Seriously dad, this is the number 3 item on google when I search your name.  -_-;

Here Kenn.

Stan_Smith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2007 at 6:26am:

Thanks for your help, G-Man.


L

Lloyd:

10-4.  Spoke to my Bro.

Geo 4 YM

Quote:


When she's done, please aske her to explain the following:
ESITO FIMUS DUM MORTIS

Good Morning YesMan:

Thank you for posting to this forum.  It is good to learn how to use a computer.  You are lucky to have a brother like Geo.

Please have your brother explain to you the meaning of a phrase used by Shakespeare in Henry VI, Part 2: "Mum's the word."

Lloyd Ploense

Lloyd,

what kinds of text messages?  Who or what do they indicate.  Have you shown these to the police.   

Hoping you're feeling better.

Stan

My little broder geo hez in colleg! has ben readng this.  i lik his computr. Geo sez that he thinkz sombody poizond that cak to tont Loid. Geo sed to me Loid and the cops mite be looking for who think that funy.  Whats a ping stan?

YM

Stan:

I apologize if things are other than what they seem at first glance.  The "ass..." thing in the subject of this post I learned before my marriage on Match.com.  Some of the women there were quite ingenious with word usage in the length limited title field.  I hope you don’t mind too much.  That was just trickery like polygraphy.

My wife and I do not know who did the deed.  We do know who did not.  We wish the police would ask us questions that can be answered with hard facts like phone and court records.  Gee, we have found interesting text messages remaining on at least one cell phone.

I wish my wife had not posted on our website prior to our marriage enthusiastic text about how proud she was of that cake and how we would remember it forever…

I’ve learned that polygraph testing can be completely erroneous and that we need something much more accurate to replace it.  Therefore, I’m beginning to work on invention disclosures and grant proposals for devices that will modernize detection of deception.  This will take some time if it is possible at all so polygraphists and purveyors of such equipment will not likely be put out of business in the near future by anything other than the Constitution.

Lloyd

Ok, Lloyd,

Perhaps that last post was a bit harsh.  Let's look at your case logically.  In addition to your failed polygraph, what other evidence is there?  Who else could have done this to you?

You claimed possibly one of your ex wives.  According to your postings, one lives in California, the other in Connecticut.  I'm doubting California, and even Connecticut seems a bit far.  If not you, than who?  If your cake was really poisoned, then who did it Lloyd?  As I've said before, if you are TRULY innocent of this crime, I apologize.  But based on what you've told us, there doesn't seem to be any other explaination.   

And after all, you did fail the polygraph. (oh c'mon, THAT was funny)

Sane_Stan

Lloyd,

oooo, touched a nerve there did I?  As I have said before, I am not a polygrapher.  But perhaps a person capable of poisoning their own wedding cake cannot understand the true meaning of honesty.  It is impossible for a rape victom to have raped themselves.  You on the other hand make it all to easy to believe you are capable of performing the crime you are accused of.

Sick sense of humor, perhaps.  However you, Lloyd, seem to enjoy cherry picking the statistics to defend yourself.  As I've said before, if you're Truly innocent, and there is no other evidence that you are guilty of this crime, then you should have nothing to worry about.  Yet you seem verrrrry worried.  Leads me to have some doubt as to your innocence is all.

Have a great Sunday, Lloyd,

Stan (notice not sick stan, only you utilize the ad homnim attacks.  Another piece in the "lloyd did it" puzzle)

Sick_Stan:

Next, you will likely be claiming all who are in opposition to discrimination and injustice really are inferior and their opposition proves it.

The poisoning of our leftover wedding cake was not funny Sick_Stan (SS).  You are a very sick person to suggest it is.  You are a very sick person to suggest that we, the victims of this crime would have committed it.

You are indeed a very sick person SS.  If a rape victim came to be questioned by you in a polygraph exam, you would likely ask her if she raped herself distributing DNA evidence collected from some vile source upon herself to make the crime seem real.  With your sick sense of humor SS, I bet you would enjoy telling said victim she failed the polygraph exam.  In such circumstances, where a crime victim is falsely accused of criminal acts, polygraph testing yields far too many false positive results and we both know it SS.

So SS, please do not try to prove any points by taking jibes at crime victims.  Your behavior only indicates your lack of human understanding, compassion and morality SS.  Thus, you reveal yourself perfectly suited to your (seeming) profession, polygraphy.

Use your mind SS: palerider is an honest human faced with an almost impossible task.  Though both you and he believe in polygraphy, palerider does not couple flawed investigation techniques with flawed logic.  The greatest danger to our society is not from detection of deception technologies, but placing those instruments at the disposal of sick and deceptive persons such as you SS.

Lloyd

Quote:


Stan

Gosh Stan:

You seem to be correct on two matters:
1)      There do seem to be a lot of you;
2)      Polygraph testing and the use of the results is based on circular logic.

The first seems to be obvious.  Where did you find that YesMan character?  I hope there are not many more like him.  The second requires a bit of analysis.

When a citizen is asked to take a polygraph exam, refusal to do so either disqualifies a citizen from consideration for employment by the government (for certain positions) or indicates to LE officials that the citizen has something to hide.  Should a citizen not ‘pass’ that unreliable exam the citizen is construed to be untruthful.

All this is too reminiscent of scenes from Monty Python movies where circular logic is presented quite humorously.  It is not so funny Stan when there are real life consequences to the flawed practice of polygraph testing.

Now, a citizen cannot protest the false results of a flawed procedure without being wrongly accused of guilty fear.  Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

Lloyd Ploense

Go Stan;
taht jerk Lloyd must of done it cauze hes crazy or somthing.  If som idiet fails a polygram and iz pissed it must be cuz hes a crook.Your right about the lye detector to.  We need to use it.  If our goverment says its okay it must be no matter what Lloyd or that uppity Leth says.  I believe in it and Im glad you doo to.
YM

Stan_Smith wrote on Aug 18^th, 2007 at 9:52pm:


Stan, you are basically talking about a cost-benefits analysis.  Yes, the polygraph sometimes leads investigators down wrong paths, but the good that it does outweighs this overall.  Have you factored into your analysis the following costs:

(1) The bias of the polygraph against truthful examinees who know how it works;
(2) The resulting necessity that people be kept from knowing how it works;
(3) The resulting attempts to get people, including suspects and applicants, to believe silly statements and blindly accept authority; and
(4) The reduction in critical thought by police officers and government employees due to the elimination of honest, intelligent people who find out how the polygraph works and therefore have a very difficult time passing the exam.

Have you taken those into your cost-benefits analysis?  On my side, I have counted as benefits of the polygraph that fear of it can get applicants to make admissions that they otherwise would not and that others with unsavory events in their past can be discouraged from applying in the first place out of fear that the polygraph really would detect their deception.  I still find that the costs carry the preponderance of the weight, however.  Perhaps you can enlighten me otherwise.

Your allusion to Shakespeare, Stan, gives me hope that you might be capable of responding to my queries with something approaching originality and skill.  You certainly didn't learn the bard in polygraph class.  I had had hopes for nonombre, but he appears to be falling completely to pieces on us.   
In any event, the points that I make here I have made elsewhere on this forum.  For instance, here and here.  Please note that nothing that I have said has anything to do with countermeasures.  Please don't argue against them as I have not argued for them.  Also, logical fallacies will not be tolerated.  I look forward to discussing these matters with you, Stan.

Lloyd,

Now you're talking in circles.  First of all, I you have to consent to a polygraph so therefore it is not unlawful search and seizure, nice try.  You're also making my point for me.  No, I cannot give you an example where the court has convicted a citizen soley based on polygraph.  So why are you so afraid, Lloyd?

It's a tool used to point LE in the right direction.  Does it sometimes present false negatives? sure.  Does it help convict criminals and point the police in the right direction? most definitley.  I feel I'm repeating myself and again, Lloyd, methinks you doth protest too much.  The more you post, the more I'm convinced you may have very well poisoned your own cake.   

I'll leave this subject now as all I am doing is repeating myself and it gets boring reading as you type yourself in circles.

Stan (and yes, there are lots of us)

Stan_Smith:

The polygraph policy our government is pursuing constitutes unlawful search and seizure.  Our citizens are required to submit to an unreasonable close personal search of their bodily functions without cause or warrant.  In many cases, this is just to qualify for employment by the government.

If the results of this search by polygraph testing were by any means reliable, perhaps with a warrant such a search could be constitutional.  However, since it is proven that polygraph testing is so unreliable that almost half of those telling the truth fail, polygraph testing undoubtedly plants false evidence.  Thus, polygraph testing cannot be constitutional for it is an unreasonable search and seizure.

False evidence planted on citizens by polygraph testing violates our constitution further by placing, de-facto discriminatory labels upon our citizens.  Many citizens are denied employment and even freedom because of this false evidence.

Stan_Smith, can you give one example where a court has issued a warrant for a polygraphic guilt search and has granted admissibility of the test results in court solely based on the premise that polygraph examination is a reasonable and valid search and seizure?

Stan_Smith, can you give one example where a court has convicted a citizen solely based on the premise that polygraph examination is a reasonable and valid search and seizure?

Lloyd Ploense
PS:
I searched for your name online Stan Smith.  Wow MAN!  You really outnumber us!