Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 2:00pm:

Sorry to disappoint.  I'll try to keep up from now on.

Your written statement indicates that you believe anyone who researches the polygraph does so with the intent to cheat.  I think that was the only reasonable interpretation.  I asked you about that since it seems presumptuous and unfair.

Quote:

How polite of you, to question my veracity and condescend to me in the same sentence.  As far as I know, no one said they were attempting to cheat or manipulate an exam.  I asked why you automatically seem to assume that just because someone researches the polygraph.  

BTW, you should take great care if you use statement analysis on items like text messages and Internet forum posts.  But you already know that, don't you?

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 2:56pm:



Yes I will.  Thanks for the help.  I appreciate it.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:44am:



Thanks for the good advice.  After this experience though, I'll probably just pass.  Been a long 10 months and the dildo's on this site remind me of a lot of people I have encountered along the way.  I appreciate the tip.   

Thanks.

Good luck and stay out of trouble, will ya.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 2:44am:


My case is done and dismissed and I am trying to get this info for my self.  Thought this would be a good site.  I was wrong.   

Losers.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:41am:


Jesus.  I come for some help on this and you just gang pile.  Quite frankly I don't care if you are buying it.  When I googled rights on polygraphs it brought up this site.  I saw all the different topics and thought this would be a good site.   

Apparently it is filled with a lot of douchebags like you.  Have a good life....loser.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 4:26am:



Sarge, your comments disappoint me.  First off, Mattwings has criminal issues (George I didn't use Probs).  Second, you have tried to switch this to a pre-employment issue.  If I recall you, or maybe it was EOS, have said, polygraphs are okay for sex offenders but not for pre-employment.  You guys are so selective.    I have said numerous times that I feel this site does more harm than good.  Yes I believe some people start looking for information about polygraphs before their exam.  However, if someone that has nothing to hide unfortunately visits this site, they get psyched up and believe they must try to use CM's to pass.  That examinee is then disqualified for employment or in a criminal case - it gives ammo to the prosecuation.  Sarge, if you really are a Sarge, you must know that if someone attempts to cheat or manipulate an exam, you would question thier character.   BTW Sarge, have you ever taken statement analysis classes.  If so, re-read Mattwings statements.

Sorry 1904,

I'll limit future posts to words you can find in Hooked on Phonics.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 10:36pm:


Somebody Please Send This Clown A Nylock Gob-Zipper.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:41am:

The above quote certainly seems to indicate that you believe anyone who researches the polygraph does so with the intent of learning how use countermeasures in an attempt to beat the test.

I have heard similiar sentiments from other polygraph examiners on this site, as well as from polygraph examiners on other sites.

Doesn't that seem unfairly presumptuous?  

Do you, like other examiners, ask each subject if they have researched the polygraph before you start their exam?  If you do and they tell you they have, don't you worry that might be causing bias in your mind, since you will automatically assume they are going to try and use countermeasures?

If a police applicant is told he must pass a polygraph exam in order to be hired, and his only knowledge of the polygraph comes from fiction on TV and in movies, wouldn't it be perfectly normal for him to look it up on the Internet or in the library?

If a police applicant is told he must pass the "Cooper Standards" in order to get hired, and he has no idea what the "Cooper Standards" are other than that they involve the physical agility test, wouldn't it make sense for him to do some research?  Would that indicate to you that the applicant is planning to cheat on the sit ups, or on the run?

Mr. Wings,

If you have three attorney's representing you at 300 bucks an hour each, I suspect your problems are way out of misdemeanor land! To answer your original question, all any one of your three attorney's has to do is request the charts as part of the "discovery". It is a simple process and any attorney should know this. If you play your cards right, you may even be able to serve your time with OJ Simpson.

Regards,

MM

Mattwings, has it ever occurred to you to post your question on a polygraph examiners site---where some of the best examiners in the country address your issue. It is called polygraph place. Tell'em Paradiddle sent you---and they'll answer your questions quick, without the circus.


By the way D-Head, Palerider told me to tell you "hi"...and that he misses you, and that he "thought he saw you at the White Castle drive-thru giving out incorrect change the other day."
Palerider is kinda mean that way.

mattwings wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 5:21pm:




Once again, First of all, I don't know what countermeasures are.  I didn't use them and know nothing about them.    Yet I came to this site to ask the experts....lol

mattwings wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 11:51pm:


Mattwings,

I am not buying this either.  You came to this site 'because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution'.  You just indicated you must have been on this site before, thus, there is a great possibility you attempted to use CM'.  Other wise, how would you know there was so much hype and expertise you could find on an ANTI polygraph site.  BTW, check out the Drew Richardson post for more information on the EXPERTISE on this site.   

Although George tells you never to admit you used CM's, go ahead.  It won't hurt our feelings.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 8:37pm:

Hey mystery meat.  You've done nothing but give me crap, which is fine.  That is your right. I came to this site because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution or suggestion rather than the cute little responses you like to give.  They are darling.  Really they are.  Actually, I have three attorneys.  And they are all very very talented.  They are all also $300.00 per hour so even a phone call to one of them counts as a half hour which costs $150.00.  So to have one of them go through the research and try to get this info would probably be a few hours of billing at least.  I thought this might be a good quick way for me to get some advice from a forum that I figured would know.  From the responses on this board, there have been a couple guys who have actually tried to help me out, but in general, not a whole lot of help.  So it is probably worth it to me to go the attorney route and try to get the info.   

I just had a simple question to know what my rights are.   Thanks for the help.

D-Head!

Where you been? Oh, had to finish up the day job, huh?

Nice to hear from you.

Now, breathe buddy. Them's a mouthful of big fancy-pants words. Ecological validity, huh. Whew. Before we begin, relax a bit. Change out of the bow-tie, and back into the comfy sweats - yeah, the one's with the stain on the front, those are good. Ah, sweats. Comfy waistlines. Stretchability, and versatility. No need to loosen they old belt after dinner, eh Bud. They simply expand and expand with the gut. How long's it been since you seen the... oh sorry, that's getting personal.

Now. I don't seem to recall anyone ever determining a near unique physiological reaction for the GKT. Last I heard there is no single physiological phenomena that is uniquely associated with any human activity. That's what is fundamentally wrong with voice stres, in my ever so humble and ill-informed opinion; diagnosis requires multiple distinct correlated indices to achieve some useful level of aggregated correlation efficiency. A single physiological phenomena might provide an observable, though imperfect, and singularly unusable degree of correlation. Whatever. 

Now a question. Cognitive response? Whom, pray tell, O great and powerful "D", determined that the GKT was purely cognitive?

It kinda sound like yer just throwin' yer weight around, Boss.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 7:59pm:


Sorry, but your own pro-polygraph PhDs (Honts, Raskin, etc.) have shown that countermeasures indeed do work. It also does not take a rocket scientist to understand that a person can manipulate their physiology to create the desired response if they know what the response is supposed to look like and when it is supposed to happen...

Additionally, it has been shown that the guilty knowledge test is the only scientifically valid form of polygraphy because it is based on cognitive response of which there is a unique or near unique physiological reaction. The others (CQT, DL, IR, etc.) are based on emotion and there is no unique physiological response for any emotion be it fear, anger, love, hate, grief, or sadness. This fact makes these tests unreliable, unstandardizable, and invalid because they cannot have internal, construct, or ecological validity...

OK Sarge, ya got me. I thought "POS" meant "Protecting Our Society". Apparently, this is not one of those sites.

On a serious note, think about Mr. Wings posts. Here he is paying a lawyer all that money to represent him, protect his rights and provide legal advise. Now Mr. Wings wants his polygraph charts and comes to this site to know what his legal rights are.

As a trained investigator Sarge, you should sense that something is not right in Mr. Wings house. His story smells like the docks at low tide.

Regards,

MM

Sarge, I believe Meat was being flippent. This is a great site to view unscientifically validated countermeasures against scientifically validated tests. It is very much like Big Oil's scramble to explain global warming as caused only by cow farts and volcanos. This is comedy.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 6:07pm:

It does rather beg the question that, if you feel this is a POS site, why are you here, reading messages and posting your opinions?

Why not go to one of the many non-POS sites on the Internet?

Personally, I don't have enough free time in my day to go to web sites I don't care for and post messages there.

Mattwings,

You are paying an attorney thousands of dollars to provide legal assistance and yet you come to this two bit POS site to get legal advice?

I know, why don't you fire your attorney and hire Dr. Drew Richardson. I heard that he is a polygraph expert!

MM

Wow.  I am away from my computer for a couple days and I miss a whole lot of interesting discussions.  Don't you guys watch football on the weekends?   

First of all, I don't know what countermeasures are.  I didn't use them and know nothing about them.  I didn't want to know anything about polygraph tests or tricks before I took my tests because I didn't want it screwing me up or having someone at somepoint check and see if I was researching polygraphs before I took them.  I didn't commit the crime I was being accused of and told the truth in both tests.  So no, I did not use countermeasures and literally don't even want to know what they are so don't go into them.   

Secondly, it was not a sex crime.  My wife would say that the way I perform in bed may be a crime, but you'll have to talk with her.  My investigation had nothing to do with sex or a sex crime.   

Any suggestions on a starting point to research where to begin??   

Thanks.  And all the posts made for good reading.   


Mattwings

My Pleasure.
I prefer you when you keep it down to short sentences
and max three syllables.

Aint got me a good edumacashin.

That was funny.

Thanks.

Thanks for your advice Reggie Garrett.
I'll re-read Kant. 
And a read for you: Jerry Stratten's book.
You may find yourself amongst the pages.

PS: He only wrote 1 - you will find it.