thanks George and sarge for giving me a fair shake.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 2:49pm:

"What if" questions are often pointless and tangential.  I believe they are in this case.

The original poster said a dog licked his genitals once when he was fifteen.  That is pretty all we know about this person and his activities.  My response was reasonable.  I don't believe yours was.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 1:22am:


I observed only that policeHopeful has displayed more wisdom and maturity than you and your fellow polygraphers who have posted in this thread. You set the bar quite low.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 8:06pm:




Uh, yeah. "Maturity and wisdom" according to George Maschke.

policeHopeful,

I think you've displayed more wisdom and maturity than the various polygraphers who have condemned you here:

• palerider, who posted disinformation about polygraph countermeasures -- a tacit admission that he has little confidence in the polygraph community's ability to detect them;
• Dragon Lady, who implied that you are a "sex offender";
• Paradiddle, who seems to have fallen down his own slippery slope of logic to lose all sense of proportion;
• Wonder Woman, who is also "concerned" about you.

While applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully, the polygraph suite is not a confessional, and applicants are under no obligation to reveal impertinent details of their lives about which they may be embarrassed or ashamed. As I mentioned earlier, the indiscretion you mentioned is the subject of a control question (not a relevant one) commonly asked by no less a law enforcement agency than the U.S. Secret Service. You would be wise to keep it to yourself.

policeHopeful,  the concern I have about you is 

first you participate in bestiality.

Second, you want to deceive the entity that may hire you.

Third, you go to an ANTI site to find information on polygraphs rather than calling up a polygraph examiner in in your area and asking the source OR calling up the LE agency you want to work for and asking them annonymously.

Fourth, you have an anger management issues. 

If you keep writing we will start seeing more of you that you want to hide.  BTW, I am also a polygraph examiner....and will be looking for you.

I am a polygraph Examiner you numnut. I have extensive experience in testing people such as yourself, and I also have a good history with detecting countermeasures, especially on big flabby guys who can't read very well, and exaggerate their 1 hour martial arts course in Basic Training. If you have a question about polygraph, than maybe you should put your thinking cap on and listen to a real living, breathing, polygraph examiner. I wasn't threatening you tubby, I was threatening anyone (minor or adult) that if they were to victimize my dog, I would fold them like a  t-shirt. I am a polygraph examiner, on a web site that relates directly to polygraph----so you could say I am working a little (although it's a stretch.) You on the other hand are not working. You are trying to circumvent a test that will no doubt reflect many bad things you have done, least of which is your smokey story regarding victimizing man's best friend. 


p.s. Shukran for serving the country, regardless of your intentions with your polygraph test.

speechless,huh?

paradiddle, what is your purpose for posting and visiting this site? No one comes here because they're bored. I assume that you have or will be taking a polygraph. If thats the case you come here to learn how to beat the polygraph, which is why the majority of us are here. Oh and you would break my back in Half?????? I hardly doubt that sir. I am 260 lbs of pure muscle, trained in various martial arts and a former combat soldier  who served 13 months in Iraq.

policeHopeful wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 7:41pm:



I am a sick F? Why don't you tell the truth about what real sorts of things you did when you were "younger"----besides victimizing a defensless dog. If you did that to my dog, you'd decide to start licking your own genitals as I would break your back in half. The more you write, the more you remind me of a sex offender. Per your criminal-genic behavior, you are probably a sex addict in denial----that is a person who cannot pass up a sexual opportunity by will-power alone. Sex addicts usually will have a run in with the law as they typically either have sex with the wrong person, or animal or child----and usually do so when in a position of authority. When I was 15, I had a crush on my Spanish teacher, not my beagle. 

"what if the dog were a 5 year old girl, " Are you suggesting that I would want to molest children? You are a sick crappity smack! I believe child molestors should be given the death penalty. You are so crappity smacking clueless. I would agree with you about some of your post. I believe the polygraph is a wonderful way of keeping bad people from getting into lawenforcement. On the otherhand how is it fair? I mean people who are actually in real postions of power are not required to take a polygraph and in most cases is forbidden by law to require one. Members of the senate and congress are not subjected to these. Judges and even Supreme court judges do not take them. My god a person who is elected to the presidency of the united states is not subjected to them. It's not often that a police officer will come into contact with a child, but people who work with them everyday and allday such as teachers,doctors and daycare personnel are not even subjected to polygraphs. So paradiddle your arguement is unfair and your opinion holds no water.

OK Serge, what if the cohort was 17? 18? 20? ----where do you draw the distinction between natural male adolescent mischief and deviant behavior?  What if the dog were a horse? ----or worse yet, what if the dog were a 5 year old girl, and the applicant were just trying a shocking distraction (which is very common.) What if the 15 yr old boy penally penetrated the animal----is that just silliness, or narcissistic paraphilia behavior?

In war, people come to the defense of percieved victims in order to increase their forces----often times at the peril of credibility. In other words, you defend someone who you haven't the foggiest idea what sort of individual you defend. When it comes to sex addicts, sexual fixations, and the sexually violent, no background check or conversations with old schoolmates will do. Your hatred for the polygraph seems to have blinded you to this fact. Polygraph, although both weak and strong, has strengths in areas where nothing else measures up. Much to the embarrassment of law enforcement officers everwhere, the same personality attributes that make for great officers is also unfortunately, the same psycho-dynamics as those of many rapists. Type A personality. You would do well to be extremely cautious in defending sexual activities that you may or may not have criminological expertise in. Dragon Lady is quite correct in her comments regarding profiles of sexual paraphilia indicators.

regards, Paradiddle

Dragon_Lady, it saddens me that people like you would label me a 'sex offender'. I was a kid at the time. I am a decent person. I am for the most part, except for white lies. I have never stolen from an employer, as a matter of fact I have never even been intoxicated. With all of these thieves, weirdos, drug dealers, rapists and child molesters out there- I am the least of anybody's worries. I fought for this country. I gave 15 months of my life...I believe I deserve a fair shake.

Dragon_Lady wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 10:02pm:

It would not bother me at all to find out that any of the men or women I work with had, at the age of 15, permitted a dog to lick their genitals.

If that's the worst thing they've done in their lives it's hardly worth mentioning.

If they did it at age 25 I think it shows the possibility of some sort of problem.  At age 15 I believe it means nothing.

Forgive me for assuming that Police Hopeful was a criminal.  However, he is a deviant.  Usually when you get a little bit of info (sexually related) it is just the tip of the iceberg.  Still, here he is trying to hide his deviant sexual past.  Next thing he will apply for the K9 unit. 

So, George in your estimation, how many individuals do you believe this site has helped hide their deviant sexual behaviors?    Chime in on this one Sergeant, would you hire or want to work with someone like this?

Dragon Lady,

I don't know whether policeHopeful belongs in law enforcement, but I don't think his/her regrettable incident with a dog at the age of 15 is necessarily a disqualifier. It certainly doesn't mean that he/she is unfit for law enforcement. And as I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Secret Service, whose employees have responsibility for the physical safety of the President of the United States and other dignitaries, uses a question about sex with animals as a control question, not a relevant one.

Your question "How many other sex offenders have been helped by this site?" implies that policeHopeful is a sex offender--a criminal. But the available evidence leads to no such conclusion.

So let me get this straight, this police hopeful is a good person, just happened to let his dog lick his wood in the past.  He 'doesn't get it' when he reads the LBTLD and you guys are trying to help him beat a polygraph? 

Did you know 80% of sex offenders have done bestiality?  I personally believe it is higher than 80%.  This dude doesn't belong in LE and you all know it!   'Palerider' also knew this dude shouldn't be in LE and he gets banned from the site.  I have read several of your comments about 'Palerider' being an okay dude.  So he was screwing with this guy a bit, at least he didn't let his dog lick his wood and try to get into LE. 

If the dude told the truth on the background he wouldn't need a polygraph becuase he would be disqualified! 

How many other sex offenders have been helped by this site?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 8:52pm:


Sergeant,

I fully agree that policeHopeful, like all applicants for positions of public trust, should be truthful in his/her background investigation. I also agree that lying to get a job is a horrible way to start one's career. And yet agencies that use pre-employment polygraph screening assume that people they want to hire will lie when answering the "control" questions. Those who answer all questions truthfully (including the "control" questions), and as a consequence feel less stress when answering them, are perversely at greater risk of wrongly "failing" this invalid test.

I strongly suspect that policeHopeful's encounter with a dog, as personally embarrassing as it may be, 1) would not be disqualifying if disclosed and 2) is not going to be the subject of any relevant question asked during a pre-employment polygraph examination. However, there is an off chance that he/she may be asked a control question regarding this topic, in which case complete honesty would be disadvantageous.

policeHopeful wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 7:40pm:

Just tell the truth on your background investigation.

If you have integrity that is the only way to properly start off a career in law enforcement.  Lying in order to get the job is a horrible way to start of one's career.

Honest answers to your questions:

Quote:


Though rarely encountered, if asked, it is almost certainly intended as a "shock control" question. The Secret Service is notorious for employing a "control" question about sex with animals.

Quote:


Whether one passes or fails a polygraph has little to do with whether or not one tells the truth to any particular question. Rather, it depends on whether reactions to the "control" questions or the relevant questions are larger.

policeHopeful,

"Palerider" is a polygraph operator. His posts were deliberately disinformational, and you should disregard them. Palerider has been banned from this forum for repeated willful violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.

but if I were asked that question and I answered "no" and the saw deception, but all of the other answers were seemingly truthful; Would they fail me based solely on that one answer?

Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

Don't get me I believe honesty is the best policy. And if I believed that I were not a decent citizen who was unable to take the safety of others into my own hands I would absolutely not pursue a job in lawenforcement. 

so if I just lie on this one question will I fail the entire polygraph?