Meangino,

There is no evidence of any US government IP address having been used this time.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 2:37am:


George, you note in the beginning of this thread, upon polygrapher Hacking's first banning, that he was trolling this website from a government IP address. 
 
Would you be able to disclose if he was again using a US Government IP address during his trolling with his new moniker(s)?

"TS Eliot" has been banned. As mentioned earlier, there is little doubt but that this was Shawn Hacking trolling under a new moniker.

No, keep posting!   

TC

Let me make it as clear as I can.

If you do not believe in what this website stands for, STOP POSTING.  With every response you make on this site, you add to the hits on the search engines.  Good, bad, or indifferent, you are supporting anti-polygraph ideas by default by increasing the market share of search engine hits.  This is the ARBITRON of computer ratings.

If this site has no validity, do not give credence and do not give it validity by posting a negative.

If you insist on defending what is called an untenable position, you only offer fodder for the opposition.

This site is the number 1 Google hit engine when "polygraph" is entered except for paid advertisers.

To all who hoped for a quick demise to the discussion and argument, all I can say is keep posting and you only dig the hole deeper.

Regards.

It is pathetic that a website administrator could ever think it's right to post personal information, especially when it is a law enforcement person they are posting about. Banning maybe, but posting personal stuff? I agree with Elliot. You guys are really dense if you don't get it. The administrator should at least throw out the topic because it really makes you look stupid.

Quote:


If TS Elliot turns out to be DEA SA Hacking, as GM believes, then the above post is truly pathetic.  A new low in trolling, asking in the third person for an apology.  I thought I had seen it all.

I still think it is are old friend Ed Van Arsdale.

TC

TS Elliot wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

That's an interesting point of view.

Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with exactly what an Internet troll is, and then you'll see that an entire message board cannot be considered a troll and cannot be trolling anyone or anything.

However, joining a message board with the intent to disrupt the discussions there, ruffle feathers, have a few laughs and then move on is a textbook definition of troll behavior.

If trolls don't like having their names posted then perhaps they shouldn't return to the same website over and over again, after being repeatedly banned, and continue to engage in the same trolling behavior.

If the bans don't work because the troll simply registers again with a new name and continues their trolling, what other recourse would you suggest?  To suggest that every web site on the Internet simply put up with trolls who have no other intention in joining board other than to disrupt it is completely unreasonable.

How about a little personal responsibility from the trolls?  Members of this board are not "outed" when they disagree with George.  They are outed when they continually engage in trolling after repeated warnings and, sometimes, repeated bannings.  Every message board owner on the Internet has the same right to deal with disruptive trolls who refuse to follow the common courtesy of not returning to a web site after they have been banned.

Whose actions caused the outings?  Who choose to engage in trolling behavior over and over again after repeated warnings and repeated bannings?  That's the person who bears the responsibility for the consequences.  That's just common sense.

One thing is painfully obvious fellas. You owe a good agent and apology. In fact you owe the DEA an apology. First you banned an experienced polygrapher from your discussions because he got the best of you and embarrassed you. It was not because he found your web site amusing and poked fun at you because you do that to polygraphers all the time. It was not because he was "trolling" your web site because your web site is just one big troll itself that baits the polygraph community. It was not because he used this name or that name as an alias because there appears to be little doubt that you have multiple aliases yourselves that you use to feed off each other. If this last were not true then you must be a few old men living in the same house who instantly spring to one another's defense whenever you need help with a particularly troublesome nemesis.      
     Second, you named a DEA agent on a public web site in order to "name and shame" him. Did you really think that this would work? Now what you have done is create a celebrity opponent who is probably basking in his newfound fame and happy in the fact that now everyone who comes to the web site can read all of his posts that you have compounded into one link and thereby see that he did nothing but expose a bunch of fakes and hypocrites with no integrity who offer bad advice to the naive and innocent. But your goal wasn't to create a celebrity was it? No your goal was to cause harm. You even went so far as to name a DEA Special Agent in Charge on your web site. Did you seek to "name and shame" him too, or did you just underestimate him and think that he would see his name in writing on a web site and reprimand and discipline one of his agents for simply doing his job?
     Third, you refuse to acknowledge that you broke the expected and proclaimed rules and ethics of your own web site, which is supposed to be a place where people on both sides of an argument can come and debate both politely and heatedly. No other polygraph web site does what you have done, yet you sit there smugly acting as though what you have done was justifiable and right.
     Obviously your intent was to cause harm and it has backfired on you. Now even people who innocently visit your web site will discover that there is no safety here. There is no expectation of privacy and no respect for rules. There is no integrity here.
     Think about what I am saying fellas. It's obvious to everyone but you.
     Now I leave you with a quote, as is my custom.

I might show facts as plain as day: but, since your eyes are blind, you'd say, "Where? What?" and turn away.       Christina Rossetti

If somebody accused me of TREASONOUS activities with absolutely no basis, and I knew who they were, I'd expose their true identity in a NY minute.  I have posted repeatedly how COWARDLY I think it is to make such accusations while hiding behind an alias.  They lose the debate, resort to personal attacks and the old "GM is a traitor" blather, get banned, keep coming back, get exposed and then squeal like stuck pigs and become all self righteous. 

Like I said, they can NOT take their own medicine.  

TC

pailryder

I don't think there are many of us that have an issue with you. You have been rather civil in your posts. However, it appears to me, that when most  polygraphers come up short on the debate issues they revert to personal attacks. Mostly against George even stupidly accusing him of unamerican activities when they have no basis in fact for doing so. He let them get by with it much longer than I would. I am sure he warned them by PMs, just like he does us when he thinks we are getting out of line. Unlike most of us, they don't take warnings very well and continue with the crap. That's what gets them banned. I have done my share of flaming and have been called down for it and because of my temper I have purposely refrained from getting involved in those kind of posts lately. I visit this website almost every day and it's hard not to put in my 2 cents. I do occasionally answer a post but it hasn't been directed to polygraphers. I love a good debate but it doesn't happen here much any more.

His real name Cullen.  He was banned but not outed, or do you not know the difference?

The guy was banned and never heard from again.  It was back in early 2008.   No I don't remember his on-line name.  Maybe GM does, since he would have been the one who banned him.  He called Sackett "full of shit", or something along those lines.

TC

Not banned Mr. Cullen, banned and OUTED.  You cannot recall any anti identified by name, now can you?

Quote:


That's not true.  I remember of at least one anti who was banned for getting out of line with Jim Sackett.

I've received "warnings" via PM, and have had posts removed or sent to "disgarded Posts" purgatory.

It is simply NOT the case that only pro poly types are banned.  Only flame baiting trolls get banned.   

TC

Sergeant 1107

It is easy to discount outings when you are not in any danger of having your identity revealed.  From my point of view the the outings are not rare at all.  My desire to post has certainly been chilled as I have watched every other regular pro polygraph poster banned and outed and never a single anti.

pailryder wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 1:54pm:

There are certainly examples of impolite behavior on both sides of the issue, and I make no apologies for opponents of the polygraph who cannot conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen even when arguing with someone with whom they disagree.

However, claiming that such tactics are simply fighting fire with fire is a cop out.  No matter what someone else posts a person may still elect to either respond in a civil matter, or simply ignore the post entirely.  That goes for both sides.

I don't think the repeated bannings and the rare outings have been because of rude posts.  I think it they are due to what is clearly intentional trolling with no other purpose except to disrupt this board and post flame-bait.

T.M. Cullen:

"There is no rule more invariable than that we are paid for our suspicions by finding what we suspect."           Henry David Thoreau


Now isn't that interesting? First you identify me as Edward Van Arsdale and now you identify me as Special Agent Shawn Hacking. Am I also Tron? Here is a suggestion. Why don't you and Maschke shadow box each other? At least that way you would have someone real to engage.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2009 at 10:53am:


Sergeant 1107

I agree you and I do not engage in such things, but ridiculing and flaming are not limited to one side on this board.  We understand that this is Dr Maschke's sandbox and we are only welcome if we play nice.  I do not know any examiner who feels that people who hold opposing views are not entitled to common courtesy.  The examiners who use those tactics feel they are justly fighting fire with fire.

Anti posters are allowed to villify us as a profession and personally.  Antis have called us evil, rabid dogs that need to be put down, celebrated with glee the passing of an examiner and wished by name for the death of another examiner.  Perhaps they are cautioned in private but they are never outed.   

TS Elliot wrote on Jul 11^th, 2009 at 2:54pm:

Why would ridiculing and flaming be necessary at all?  I don't engage in such things and am still able to engage in reasonable discussions.

I think it is much more likely that the poster to whom you refer simply felt (and feels) that people who oppose the polygraph are not worthy of common courtesy or civil discussion.  That seems to be a fairly common point of view for some polygraph operators to assume.

I think everyone on the Internet is aware that their IP address can be traced.  A DEA agent certainly should be aware of that.  Coming to a message board and engaging in obvious troll behavior, and then coming back and doing the same thing after being banned multiple times is hardly responsible or ethical behavior, even if you disagree with the beliefs of the message board's founders.
Common courtesy on the Internet is to refrain from visiting a site after that site has banned you.  If you choose to do that anyway don't blame the site's administrator if they file a complaint with your ISP, initiate civil proceedings, or post your name so that everyone can see it.

It's disconcerting that a law enforcement officer would have the same attitude as many of the people we arrest, in that the person responsible for the consequences of their irresponsible behavior is never themselves, it's the person who caught them.

Quote:


TS (SA Hacking?),

Is it true you posted in the same thread as BOTH  "Anal Spincter" and "LieBabyCryBaby"?   And that you actually carried out a conversation with yourself, one alias agreeing with the other?

If true, isn't that a bit strange and disingenuous on your part?

TC

"We dance round in a ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows."

Robert Frost

"Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Missing me one place search another,
I stop somewhere waiting for you."

Walt Whitman

Funny how you and other people on this web site jump to all kinds of conclusions without basis, Maschke. That is of course the correct spelling of your name. I should not have to apologize for getting it wrong. You have to admit it is not an easy spelling to remember and I am surely not the first person to have gotten it wrong.
     Let me ask you a question. Why are there so many posts on your web site lately on the subjects of "naming and shaming" and "trolling" and posting personal information about people you do not agree with? Why are there several people who have been banned lately for nothing more than pointing out that your actions blatantly and continually expose your own lack of integrity? If I were you I would be man enough to simply admit that I have been over reacting with regard to my opposition and that I should not go against my own policy by "exposing" people who challenge me and who do not agree with me. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than seek to "name and shame" anyone who does not share your biased viewpoint? Is the way you jump to such conclusions without sufficient basis any indication of how you jump to conclusions with regard to the subject of polygraphy?
     If you think I am a repeat "offender" on your web site then why don't you ban me as well? If you think I am any one of those guys you have recently banned or "named and shamed" then why haven't you banned me already. I will tell you why. Because you have no damned idea who I am and you have no basis for "naming and shaming" me. Also, perhaps you are having second thoughts about your recent despicable actions on this web site.
     Now can you please go back to at least making a weak attempt at debating the subject of the polygraph or will you continue to snipe hunt and shadow box?

TS Eliot,

I think there's little doubt that you are Special Agent Shawn Hacking back under yet another moniker, and that your repeated mis-spelling of my last name in this thread is an attempt at misdirection. I do not begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself (though I regret that you've done so by dishonestly posing as a third person). But your stated reasons for having come here are inconsistent with your prior admission, "I come around every now and then to ruffle your feathers and laugh at you, and then I find other entertainment."

I cannot agree more.  I don't see why if you just disagree with someone why you would want to embarrass them?

I have lost a lot of respect for George and for the purpose of this site.  I thought the goal of this site was to help people not ridicule them.

Too bad.

Without belittling or flaming you let me answer your question even though the answer should have been obvious before you asked the question.  First try to put yourself in Special Agent Hacking's place if you can. You are a polygrapher who has personally witnessed test subjects trying in vain to "beat" the polygraph through the use of ill advised countermeasures advocated by a few people on an internet web site who have not even passed their own polygraphs. Those people on the web site cannot even claim that they have used their own advice to find out if it works. You have counseled test subjects to follow your instructions, which most do and they pass the test. But there are others who are gullible or foolish enough to believe whatever they read without considering the source, and you have repeatedly seen them come into a polygraph test and ignore your instructions and either flat out fail the test or at best fall into the chasm of inconclusive which I talked about in another post. Curious, you go to the web site where some of your test subjects got their bad advice and you soon discover that there is not even one opponent of the polygraph on that web site who has experience conducting polygraph tests or who has any business pretending to be an expert on the subject, yet they are claiming that to pass the polygraph a test subject should use countermeasures which studies and your own experience have shown do not work. So you make a decision to engage in discussions and debates with the opponents of polygraph on the web site so that other readers, some of which will be your own test subjects, will at least have one person offering good advice on the web site who knows what he is talking about. You use an anonymous name and you never mention your employer but only portray yourself as the experienced polygrapher you are. You feel safely anonymous on the web site because the web site states that a person may wish to remain anonymous and you can see that there are many people on the web site who choose to do so and use anonymous names themselves.
     Of course whenever you voice an opinion in favor of the polygraph and in opposition to the people on the web site you are ridiculed, flamed and your knowledge and experience is discounted. Correct or not you occasionally stoop to the level of the opposition and you ridicule or flame back, but at least unlike the opposition you have more than just having failed a polygraph test or a handful of biased or insupportable laboratory studies and your own conjecture to support your claims.
     In most of your exchanges with the opposition you win hands down, at least in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about the polygraph or to any unbiased and objective observer. But there is one thing you seriously misjudge about the opposition. You misjudge the opposition's level of integrity. While the opposition is blindly biased against the polygraph and some of them understandably so because they once fell victim to an imperfect test process, you have no reason yet to judge them as lacking in integrity.
     On occasion when you are not conducting polygraph tests you even visit the web site while at work because you still have no reason to doubt the integrity of Mashke or any other web site administrator. You are not (we should assume) sitting on the internet all day viewing porn or playing video games. You are not sitting in your office with the TV on watching the sports review or newscast while you are "supervising" subordinates. You are not engaging in hours of personal telephone calls on company time. You are not off on three hour "business" lunches. What you are doing (and put yourself in the good Agent's shoes if you can) is participating in debates with people who are offering bad advice to many of your own test subjects, and you are providing a voice of reason and experience to those same test subjects. Do you not see that anyone with common sense would consider this an understandable and justifiable part of a well meaning polygrapher's job?
     But since you are getting the best of your opposition day in and day out, the opposition desperately wants to silence you and get back to its one sided business of giving out bad advice and feeding its own feelings of self importance and revenge. Therefor the opposition falls back on what we can all now see as its standard method of operation, which is claiming that any strong voice of opposition is "trolling" the internet, and then banning the "troller." But apparently that is not even enough for the web site administrator. Oh no. The web site administrator feels that the too strong voice of opposition must also be "named and shamed." This "naming and shaming" violates all standards of ethics and integrity of a supposedly anonymous web site claiming to be a forum for two sided discussion, but with the opposing voice "named and shamed" the administrator hopes the opposing voice will never come back again to disrupt the happy little one sided web site. What the administrator perhaps fails to see is that by displaying this lack of integrity he is simply confirming the lack of integrity that is so often proven when a test subject fails a polygraph test. Isn't that incredibly ironic?
     Now I leave you with two quotes which I think accurately portray the actions of the administrator and many other people on this website:

"Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm. But the harm does not interest them."     T.S. Elliot

"He that studieth revenge keepeth his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well."     John Milton

Thank you for your time dear reader.