminated by the polygraph:

http://antipolygraph.org/news/polygraph-news-008.shtml#leovy-gold-09-02-02

And Jack Ogilvie, a polygraph examiner with the Phoenix Police Department, has also spoken of a 50% polygraph failure rate for applicants to his department, noting that such high failure rates are not atypical:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/pre_employment_polygraph_testing.htm

Quote:


I wish my case were anomalous. Indeed, during the first four years following my polygraph experience with the FBI and LAPD, although I was aware of polygraphy's scientific shortcomings, I had supposed that my case was an anomaly. But then, in 1999, I learned that what happened to me was happening to many more FBI applicants than I had originally supposed. The FBI's polygraph failure rate at the time was "only" 20%. I found it hard to believe that so many applicants who had made it past Phase I and Phase II testing were lying with regard to the relevant questions. Since 9/11, the Bureau's polygraph failure rate has climbed to about 50%. While I am not maintaining that my case is the "norm," as you put it, it is certainly not an anomaly, either.

Quote:


If you review the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, you'll see that we have also considered information from a wide range of pro-polygraph sources.

I didn't realize you had even asked that question.  Still not sure when you asked it.

Sounds like a good Ph.D. project for you to find out.  Go for it.

Anal I just feel hurt that you wont respond to my post. 
Please share your knowledge, can a person learn to show any reaction at will to any question asked. I can prove my point can you.

Quote:


"How can you be so obtuse.  Is it intentional?"  -- Andy Dufresne to the Warden, The Shawshank Redemption.

George, as one of your apparently favorite researches, Charles R. Honts, says, "Despite widespread public information about countermeasures and commentary in the popular literature indicating that polygraph tests should be easily beaten . . . there is simply no scientific evidence to support that contention."  

Rovner, Raskin and Kircher conducted studies on the use of practiced countermeasures during a two-chart mock polygraph test conducted by a confederate.  As Honts sums up the findings of those studies, "Research on spontaneous countermeasure and on information strongly suggest that they are not serious problems for polygraph validity."  Honts does claim that there are studies that both refute and support the use of practiced countermeasures as a means to affect the polygraph outcome.  Therefore, at best, George, you have questionable studies to combat questionable studies.

My use of the "scared little boys and girls" analogy is quite effective in pointing out how I feel regarding your fearmongering, George.  On this website you dispense what might be called "Dr. Poole's Elixer for the Curing of Divers Maladies and Afflictions"--all placebo and no substance.  You remind me of the old Popeye cartoon's humorous assertion that by eating your spinach you will be as strong as ten men.  You call this site informative and yourself informed.  The only way this site is ever truly informative is when a rational opposing view like myself comes on here and presents a counter to your highly questionable information.

While you may or may not have claimed that a person MUST use countermeasures, your downloadable reference material and many of your posts to fearful examinees sure makes it appear that you believe an examinee must MESS with the polygraph in order to pass it, which even you, despite your personal vendetta, must know is wrong.  As you recently wrote to one of the scared little boys and girls, "As your experience shows, it is possible to pass a polygraph examination without using countermeasures. But given CQT polygraphy's complete lack of validity, I would personally not leave things to chance."

George, as I have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of examinees easily pass the polygraph.  Assuming you really had nothing to hide, I'm truly sorry that you didn't pass yours.  I've read your story now.  If that is the case, you are an anomaly, George.  Don't treat your anomaly as if it is the norm, because it is not.  I will address my own feelings about such an anomaly in an original post when and if I find the desire and the time.

As for what you know being based on more than analog studies, you apparently give much more weight to the analog studies than anything else, if in fact you've "weighed" information from other than negative sources.

You tire me, George.  Perhaps that's the plan.  Responding to every point of each of your posts is unnecessary.  Generally, I respond only to those points I feel merit a response, which means I've gone out of my way to indulge you once again.

The entire argument over examinees not being able to obtain polygraph test equipment is absurd, www.ebay.com has several units up for sale all the time, I have two, while the computerized units are fancy and scarier to the uninformed they work no better. 

The argument over trained polygraph examiner to give feed back is weak; practice with the live polygraph is simple. You can look at the charts and see what your reactions are in real time. You can tape your questions at the proper intervals, thereby keeping this a private endeavor. There is a huge amount of information about scoring the charts on the internet. If you can read you can score the charts. 

My point is if you’re scared of a polygraph test, you can buy a polygraph and prefect your technique. I bought mine for my thesis, to prove a point. But have learned that it is very easily to manipulate at will with practice. My next purchase is the countermeasures detection chair pad, and then we will know for sure what works and what does not..      

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 24^th, 2005 at 12:29am:


My question to you concerned how you can purport to know that "[m]ost examinees will NOT receive adequate training" in polygraph countermeasures. I do agree, and think it is self-evident, that most examinees will not have access to a polygraph instrument or a willing confederate to provide feedback. But this does not necessarily entail that most examinees will not receive adequate training. Techniques for augmenting reactions to "control" questions are relatively simple, and "control" questions are generally not very difficult to pick out.

Quote:


The National Academy of Sciences considered "psychological set" and related theories that have been put forth in support of CQT polygraphy, but did not find these to be compelling. See p. 74 ff. of The Polygraph and Lie Detection.)

Quote:


It is certainly not the case that everything I know about polygraphy is based on analog (laboratory) studies. I've considered information from a wide variety of sources, including the available peer-reviewed field studies of CQT polygraphy. Note, however, that the only peer-reviewed studies of countermeasures to the CQT are analog studies. I don't see how I have drawn unwarranted inferences from these. If you think I have, please explain.

Quote:


Again, I think your latter assertion goes well beyond the evidence of the available research. I think one could reasonably conclude that with subjects like those in Honts et al.'s studies (who received very limited instruction in polygraph procedure and countermeasures), and in similar (low) motivational settings, countermeasures might not help innocent examinees. But it is going too far to assert, as you seemingly do, that it has been conclusively demonstrated that countermeasures cannot help an innocent examinee to avoid a false positive outcome.

Quote:


A survey of Society for Psychophysiological Research members conducted by William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken showed that of the 96% of respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one’s response to the control questions." Again, it has not been proven that countermeasures cannot assist the truthful in avoiding a false positive outcome, and no one has set forth a plausible explanation why such should be the case.

Considering the fact that CQT polygraphy lacks any scientific basis,  the fact that numerous agencies, including the FBI, report polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, and considering also the polygraph community's failure to put forth any evidence that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures, persons facing polygraph examinations might reach a different risk assessment than the one you offer them.

Quote:


Not so. Regarding polygraph theory, the National Academy of Sciences concluded: "The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing." (The Polygraph and Lie Detection, p. 213. Original emphasis.)

Quote:


You have repeatedly characterized (in other posts in other message threads) visitors to this site as "scared little boys and girls." I think that's a patronizing and offensive mischaracterization of individuals who come to this website seeking information about polygraphy.

I have never maintained that a person must employ countermeasures (which you term "messing") in order to pass a polygraph examination. But I think that persons facing this invalid procedure should have access to facts and information necessary for making an informed choice.

Quote:


AntiPolygraph.org certainly has an agenda, but it is unhidden and publicly stated: to expose and end waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs. We also seek the abolishment of polygraphy (and other pseudoscientific forms of lie detection) from the American workplace.

You assert that I am not open to the possibility that I may have been wrong. But the only person regarding whom you can truly know such a thing is yourself.

As for your assertion that I have a "personal vendetta," why not address my arguments, rather than my putative motives? If I have said or written anything that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, feel free to point it out for the benefit of all concerned.

Fat_Moe,

Hope your poly went well.  In my opinion, biting your tongue is a cm that is easily detected.  Trained polygrapher usually are very observant of their subjects and even slight movement from around your throat area will be very noticeable (have you ever practiced this cm in from of a mirror?)  if so you will notice that even a slight movement of the tongue will show which will get you red flagged and most likely cause you to get dq'd fast!!

Quote:


That's easy, George, although tiresome.  I'll indulge you this time, despite the fact that I feel I provided good responses to most of what you said previously.  I apologize beforehand to other readers for my redundancy, but you have only George to blame for that.

How do I know that most examinees won't have access to either a polygraph machine or a willing confederate to provide them with feedback while hooked up to the machine?  It doesn't take much intelligence to figure that one out.  Polygraph machines--including the laptop, software, and all the components--are not cheap.  Finding a trained polygrapher to help you use the machine to perfect your countermeasures would be even more difficult to obtain.  Sure, a person taking a real-life test would be more motivated to pass the exam, but this added motivation would also theoretically, through the principle of psychological set, help him accurately and justifiably pass or fail the exam.  You base everything you "know" on lab studies, George, so again you show your tendency to accept only those lab studies that support your personal agenda, or should we say vendetta?

I'm not saying that the average polygrapher will notice practiced countermeasures.  There are many types of motion detection devices, and many polygraphs are video recorded, but really good, practiced countermeasures would admittedly be difficult to observe.  That's not really the point, though.  The point is that studies (lab studies again) show that while countermeasures may--and again I emphasize MAY because we can't really apply lab studies to the real world--assist the guilty in producing a false negative, but they have no effect with innocent examinees.  Thus, even though a polygrapher might not--or even probably will not--detect certain countermeaures unless he or she uses motion detection devices, the risk just isn't worth it when there is no evidence that countermeausures help the innocent in passing a polygraph exam.  You can talk about control-question theory all you want, George, and I understand it better than most of your readers.  That theory backs up my arguments just as well as it does yours, and in many lab studies AND some field studies, better.

Finally, you are messing with the scared little boy's and girl's heads because the overwhelming majority of people who take a polygraph exam pass it without trying to mess with the process.  By convincing these scared little boys and girls that they must mess with the process to pass it, you are needlessly causing them to put their hopes and efforts into misinformation.

I know you can't back down from this forum, George.  Too much ego involved, and too much personal vendetta.  But by titling a website "AntiPolygraph.org" and backing up your agenda with refutable lab studies and no experience in the field of polygraphy, you show where your agenda really lies and you aren't open to the possibility that, all this time, you may have been very wrong.

Fat Moe,

Questions asked during law enforcement pre-employment polygraph examinations tend to cover the same topics nationwide. I am aware of no reason for supposing that agencies in south Florida ask questions that substantially differ from those asked elsewhere.

The kinds of questions asked by state and local agencies tend to be similar to those asked in Series II of DoDPI's "Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test" (909 kb PDF).

A.S.,

If you would care to substantively address the points I raised in my last reply to you, I would be happy to continue this discussion with you. If not, that's your choice.

Oops, we are crossing paths, George.  Please read my edited post above--I was using it to further answer you, and you uncustomarily replied quickly.

We can bicker back and forth with "Prove it!"  "No, you prove it!"  It won't really get us anywhere.  However, you are unwittingly showing that you pick and choose only what supports you and your agenda, George.  At least with regard to countermeasures, I have some studies to support my view.  If you want to reject those and say that you can't see the theory behind them, so be it.  It's still there, and it will be until research refuting it can be done.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2005 at 10:29pm:


How do you know this to be true?

Quote:


Sure, but again, the examinees in the studies by Honts et al. received a maximum of 30 minutes of coaching. In practice, a person facing an employment-related polygraph examination has much more time than that to prepare him- or herself, and much greater incentive to do so than the subjects in these studies, wherein there were no siginificant adverse consequences for a false positive outcome.

Quote:


Even if a polygrapher sometimes finds that persons whom he accuses of countermeasure use admit to such, this is no proof that the polygrapher involved has "detected" countermeasures at better than chance levels. Again, the research by Honts et al. suggests that even above-average polygraphers are not able to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels.

Additionally, I think you are overstating the evidence by suggesting that the available research proves that countermeasures cannot assist truthful examinees in avoiding the risk of a false positive outcome. I am aware of no plausible theoretical explanation of why this should be the case, and you have conceded that neither are you. On the contrary, however, a strong rational argument, based on an understanding of CQT procedure, can be made that countermeasure use may help truthful persons to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome in addition to helping deceptive persons obtain a false negative outcome.

Quote:


In what way do you believe that I am "messing" with anyone's heads?

George, I don't have an explanation of WHY countermeasures MAY help guilty examinees IF they receive sufficient training, while giving no benefit to the innocent.  The studies simply show that to be the fact.  More studies should be done, but as Honts correctly states, such studies are expensive.  Thus far, only the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute has the budget and resources to engage in such studies, and their position--right or wrong--is that findings on countermeasures should be kept under wraps (most likely because of "freak out" sites such as this one).

Most examinees will NOT receive adequate training.  As I stated, the examinees in the studies  (you correctly cited the studies--kudos to you) received training in the use of countermeasures through 1) Using a polygraph machine, and 2) Receiving feedback from a confederate while using the machine.  Most examinees don't have access to either.

As for the polygrapher being able to detect the countermeasures, I have seen it happen.  It was humiliating and embarrassing for the examinees, and, if they were innocent with regard to the relevant issues, also a waste of time according to the research of Honts AND Ben-Shakhar.  While the average polygrapher might not catch on, is it worth the risk when it won't help the innocent anyhow?

Finally, this site DOES freak out a lot of people who would almost surely pass the polygraph with flying colors were it not for your messing with their heads, George.  And WHO are you serving?  Even if countermeasures worked, I agree with D.T. Lykken (writer of A Tremor in the Blood, Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, oft-quoted and referenced by you and the anti- crowd): "No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers."  You, George, are providing a disservice to innocent examinees, and only a possible service for the guilty.

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2005 at 8:37pm:


While it is true that in the available peer-reviewed research (by Honts et al. -- abstracts available in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector), countermeasures did not significantly assist programmed innocent examinees. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no theoretical rationale explaining why countermeasures should assist only guilty and not innocent examinees. If you can offer an explanation of why this should be the case, I would be eager to hear it.

Note also that in these studies, subjects received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in the employment of countermeasures. Those facing a polygraph examination generally have more time to practice and much greater incentive to apply themselves in mastering the techniques.

Quote:


Why do you assert this to be true? The aforementioned peer-reviewed research also showed that even seasoned polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. If this is the case, then a truthful examinee has nothing to lose by employing countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome.

Quote:


Indeed. This site is not intended to "freak out" visitors, but rather to inform them.

If you aren't planning to lie on any of the "relevant" questions, then just relax and forget about all that countermeasures bull.  Research shows it doesn't assist the innocent at all, and even the sparse research that says it may help the guilty is based on tests involving subjects who had both the knowledge AND practice with the machine while receiving feedback from a confederate.

If you are innocent on all the "relevant" issues, such as drug use, lying on your department's application forms, etc., the only thing countermeasures might get you is discovered by the polygrapher and reported as uncooperative.

Don't let this site freak you out.

hey everyone, i need some help on my upcoming polygraph for a department here in south florida. it will be within the next month or so. now there are over 30+ in this area alone, so I'm not worried about the naysayers saying I'm going to give myself away. There are many more if you count going up to orlando.

about myself, i'm already a certified leo, and was sworn in a department north of orlando. they sponsored me, sent me to the academy i worked there for over a year, enough to do my in house training, fTO, and finish probationary period. that department however did not require a poly or even a psychological exam. it was very country to say the least.

can anyone help me out with some of the stuff these departments in south florida ask? i know things are rougher here but the pay is better, theres more excitement to get into, etc etc.

i've already read the whole handbook here on how to defeat the poly, read some folk's suggestions.  i'm familiar with interrogation techniques and you can be sure i'm not admitting anything, im not letting some pencil necked geek shake me down or intimidate me. 

if i could get some info on the duration of these tests, some of the questions, etc i would be very grateful. i know to relax, maybe change my breathing a bit and pucker my sphincter when i get asked the 'control' questions.  then relax whenever i get the relevant questions, the idea being to have stronger response to the 'control' questions and cruise on through the relevant ones.

and never admit nothing

what else is there? 

thanks in advance