(UTC)
Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Oct 12th, 2007 at 4:56am 		  Mark & Quote
Paradiddle wrote on Oct 11th, 2007 at 3:14pm:
What about people with personality disorders such as extreme narcissism? What about people with extreme arrested development like adult men who eat boogers and read comic books and ask asinine questions just to get a rise out of people?
lol  Grin

seeya

With all due respect, I find it humorously ironic that you are accusing someone of asking asinine questions just to get a rise out of people.

I think the behavior you and many of your colleagues have displayed since joining this forum can only be classified under the category of "troll", which is sometimes defined thusly: 
Quote:
Someone who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 12th, 2007 at 4:47am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 11th, 2007 at 8:50pm:
I hope you are all proud of me as I have refrained from making a very inappropriate comment about tbld!


Its never stopped you ''wonderful'' pgs before why no ad hom now? itsnot like your silly 5th grade come backs and little verbal attacks bother me any... way to toal ''smack'' ''online''
Posted by: Wonder_Woman
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2007 at 8:50pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
I hope you are all proud of me as I have refrained from making a very inappropriate comment about tbld!
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2007 at 6:18pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Paradiddle wrote on Oct 11th, 2007 at 3:14pm:
What about people with personality disorders such as extreme narcissism? What about people with extreme arrested development like adult men who eat boogers and read comic books and ask asinine questions just to get a rise out of people?
lol  Grin

seeya


Sooo youd pass with the extreme narcissism part... and why the mulitple reference to boogers ? i think you have a fetish.........
Posted by: Paradiddle
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2007 at 3:14pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
What about people with personality disorders such as extreme narcissism? What about people with extreme arrested development like adult men who eat boogers and read comic books and ask asinine questions just to get a rise out of people?
lol  Grin

seeya
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 11th, 2007 at 2:54pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
What about people with false memory disorder who havce to take a poly?

or 
MPD??
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2007 at 9:48pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Did some research today on polys Some states have already banned the usage of polys even for LE hiring i guess some states are finally coming to the realize that the polygraph isnt all its cracked up to be.....



On an unrelated note i thought this was a good video on the polygraphers competition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr3E_2KTxI0
Cheesy
Posted by: rice80
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2007 at 2:26am 		  Mark & Quote
Paradiddle wrote on Oct 9th, 2007 at 2:20am:
rice80 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2007 at 6:45pm:
I agree. Polygraphs are inteaded to scare the poeple who don't know how they work. They are merely and interagation tool for confessions. I have been a law enforcement officer now for several years and have taken taken several polygraphs to get to where I am now. When I first started my law enforcement career several years ago, I had nerver taken a ploygraph and quite frankly where scared to death of them. I applied to a state agency and took the ploygraph three times. I told the same information on all three ploygraphs and failed the first two and passed the third. I went on to finish the whole hiring process but was not hired becuase I didn't have a college education at the time, or so they say. I then proceded on to apply to another department and take their polygraph as well.  This time I researched this "so-called" proven science as I was told. I learned about the tricks used by the examiners againest their examinees. Now I must say that I had nothing to hide when I took my previous poly test and I told the truth and still failed the first two. I then took my third with the same agency and told the exact same information and passed prior to educated myself as to how they actually worked.  

All polygraphs that I have taken were all the CQT ones. Once I learned how the tests are conducted I felt more comfortable taking the poly test and passing it. Since I am a cop I can consider why we use this machine againest criminals. It is truely a good iterragation tool but it has no sciencetific backing to prove its relieabilty, thus why it is not allowed in court. I have consulted with other polygraph examiners after becoming a cop and they all have confirmed the same thing. They assume if you react to a control question more then a relavent then you are telling the truth and vise versa. They also cannot really tell if countermeasures are being use unless you of course admitt to it. I have seen and heard alot of good people get turned down for law enforcement positions simply because they told the truth and failed the polygraph. I am a prime example. I have since taken another and passed having been educated, and yes I did employ countermeasures which were not detected. 

I do agree however with some of the other postings I have read from the other examiners on this site stating that educating the sex offenders and other criminals is bad because we need to put these type of people behind bars but it is also good to educate the truthfull people who just want to pursue thier dreams and its not fair to "fail" them for telling the truth and not "reacting" the way they should on a crude instument.  Polygraphs should utimately be done away with until they can provide concrete evidence that they can actually detect know liars. I believe if you do a sound and through background check on an applicant and his references/employment you should discover what type of person he/she really is.


Rice80, please take the time to reread your post. Wonder Woman isn't the "spelling police", she was merely pointing out that your writing skills are at the 3th grade level, not your spelling. The fact that she was actually putting it nice escaped you----a supposed trained investigater. Her point was that she finds it very doubtful that you are a law officer----I disagree with her, as I suspect alcohol intoxication. Regardless, you are right to wonder what good could possibly come out of encouraging sex offenders to ; disengage from their treatment programs by cheating on risk assessment tools, and by encouraging sex offenders to "keep quiet" about secrets that are useful to the treatment and supervision process. Others will deny they are specifically doing such, but they are in a horrific state of denial------horrific because the proponents of behavioral countermeasures think they are heroes. Pure horse shit on a bun.



LOL   Smiley  Your funny Paradiddle. You are rather amusing I must say.  I change my mind about you  Grin
Posted by: Paradiddle
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2007 at 2:20am 		  Mark & Quote
rice80 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2007 at 6:45pm:
I agree. Polygraphs are inteaded to scare the poeple who don't know how they work. They are merely and interagation tool for confessions. I have been a law enforcement officer now for several years and have taken taken several polygraphs to get to where I am now. When I first started my law enforcement career several years ago, I had nerver taken a ploygraph and quite frankly where scared to death of them. I applied to a state agency and took the ploygraph three times. I told the same information on all three ploygraphs and failed the first two and passed the third. I went on to finish the whole hiring process but was not hired becuase I didn't have a college education at the time, or so they say. I then proceded on to apply to another department and take their polygraph as well.  This time I researched this "so-called" proven science as I was told. I learned about the tricks used by the examiners againest their examinees. Now I must say that I had nothing to hide when I took my previous poly test and I told the truth and still failed the first two. I then took my third with the same agency and told the exact same information and passed prior to educated myself as to how they actually worked.  

All polygraphs that I have taken were all the CQT ones. Once I learned how the tests are conducted I felt more comfortable taking the poly test and passing it. Since I am a cop I can consider why we use this machine againest criminals. It is truely a good iterragation tool but it has no sciencetific backing to prove its relieabilty, thus why it is not allowed in court. I have consulted with other polygraph examiners after becoming a cop and they all have confirmed the same thing. They assume if you react to a control question more then a relavent then you are telling the truth and vise versa. They also cannot really tell if countermeasures are being use unless you of course admitt to it. I have seen and heard alot of good people get turned down for law enforcement positions simply because they told the truth and failed the polygraph. I am a prime example. I have since taken another and passed having been educated, and yes I did employ countermeasures which were not detected. 

I do agree however with some of the other postings I have read from the other examiners on this site stating that educating the sex offenders and other criminals is bad because we need to put these type of people behind bars but it is also good to educate the truthfull people who just want to pursue thier dreams and its not fair to "fail" them for telling the truth and not "reacting" the way they should on a crude instument.  Polygraphs should utimately be done away with until they can provide concrete evidence that they can actually detect know liars. I believe if you do a sound and through background check on an applicant and his references/employment you should discover what type of person he/she really is.


Rice80, please take the time to reread your post. Wonder Woman isn't the "spelling police", she was merely pointing out that your writing skills are at the 3th grade level, not your spelling. The fact that she was actually putting it nice escaped you----a supposed trained investigater. Her point was that she finds it very doubtful that you are a law officer----I disagree with her, as I suspect alcohol intoxication. Regardless, you are right to wonder what good could possibly come out of encouraging sex offenders to ; disengage from their treatment programs by cheating on risk assessment tools, and by encouraging sex offenders to "keep quiet" about secrets that are useful to the treatment and supervision process. Others will deny they are specifically doing such, but they are in a horrific state of denial------horrific because the proponents of behavioral countermeasures think they are heroes. Pure horse shit on a bun.
Posted by: rice80
Posted on: Oct 9th, 2007 at 12:54am 		  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Hi Sarge,

It's a waste of breath.
If evidence was a Mack truck you could drive it over them and nothing would change.


We've been dancing in circles for nearly two weeks now.
PD puts debatable stuff on the table; The childlike LV is merely having fun at the circus;
MM & WW in particular are a bit thin in the presentation of actual facts. 

One real issue has been sidelined. Dr Richardson publicly challenged the p/g fraternity.
Besides taking cheap shots at him here, none of those challenged has the balls to contact
him and take up the challenge.

Polygraph is fallible.
QED.



Amen Brother! I would say "I agree" but our fellow examiners dont like that lol. I thought if I threw in a religious comment they might find that more acceptable Cheesy

Anyways it seems as if this site has been busy over the weekend. Sorry WW didn't know you added the title of "The Spelling Police" to your resume? Like you have never misspelled a word, please. I'll make you a deal  Wink  you stick to pretending that you can catch people in lies with your little handy, dandy "instrument", as your fellow exminer has put it, (BTW Its still a machine, Paradiddle. It plugs into the walls and requires electric to operate, or battery power if on a laptop) and let me handle the cop stuff, K? 
,
Posted by: 1904 - Ex Member
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 12:00pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hi Sarge,

It's a waste of breath.
If evidence was a Mack truck you could drive it over them and nothing would change.


We've been dancing in circles for nearly two weeks now.
PD puts debatable stuff on the table; The childlike LV is merely having fun at the circus;
MM & WW in particular are a bit thin in the presentation of actual facts. 

One real issue has been sidelined. Dr Richardson publicly challenged the p/g fraternity.
Besides taking cheap shots at him here, none of those challenged has the balls to contact
him and take up the challenge.

Polygraph is fallible.
QED.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 5:39am 		  Mark & Quote
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 8th, 2007 at 3:12am:
Sarge, you or anyone else could send me a PM.  If I was able to verify the info, I would appologize for having my doubts and I wouldn't reveal the info on this site.

I already posted that I do not believe you would take my point of view any more seriously if I proved to you I took and failed three polygraphs.  

I have previously written that I am a police officer in Connecticut.  By law, everyone who attends the POST academy in Connecticut must first pass a polygraph exam.


I don't think it enhances the credibility of your opinion at all when you and some of your fellow examiners question the character and veracity of anyone who doesn't agree with them.  It sounds more like you are foundering and are desperately trying to change the subject by attacking others.

If I post a question or an opinion about countermeasures, what does it matter what I do for a living, or how many polygraphs I have taken in the past?  If you can answer the question, or if you have an opinion germane to the conversation, feel free to post.  I don't see how you can believe you are behaving in a mature fashion when you reply to such questions with sarcastic comments and non sequiturs about what the poster does for a living.

When you came to this forum nobody questioned you as to how many exams you have taken, or how many you have given, or what degrees you have.  I know I didn't do so, because it is irrelevant.  If you have something intelligent and on point to add to the conversation, it doesn't matter where you received your degree or what you do for a living.  And if you don't have anything to add, well, it doesn't matter then, either.
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 3:43am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
wait for it... wait for it.... wow thank you captain obvious if you didnt point out the fact that my picture had an old toothless guy in it i dont know what i would have done... as it goes for sarges post he just beat me to what i was going to say good post btw sarge.... i know i know yea right whatever etc... anyway getting a little off track i have the research saved but it doesnt matter if i tell you where i got it all that will happen is it will get dismissed or attacked as untrue. and all the other typical diatribes that you can spew 


Until next time
BOOOMSHAKALAKA Cheesy and >>>>> Grin

Posted by: Wonder_Woman
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 3:22am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Bucko - the toothless wonder came from your photo!  Also, next time try to be creative and not copy Sarge's post. Roll Eyes
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 3:19am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
You can ''put'' ''everything'' in ''quotes'' you can ''deflect'' and ''reflect'' everything that comes you way... Ive talked with ex polygraphers (no im not going to give you their names, blood types, or social security numbers to ''prove'' myself no not ex polygraphers on this site) i know the ''skinny''  and for this site to be such a bore or soo unimportant you polygraphers sure do come here often



Oh and i have teeth ''buck-o''  Grin <<<seee           BOOMSHAKALAKA  Cheesy
Posted by: Wonder_Woman
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 3:12am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sarge, you or anyone else could send me a PM.  If I was able to verify the info, I would appologize for having my doubts and I wouldn't reveal the info on this site.
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 2:44am 		  Mark & Quote
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 8th, 2007 at 1:30am:
Ole toothless wonder, bucko, bub.  I said he couldn't write.   Why is it that you guys want us all to 'prove' things when in fact you never offer up anything substantial to confirm you 'supposedly failed 1-2-3 polygraphs'.  Bottom line is I don't believe you.

BTW, your 9/20 post says EX member. BOOMSHAKALAKA

It seems to me that this is nothing more than an attempt at deflection.   

How would it create discourse if, as soon as someone joined this site, they were immediately made to prove who they were and what, if any, experience they had with the polygraph?

I failed three polygraphs.  I am not interested in proving that to you, because it is irrelevant.  Even if I could somehow prove it to you, I don't think you would take my opinion any more seriously or give it any more weight than you do now.

My opinion is different than yours.  Both of us base our opinion on our experiences.   

There's an old lawyer saying: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.  If the law is on your side, pound the law.  If neither is on your side, pound the table.

All these personal attacks on everything ranging from George's poetry to whether I'm actually a sergeant or a cop at all sure sounds like table-pounding to me.
Posted by: Wonder_Woman
Posted on: Oct 8th, 2007 at 1:30am 		  Mark & Quote
tbld wrote on Oct 7th, 2007 at 10:17pm:
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 7th, 2007 at 2:37am:
tbld is now an ex member, gone or reinvented.  Also, Rice80 cannot be a cop.  He could have never passed the written test.  I never judge someone by misspelled words on these sites because I have made them also.  But come on, this guy can't write.

Rice80 if you have taken 3 polygraphs, prove it.  


i know plenty of cops who cant spell... First, spelling has nothign to do with being a LEO...majority of reports are done by compter ''spell check'' Its is ok to make a spelling mistake ty. Second, written tests arent that hard.....Last i dont think rice80 will ''prove'' that he has taken 3 polygraphs...Hey WW here are the names dates of my pg examiner etc blah blah why would you want him to prove anything to you? my guess is so you could call and tattle on him... huh ''bucko'' ''bub'' maybe??


Ole toothless wonder, bucko, bub.  I said he couldn't write.   Why is it that you guys want us all to 'prove' things when in fact you never offer up anything substantial to confirm you 'supposedly failed 1-2-3 polygraphs'.  Bottom line is I don't believe you.

BTW, your 9/20 post says EX member. BOOMSHAKALAKA
Posted by: Paradiddle
Posted on: Oct 7th, 2007 at 10:57pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
WW didn't just say rice80 can't spell, she said he can't write. It's the difference between not being able to dance, and not being able to walk.
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 7th, 2007 at 10:17pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 7th, 2007 at 2:37am:
tbld is now an ex member, gone or reinvented.  Also, Rice80 cannot be a cop.  He could have never passed the written test.  I never judge someone by misspelled words on these sites because I have made them also.  But come on, this guy can't write.

Rice80 if you have taken 3 polygraphs, prove it.  


i know plenty of cops who cant spell... First, spelling has nothign to do with being a LEO...majority of reports are done by compter ''spell check'' Its is ok to make a spelling mistake ty. Second, written tests arent that hard.....Last i dont think rice80 will ''prove'' that he has taken 3 polygraphs...Hey WW here are the names dates of my pg examiner etc blah blah why would you want him to prove anything to you? my guess is so you could call and tattle on him... huh ''bucko'' ''bub'' maybe??
Posted by: tbld
Posted on: Oct 7th, 2007 at 9:35pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
Far from an ex member just been away
Posted by: Wonder_Woman
Posted on: Oct 7th, 2007 at 2:37am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
tbld is now an ex member, gone or reinvented.  Also, Rice80 cannot be a cop.  He could have never passed the written test.  I never judge someone by misspelled words on these sites because I have made them also.  But come on, this guy can't write.

Rice80 if you have taken 3 polygraphs, prove it.
Posted by: Ludovico
Posted on: Oct 4th, 2007 at 12:29am 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
So what are you here for. Don't they have counseling services in your police benefits package?

Now, to original poster:

What research are you referring to regarding polygraph accuracy?

Posted by: rice80
Posted on: Oct 3rd, 2007 at 9:39pm 		  Mark & QuoteQuote
You of all people know that a simply polygraph cannot determine a persons background. Thats why a though background check needs to be completed. Polygraphs alone do not stop bad guys from being hired. Totality of the circumstances remember? but there are a few that sometime slips through the cracks. 

Look I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with anyone. Quite frankly I find it childish. I'm also not interested in "attacking" any examiner. I understand you have a job as well and I suppose I would be defensive if someone were to attack my profession. I merely wanted to post my experiences and comments about the polygraph process. Take them for what you want.
Posted by: Paradiddle
Posted on: Oct 3rd, 2007 at 8:59pm 		  Mark & Quote
rice80 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2007 at 6:45pm:
I agree. Polygraphs are inteaded to scare the poeple who don't know how they work. They are merely and interagation tool for confessions. I have been a law enforcement officer now for several years and have taken taken several polygraphs to get to where I am now. When I first started my law enforcement career several years ago, I had nerver taken a ploygraph and quite frankly where scared to death of them. I applied to a state agency and took the ploygraph three times. I told the same information on all three ploygraphs and failed the first two and passed the third. I went on to finish the whole hiring process but was not hired becuase I didn't have a college education at the time, or so they say. I then proceded on to apply to another department and take their polygraph as well.  This time I researched this "so-called" proven science as I was told. I learned about the tricks used by the examiners againest their examinees. Now I must say that I had nothing to hide when I took my previous poly test and I told the truth and still failed the first two. I then took my third with the same agency and told the exact same information and passed prior to educated myself as to how they actually worked.  

All polygraphs that I have taken were all the CQT ones. Once I learned how the tests are conducted I felt more comfortable taking the poly test and passing it. Since I am a cop I can consider why we use this machine againest criminals. It is truely a good iterragation tool but it has no sciencetific backing to prove its relieabilty, thus why it is not allowed in court. I have consulted with other polygraph examiners after becoming a cop and they all have confirmed the same thing. They assume if you react to a control question more then a relavent then you are telling the truth and vise versa. They also cannot really tell if countermeasures are being use unless you of course admitt to it. I have seen and heard alot of good people get turned down for law enforcement positions simply because they told the truth and failed the polygraph. I am a prime example. I have since taken another and passed having been educated, and yes I did employ countermeasures which were not detected. 

I do agree however with some of the other postings I have read from the other examiners on this site stating that educating the sex offenders and other criminals is bad because we need to put these type of people behind bars but it is also good to educate the truthfull people who just want to pursue thier dreams and its not fair to "fail" them for telling the truth and not "reacting" the way they should on a crude instument.  Polygraphs should utimately be done away with until they can provide concrete evidence that they can actually detect know liars. I believe if you do a sound and through background check on an applicant and his references/employment you should discover what type of person he/she really is.



I am glad you agree that criminals should undergo testing, but unfortuneately bad guys try to get jobs where they are entrusted with great power. Often times the bad applicant falsifies their education when in fact they cannot even write a couple of simple paragraphs, or worse yet, they have a history of violence or felonious theft. Sometimes applicants with very wild pasts disclose some things and they can't even remember the volume of stuff as over the years they have been too wild---which such nebulous doubts never work well either. Unfortunately for some, I am highly suspicious of all countermeasure "success stories" as they come off as infomercial testimonies----hair growth, weight loss---you know what I mean. Sorry
 
  Top  

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge