Quote:


For that to be correct - and it may be - it would require us to appeal to some higher authority than our Supreme Court, and it makes for an interesting philosophical and theological discussion.

Quote:


Sir, the point you make floats well above the water.
However, the immorality of such actions is not heroic.
Repeated wrongs of others never makes the last ones right.

Respectfully,
JP

Call me silly, but doesn't Lethe's threads fall under the category of "taunts"----a specifically forbidden mode of communication in these parts?

Thought so.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 13^th, 2007 at 12:26am:


Great!  So, you guys are going to stop telling stupid lies about how the exam works and are going to be forthcoming and frank with all examinees henceforth?  Man, that's awesome.  I'm so glad that you're abandoning techniques which, as Dr. Rovner has shown, had no justification and simply confused examinees and lead them to sites like this one.   

Now that you're going to stop the deception, people will stop wondering what you're hiding and will be able to trust you guys, which should lead to fewer innocent people trying countermeasures, which you think is a bad thing for them to do.

This is a great day!  Polygraphers will no longer lie to and deceive examinees because they have been shown that doing so has no purpose!  I'm looking forward to reading the new training manuals and examiner instructions, which, of course, there will be no reason to keep from the public.  After all, knowing how the exam works doesn't negatively impact the test results.

Quote:


No, Dr. Rovner's research showed knowledge of how the CQT works doesn't matter.  The CQTs can gain signal value in many ways.

Quote:


Grammar school.

Barry_C wrote on Oct 27^th, 2007 at 9:54pm:


Barry, I had asked about that previously:

Lethe wrote on Sep 20^th, 2007 at 9:17pm:


Here is the answer that I'd gotten:

digithead wrote on Sep 21^st, 2007 at 2:26am:


Neither you nor digithead gave a source for your information, so I'm confused again as to which is correct.  Can you refer me to an authoritative source that backs up your position here?

Barry_C wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:


Barry, as you know (or should know), simply understanding how the PLCQ exam works increases the chance of a truthful person failing.  If this were not so, polygraphers wouldn't go to such lengths to deceive their subjects.  Unless that deception increases the accuracy, it is worse than useless--it is counterproductive.

But your own programming won't permit you to admit this.  You keep on presently the laughable claim that the circumlocutions you go through to trick your examinees has not the slightest purpose whatsoever.  Really, is there no end to the amount of bullshit that you won't try to fob off on us?  Would you really want to live in a world where everyone was really dumb enough to fall for that crap?

Put another way, aren't the instructions given by polygraphers to their subjects designed to increase the accuracy of the exam?  And, if so, does it matter whether or not the subject accepts the information as accurate?  If not, then you're making polygraphy out to be thaumaturgy that works on simply saying various incantations.

Dr. Lethe, PhD

P.S. Don't be too hard on Barry when he gives his inevitably ridiculous response.  I'm sure that he does know that accuracy suffers when the examinee knows how the exam works, but he is prohibited from admitting this and thinks that avoiding such an admission is good for society (and, incidentally, his livelihood--he's probably got kids to put through college, after all).

Basically, if polygraphers acknowledged that their thing doesn't work well on people who know how it works, all a guilty person would need to do is say "Oh, yeah, I know how that works" to be exempted from examination.  Obviously, a test designed to detect deception which any deceptive person can avoid would hardly be useful and therefore would not result in wealth and prestige accruing to members of the guild who operate said test.

Quote:
 

I know that.  My point was that George likely has an affirmative duty to prevent its further publication, which he has chosen not to do. If he felt it was okay to publish (to a much wider audience, I might add), then it's hard to argue that his reputation was damaged.  What Dr. Rovner said was (and likely still is) commonly believed in the polygraph community, so there was no damage to his reputation among that crowd (and damage to one's reputation is an element of the tort).  Moreover, he didn't publish the comments there.

At this point, if George's reputation was harmed, then nobody knows whether he was the source or not, at this point anyhow.

Quote:


Oh no, I got it.  I just think it's wishful thinking.  Let us not forget that the APA has determined it wasn't an ethics violation.

Quote:


Do you think he's seen anything here to make him change his mind?

Quote:
 

That would be much like asking the police "Do you routinely lie to people you interrogate?"  One, you probably won't get to ask the question, and two, the US Supreme Court has said it's okay, so why is a "polygraphic interrogation" (as some of you call it) any different.

Quote:


Now think about the door you opened with that one.  How about when unethical people encourage the truthful people to mess with the test to their likely detriment?  Again, I think Dr. Rovner would love this one.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 5:28pm:


The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lawyer looking to hire an expert to assist on a case might not want to hire an expert who has had a complaint filed against him with the premier polygraph association.  And further, any lawyer where he has taken the opposing side against Dr. Rovner might have a pretty good chance to discredit Dr. Rovner, with questions like:

Isn't it true that you lied about the background of a Mr. George Maschke in a polygraph examination you gave on ...

Do you routinely lie to the people you give polygraphs to?

No, then what criteria goes into your decision making that makes you decide to lie to an examinee...

And so on...

Barry_C wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:


Sorry Mr. C, the mere fact that you told one other person means you "published" the defamatory information.  The fact that Dr. Rovner knew it was being video-taped is what takes this outside the regular he said-she said type of lie telling, and that it ended up in legal proceedings further published the defamatory material

The fact that Mr. Maschke chose to further publish the defamation could certainly be viewed as contributing to, and perhaps obviating the damage done.  That would be for a judge or jury to decide.

Quote:


I'm sure he's just waiting for those questions to be posed to him in a courtroom - where whatever he opines is pretty much safe from further legal action.  He'll have a field day if that question comes up.

Quote:


First, Dr. Rovner didn't know the test would be used for evidentiary purposes.  The courts there had never done so in the past, so why should he have believed any differently?  To argue this was going to go beyond the two of them is a stretch.  From a legal perspective, I think you're toast as you were the one to publish the info you claimed has somehow defamed you, but that's a question for a lawyer.

Second, it could be argued that you brought this on yourself.  Let me explain.  Dr. Rovner knows CMs don't work.  (He did his dissertation on the topic, as you already know.)  However, there is a concern that they may "help" the innocent to fail.  That's a problem when the truth is at issue.  So, perhaps Dr. Rovner wanted to convince the person that you and others like you who suggest that CMs work weren't worth listening to so that this kid would have a fair chance at passing.  If that was his motive or concern, it would be unethical not to address the issues with the person.

Twoblock wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 2:52pm:


I would echo that sentiment.

There is no tort of slander, it is the Tort of Defamation, an intentional tort which in most jurisdictions, (states) he would have 3 years to file suit.  Additionally, for the intentional Tort of Defamation, no damages are necessary to be proven, the mere existance of the defamatory material is sufficient to result in an award of punitive damages.  Lawsuits are, of course, a very expensive proposition, and it may simply not be financially worth it to Mr. Maschke to pursue it.

The mere fact that when one Googles Dr. Rovner on the internet, this complaint comes up, might be sufficient recompense to satisfy Mr. Maschke.

Afterall, the "Expert" Dr. Rovner will have to live with having an ethics complaint filed against him with the APA, an issue which will likely always come up in the future whenever he testifies as a polygraph expert.

Barry_C wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 8:25pm:


Barry,

I certainly think that it was highly unethical of Dr. Rovner to speak the blatant falsehoods he did about me, all the more so in the context of a polygraph examination that was recorded for evidentiary purposes. While I have made no decision regarding whether to pursue this matter through the courts, I am disappointed that the American Polygraph Association is unwilling to investigate such a clear and documented case of unethical behavior by one of its members. I am prepared to testify under oath regarding this matter in any legal or administrative hearing wherein Dr. Rovner's credibility may be at issue.

1904

Sorry to see you go, Bud. I really enjoyed your posts. Maybe you will reconsider.

Quote:


That was not for you 1904.  That was back on point for George.  Slander - which you accuse Dr. Rovner of committing - is civil tort, and the courts are where those are tried.  If you truly feel wronged, then why just go the APA route, which appears to be a dead end?

Barry_C wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 11:02pm:


Ask the APA. Slupski tried and failed. Gordon allegedly filed a complaint - but it never came to me formally - only via the rumour mill.

Quote:

Do you think i give flying f** what you think ?
God forbid

Quote:


The APA told gordon HE (not me Noddy) would have to apply to SA courts if he desired any action against me. what you or APA or gordon "think" is of no consequence.

George - a bit sad that you admonish me to stop haranguing BC but yet you allow him to use this forum for personal mud slinging.

Enough is enough - over and out

Clifton,

I read of an ethics complaint against you back a ways.  How did that turn out?  (Maybe I can dig it up if you don't recall it.)

I'm trying to figure out if you really care, or if you're just throwing mud.  If true, and you learned from your errors, then you might have some credibility here.

The APA has decided this is not something they could adequately address.  Why not try the civil courts, or is that a tacit admission that this is without merit?

THE ETHICS AND GRIEVANCES OFFICER 

IS STILL SEARCHING

FOR

THE RULES....

The American Polygraph Association (APA) will not consider my ethics complaint against Louis I. Rovner of Los Angeles. APA General Counsel Gordon L. Vaughan, in a letter dated 20 November 2007, writes that the APA has "declined to institute an investigation" of my well-documented complaint that Rovner, during the course of a polygraph examination that he videorecorded for evidentiary purposes, "1) deliberately conveyed the false notion to his examinee that I am a fugitive from justice who fled the United States to avoid criminal prosecution, and 2) falsely claimed that I sent him a computer virus (a federal crime)."

The American Polygraph Association's unwillingness to consider this ethics complaint is reminiscent of its refusal last year to investigate an ethics complaint against APA past president Ed Gelb for falsely holding himself out to the public as a Ph.D. in marketing his services.

The full text of the APA's reply to my complaint against Lou Rovner follows (the original PDF letter is also attached):

Quote:


The APA website declares: "The Ethics and Grievance Committee receives and expeditiously, fairly and impartially investigates all allegations of misconduct against members of this Association." Apparently, this does not apply when the complainant is a critic of polygraphy.

My questions were not "innuendo laden" as some of the questions were provided to debunk or dissect such accusations as being unfounded---thus seperating known fact of malware infiltration with "unsubstantiated suspicions" of infection. Your statement of disbelief is heresay---as well as the rest---as you and I both know you probably didn't even read the poll---as you were not online when I posted it and it was deleted within minutes. If one wants to read the entirety of Paradiddle's posts, you will see that not all of my posts were patently obstructive and/ or aggressive. Paradiddle wrote the truth plain and simple---and sardonic remarks concerning the absolute folly and/or lunacy of posters does not constitute a lack of integrity. I  am all too happy to call a moron a moron and a bullshitter a bullshitter. Admit it, you are clearly still upset that I called your poetry sophomoric, and you have demonstrated to all the inability to laugh at yourself---and even your closest allies will acknowledge your apperent lack of humor-----making mere jokes into ridecule----two very seperate things. In retrospect, I should have refrained from feeling a sense of indignation over your support for the disengagement and manipulation of sexual predators in psychotherapeutic treatment---thus evoking a sense that such overt acts of social prescriptive endangerement deserves to be lampooned when such a person attempts the refined and sensetive art of poetry.

I am still no less angry at your clumsy activism. Stick to the truth and you will get your wishes. Keep up the Karl Rove tactics and you will have wasted your life, and you will find that others will swiftboat you instead of the other way around. Post the goddamn poll and stop lying---or admit that Gino or some other site administrator got scared and deleted it without measured thought. The poll was not a smear, and it was deleted withing 5-10 minutes of my posting it---and you were not even online at the time. I smell both fear and horseshit.

Eric,

Your "poll" offering readers a selection of innuendo laden questions was no way to go about extinguishing a whisper campaign, and given your posting history on this site (both under your real name and as palerider/Paradiddle), I don't believe for a moment that such was your true purpose.

I reiterate: I have never sent a virus or other malware to anyone (nor has any computer owned by me ever become infected with malware that might have sent such unbeknownst to me). Lou Rovner's claim that I sent him a virus is completely false. If anyone else claims to have received a virus or other malware from me, let such persons openly say so and present proof.

Quote:


George, need I remind you that I attempted to extinguish the "whisper campaign" regarding malware by posting a very objective poll---which rather than being placed in the "discarded post" was actually deleted. Such a poll would have been healthy for both sides. Further, your denial of having sent malware either intentionally or not is simply either a lie, or a statement made in ignorance---as it is possible to be unaware of such bots as a host. I would suggest you repost my original poll---as I will vote that I have not recieved malware from this site. I have however recieved alot of malware on weather websites though (I now know they are infamous for such), and I don't need to prove such allegations to those carriers.