Quote:


Gino,

The thread you linked to, which was started by Lou Rovner and includes contributions from Raymond Nelson, Eric Johnson (whom I understand posts as "stat" at PolygraphPlace.com) and Donna Taylor, has been deleted from PolygraphPlace.com. However, a copy was saved, and I've attached a PDF file of the deleted thread.

It has been interesting.

I don't think anyone can deny the tension that exists between polygraph professionals and people who have been subject to them.

Whether things change or not, there is tremendous value in studying human behavior and the complex/obvious/predictable/surprising things that occur when we decide the think and act in some form of concerted community.

I think it was the famed psychoanalyst Karen Horney (thats "horn-"I" like eye - so cleanse your minds folks) who talked about people in movement - towards, against, away, or with each other.

There is obviously much to learn yet.

Thanks again Mr. Mallah, for providing that.

r

I think that there are good reasons for being anonymous under certain circumstances. 

The point of linking to the article is to highlight the need to curb certain natural human tendencies toward rudeness and obnoxiousness when posting anonymously.

And frankly, I really don't understand why the professional polygraphers felt the need to post anonymously.  Are they professionals or not?  If so, why not make their assertions and stand behind those assertions by name?  Their names are already out there in the polygraph community.  They don't need to hide the fact that they are polygraph examiners who firmly believe in the test and believe that the test is supported by solid scientific research and their own experience, right?    

I can't think of any reason for their anonymity other than the fact that they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or somehow uncomfortable to associate themselves with what they have written.   

From my limited scan of these posts, it seems like the level of discourse has improved dramatically since they have ceased posting anonymously, which is some evidence of the truth of what Dennis Prager wrote about in that article.  On a related note, thank you to Ray Nelson for reading the article and commenting favorably on it.

I agree in principle with the read too, which is why I have been overly polite and cautious in all my postings.  What is lost though, is the concept that anyone could simply choose a name out of the phone book, or even worse, do a google search  for "polygraph" and choose a name to operate under here.  This would be unfortunate.

And, given the nature of several people's posts when revealing their polygraph experience, I can understand the rationale for staying anonymous.

Interesting read---although I disagree with the author's complete dismissal of people being liberated as anonymous posters. I do however question the precise reason for  Mark's link. Are you suggesting that everyone be outed? Are you suggesting that perhaps George should have merely banned myself and others rather than being "outed"----keep in mind that as Palerider, I was far more satirical and sardonic than as my later Paradiddle writings---as when I was banned as Palerider, I corrected a great deal of my attitudes as I did not want to be banned further. Unfortunately, I was banned for an innocent thread poll on whether any posters experienced computer problems---my theory was that no such problems existed. I was banned within 10 minutes of writing that very innocent thread, and I defy George and co. to repost it so others can judge for themselves. 

Thank you Mr. Mallah.

Its a good commentary.

r

Of particular interest here is Dennis Prager's article about the destructive effects of internet anonymity:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/10/23/internet_anonymity_is...

EJohnson wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 6:37pm:


Thanks for the clarification.  I will delete my post.

I didn't give nor contribute to that or any similar lecture. I am not the only Eric Johnson polygraph examiner. There are a number of Eric S Johnsons---noticeably criminal defense attornies. There are even 2 other ESJ's as renters at my local Blockbuster Video store.

nopolycop wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 4:26pm:



ah yes, the ole John Deere Lecture. I also demostrated alongside Emily how to artificailly insiminate a cow----ok, wrong Eric Johnson. By the way, there are thousands of us EJ's and I did not give such a lecture. Incidentally, I wasn't actually attempting to get your identity-----google "sarcasm."  Also, I no longer run polygraph testing and haven't done so since September '07. I am retired from polygraph and a stay at home Dad and a student as my wife returns to work after being the stay at home for over 5 years. So, if anyone tries to argue that I am turf protective, forget it. 

EJohnson wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 2:33pm:


You certainly may ask, and I respectfully decline to answer, which the last time I checked, was within the rules for using this discussion board.

nopolycop wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 1:40am:


Ah shucks, come on nopoly4me, please call me Eric!---not that "Mr. Johnson" formal stuff! And may I ask what your name is and where you reside?



thought not

Gino,

Your posting of names and information on a site that has long touted that it respects the anonymity of those who so choose to post that way shows poor ethics on your part.

Regardless of the disposition of those that posted, the fact of the matter is that they could have simply been banned, as has been done with anti polygraph posters whom have done the same in the past.

I would gather to say that this was not the type of ethical debating nor political strategy taught to you in college.  This type of thing amounts to nothing more than mudslinging or negative propaganda based on ad hominem attacks.  I would have thought that someone of your intelligence and specific education would not stoop to such a game.

I know that there are anonymous anti polygraph posters who have participated in personal attacks on this site and of which you know the real names of.  Will you now post their names and information?  Although it might be thought by some to be fair, I do not think it would be any more ethical than aforementioned.

EJohnson wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 10:19pm:


Mr. Johnson:

Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.

Donna.Taylor

I lowered myself to respond to your flame-bait statement about "my goat". George admonished me for it because he upholds standards for the site and I asked him to delete that post. Yes, we all hear from him to when we get out of line. Once is enough for the AP's however.

My latest post was to the Sargeant not you. 

Don't ever get the mistaken idea that you people could run me off the site. I plan to never again be drawn into your type of flaming. I hope to hold myself above that.

Also, don't get the mistaken idea that I'm against SO monitoring. I am for what ever it takes.

Donna.Taylor wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 11:09pm:


For all his abrasiveness, nonombre is, at least, not engaged in game-playing in an attempt to avoid discussion and create false impressions.  In fact, his long-time presence here is living proof all of your compatriots' claims that, somehow, Antipolygraph.org is not interested in open discussion ring hollow.

I have no idea whether you actually understand why you as a group were outed.  If you do, then you demonstrate (once again) the lack of ethics displayed by so many polygraphers who post here.  If not, then in my opinion you have a real blind spot regarding your own behavior.

EJohnson wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 4:25pm:


And sockpuppetry and coordinated efforts to taint message/discussion boards are generally considered the height of dishonest and reprehensible behavior on message boards of all sorts, and outing the perpetrators is generally par for the course (where possible -- banning, if it's not).

I've spent more than a decade in online argumentation using many venues, and the treatment you've received is not only normal--most netizens would probably consider it well-deserved justice.

The unfortunate fact seems to be that many of the polygraphers who post here engage in some of the most dishonest behavior you can find on the Internet, all the while declaring themselves the guardians of truth.  Ironically, while said perpetrators seem to think they're being sneaky, it's actually pretty obvious to outside observers and those of us who actually DO care about truth.  The activities on this site have provided rich examples of this over the years.

Color me distinctly unimpressed by your claims that Antipolygraph.org has now, somehow, tainted its reputation by revealing your dishonesty for all to see.  In fact, it's barely a remarkable event -- it's happened here time and time (and time) again.

Gino, you know full well the exposure was due to information that was posted on your ‘expert’ Drew.  You were never forced to disclose identities.  It was an act of revenge….plain and simple.

For the record, I received ONE ‘civility’ warning from GM and that was after I was called a ‘whore’ by two block.  (Hey TB I see you joined the discussion again when you found out we were banned…lol)   I do find it interesting that I was banned when I corrected GM - not because of warnings (although I've also had my share and received them too).   I didn’t use an anonymous proxy to hide from GM.   And for the record 1904 ‘outed’ me several weeks ago.  You relied on a hack examiner to get your dirty work done.  And, by the looks of things, it doesn’t look like it stopped any of us from posting?     Shake and bake baby! 

I hold my head high and feel honored to be part of a rogue group (lol – you AP guys are too much!) of examiners.  Ray, Eric, Lou, and Ted – my hat is tipped to you guys.   BTW, Nonombre, thanks for the kind words -  I hope they don’t ban you.

BTW, I see Gino has removed some of his posts.  Didn’t he say something along the lines of ‘the looks on their faces this morning would be like pumping the neighbor’s cat? Gino, that is sure an off the wall comment….

So if you are outing people, Gino, why hide your identity?  Be a man.  You said we didn’t have the nads to post under our own name and yet GS is a pseudonym.

OK ---let me get this straight----we post that one of your man-crushes was alleged to be the worst examiner in the career of a senior examiner's witness in a lifetime of service---and that Drew was thought to not even have a grasp of the concept of polygraph, despite attending a school which this site portrays as being like that of a barber college (apperently it wasn't so easy). Then, the examiners go on to post a peer reviewed study debunking the efficacy of the countermeasures which this site--ahem---swears by. Some taunts by both sides later---one coming from Bill Cridder who wished that my family were raped in prison for life, lest I forget that I am to "F off" also-----sweet stuff. Insult to injury Cridder's post was not discarded---despite it being as a direct threat to my family. Then you guys in a desperate move to grasp control over your little t-shirt infomercial here, decide to label us all as trolls and reveal our identities-----revealing our identities to people such as your senior user Bill Crider who gives me the whillies. No intelectual discussion on the study----just curious misdirection , study construct insults and unspecific caveats that real scientists apperently thought were good enough. Plus, Drew is still a local hero. 
Meanwhile, you claim to be attempting to preserve the dignity of a profession that needs no help from you, and has hollored amongst ourselves "bombs away" with every new development in the now serious study of debunking TLBLD and some of the disinformation we have sat idley by while you spew.  
Gino, thanks for keeping our public image in mind. You are a Saint!

Quote:


Even polygraphers cannot deny that that this site is THE address for polygraph related issues on the Web. Our search engine rankings are indeed high. They may disagree with the content here—but they know we are tops with regard to visibility.

What outsiders do not see is the sheer volume of contact we receive from major media organizations, prominent attorneys and others who influence polygraph policy along with the “thank you” notes from those who have successfully employed countermeasures.

Quote:


Mr. Johnson, despite what you may believe, our motive in exposing you and your compatriots was not to hurt your careers or tit-for-tat revenge. 

In actuality, we were tremendously concerned that the educated readers described above might read the posts of paradiddle & co were and see them as so abusive and off the wall to the point that no group of adults—let alone a group of professionals—could have possibly authored them. 

Instead, the only logical conclusion would likely have been that the posts were prepared by George and I in a fraudulent attempt to portray polygraph examiners in a negative light.

We were forced to disclose identities to defend against the well-founded concern that we fabricated the posts to make polygraph examiners look bad.

Fortunately, as I have said earlier on this thread, while I certainly have issues with how polygraphs are conducted, THE TOMFOOLERY THAT WENT ON HERE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS. 

It was the brainchild of a rogue group of polygraph examiners that was taken to a degree that apparently at least one fellow examiner found reprehensible.

It would appear that (admittedly there are exceptions) there exist some patterns in the demographics of the outed trolls.  Level of claimed formal education is not high (Rovner being the exception), the examiners are local and private (not Feds), they have a high degree of involvement in post conviction sexual offender testing (the bottom feeders of the screening world), and they for the most part are located in the Rocky Mountain and western states.  

Although we would likely not find valid many of the practices of federal examiners doing specific issue criminal testing and are likely not held in any higher regard by them than by the trolls, we are pleased to know that the feds are either smart enough or principled enough not to get involved in the shennanigans that led to the outing of these trolls.

Quote:


Honestly, that again? We already went over this. The 83 study was debunked by the researcher as being inadequate. The NAS study is interpretable as that polygraph is not a purley scientific test, but "demonstates far better than chance" results. Here you go again with circular logic-----your but but but but is well, old.

Quote:

I stated that I was always "up for a debate" but this site offers scarce debate, but rather it is on a crusade. Ask the early "heretics" about the Crusader's debates.

Quote:

Agreed, because your "story" has (according to the pro-polygraph crowd) a mathematical improbability. 3 examiners 3 tests---wrong each test. According to a very rough calculation, that is a 1 in 25,000 chance---add that with your proclivity to refer to your LIFE as a STORY, your countless hours on this site chasing cops/investigaters, and other oddities---and you have a cake that tastes fishy. Sorry if you became upset, I meant no disrespect---but I did have substantial suspicions---and to deny the above oddities is rather strange in and of itself. My life is my life, a story is something I tell my kids at night night time.

Quote:


I did such and examiners such as Nonombre have done so for years----to no avail. If Christ came down and said poly was a good tool for detecting deception, you'd call him the devil. We probably agree there, eh? So what is there to debate? You are your persona, and I was mine---until George and Gino decided to out me for posting a poll to see if the allegations of there being malware here are phony.


Quote:


Ad hom attack all the way Sarge, the pancake makeup doesn't disguise your feelings. My intentions were to have some fun sharing some sarcastic witicisms with people who support the disengagement of treatment by Sex Offenders, and the supporters of ending polygraph by encouraging citizens to lie to US Sworn Law Officers. Plain-n-simple Sarge.
Quote:


More ad hom----calling people who disdain folks that support sexual recidivism and lying to police officers as "juvenile." I can take it, can you? Does sarcasm and sardonic remarks hurt your feelings? At least no one is trying to get you fired from your job because of sarcasm. The outing of polygraph examiners rather than simple banishment is tantamount to slitting tires-----the lowest form of retribution on the internet. Sarcasm is just words, not deeds or instructions.

EJohnson wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 2:06pm:


If I understand your point of view, when you post a study that supports your opinion, it is “scientific proof.”  When someone else posts a study or refers to a study that is counter to your opinion, what is that?  If you refer to a study it demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives this site is responsible for, but if I refer to the NAS research study or the OTA study from 1983 my cites are shrugged off as being irrelevant?

You write that you are always up for debate, but is that really how you would characterize the majority of your posts here, as debate?  Really?  You were engaged in a debate?

When I posted my story regarding the polygraph and you questioned my veracity regarding not only my experiences, but also that I was even a police officer, was that a debate?  When you continually denigrated not only my opinion, but me personally, simply because I do not agree with you, was that a debate?

If you are so certain that the polygraph is well grounded in science and is a valid method for detecting truth or deception, I would think you could easily refute any contrary opinions without resorting to name calling and accusations of lying.

It is difficult for me to believe that your intention when you came to this site was to engage in a debate about the polygraph.  It seems obvious that your intention was to treat anyone who disagreed with you with contempt and disrespect.

For anyone who was unfamiliar with the polygraph and who chose the last month or so to do some research on it, if they visited this message board I have no doubt that they came away with the conclusion that, based on the sample they observed here, polygraph examiners are rude, disrespectful, peremptory in their decisions, and completely unable to intelligently defend their chosen profession without resorting to juvenile personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them.

I doubt that such an impression is accurate for the majority of polygraph examiners, but that, sir, is the impression you and your comrades left over the course of the past few weeks.

Quote:


So now you're reading minds? I made no such insinuations and you know it! A poll is a question, not a statement---and my poll if you are brave enough to post---gave implicit allowance for people to vote that they have recieved no Netherland malware. As a fact, that post was the single most harmless and earnest post I have ever made at this site, period. I too was afraid of false rumors regarding malware as I wanted more polygraph examiners to post here to even out this place---In a private examiner's forum, I stated that "George would not use malware as no-one would put rattlesnakes at their own friont door"--in an attempt to defend your formerly percieved honor-----plus----I was beginning to feel like a liberal at Fox News over here and wanted some balance----and I was afraid that rumors of malware would preclude fearful examiners from coming over for the debates. Do you think polygraph examiners are afraid of you George? No. They are afraid of your site---and now they probably do not trust your anonymity assurances. Your credibility is severely damaged here---and any reassurances of internet security will be under great scrutiny. I am greatly disappointed.

E

Mr. Johnson,

There can be little doubt that yours was a coordinated effort, and a well-informed source has confirmed that you, in fact, were the key player in this endeavor to debase the level of discourse on this message board.

It is true that your posting privileges as Paradiddle were banned after you posted a poll -- a poll calculated to insinuate the false notion that AntiPolygraph.org sends malware to our visitors. But you had disregarded multiple earlier warnings to abide by our posting policy.

Let anyone who claims to have received malware from AntiPolygraph.org state so openly and provide proof. No one can do so, because we have never sent anyone malware of any kind.

In his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma, videorecorded for evidentiary purposes and played in open court, Dr. Louis Rovner, Ph.D. (one of your group) falsely claimed that I sent him a virus (a federal crime). I have refuted that claim by posting the complete text of the only e-mail message I have ever sent to him. Any who continue to repeat such false and malicious accusations may find themselves in court.

Fabulous. Now let's set the record straight. George and all have characterized polygraph examiner postings as "a coordinated effort." Such is not true. Being acquanted with fellow examiners and commenting on the site "after hours" regarding the utter lack of robust opinions on this site is hardly "coordinated." Posting research that demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives of the tlbtld "countermeasures" is not disinformation, it is scientific proof. I was bannished not as a result of ad hom attacks (although I've had my share and recieved them too) but I posted a survey on this board asking threaders if they recieved any malware, bots, or trojans----and even giving regards to the fact that alleged problems on this site could be fictitious or unrelated to antipolygraph.org. That my friends and adversaries is what got Paradiddle banished. I am always up for debate, but when posters refuse to acknowledge scientific research, construct validity, and true experience----than such amounts to the twin of ad hom attacks. To further the insult, Gino and George have sold the identities of members for amusement. First the Vipre gang, now the polygraph examiners, next it will be you. I am greatly disappointed in George's paranoid accusation of "coordinated" attacks---which amounted to some field examiners deciding to represent with the exact same argumentative style as you here propogate. Your own soup tastes sour indeed.