sackett wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 5:07pm:


In other words, Polygraphplace.com is to the polygraph what Answers in Genesis is to creationism.   

As I've pointed out before, the polygraph guild acts towards the legitimate scientific community only marginally better than do the people who think the planet is only 6000 years old (note to polygraphers: they're off by a factor of about a million)  The creationists hate the NAS only slightly more than the polygraphers do.  Both sets of folks are expert at misinformation, half truths, and outright lies.  Both consider themselves in possession of the truth and think that thinking for yourself is bad.

Don't believe me?  Ask a polygrapher why they use deception if it isn't necessary, as they claim.  They'll never answer that.  They'll use ad hominem attacks (known as "ad hominid attacks" by skipp.webb), feign ignorance of what you're asking ("Deception?  What's that?"), use condescension ("That's a good question.  Why don't you read the research which we won't tell you how to find and which doesn't actually answer that question anyway?"), and good old fashioned bullshit.

Anyway, as for your question, "How do they get away with this?" read Thucydides.  The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.

Thinking is good.  Just do it!

The mantra on the PGP board goes something like this:

A newbie goes to the board looking for answers, having just come up "false positive" on a test.

The polygraphers tell them that they're only having trouble becuase they "haven't told the examiner everything"!  "Stop holding back, there must be something in the back of your mind making you have trouble with the question."

It just confirms my suspicion that the test is simply about getting the test subject to blab their mouths off to see if they will say something the test examiner can use against them.

Of course, we know here that "trouble" doesn't necessarily mean "deception".

So the key is to 1) keep the focus of the test on the "control" questions and 2) Don't make admissions concerning the relevant questions, no matter how insignificant you think it may be.

TC

sackett wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 5:07pm:


GM does not have to ban you guys here he is fully aware that allowing you nuts on here to post a especially you have Sackett only futhers the casue he set out for by starting this site.
As for a pitty party you can continue to make remarks as you wish since this site allows the sharing of views. Truth is and yu Sackett know it is that this site is a truthfull thorn in your and other examiners assses. 
Why? becasue it sheds light on your so called "science/art" and that is a threat to your industry. Why else would you spend so much time here with a bunch of pitty starved liers cheats and whiners?

Quote:


Then why are you so afraid of allowing an "opposing" view.  Lord knows, GM allows it here.

For example, in the thread I referrred to, an outsiders asked about the accuracy of polygraph.  A responding pro-polygrapher claimed there was a mountain of scientific evidence to back the test's accuracy, though gave absolutely NO citations. 

At that point, I would have simply pointed to the NAS report as an opposing counterpoint. 

OTOH, I realize PGP is an Pro-industry site, and not a "debate" site.  I can see where you wouldn't want people going there to tear down your industry.

TC

Mr Cullen,

Polygraphplace.com was established to present a site with positive and honest feedback for people with an interest or question concerning the science/art of polygraph.   

Polygraphplace.com is NOT a site for argumentative presentation of misguided souls who have a "case of the ass" at some examiner from their past.  That is what this board is all about (apparently).

Don't like it?  Have George ban all of us examiners here, so that you may continue to have your pity party without interruption or distractions... 

Sackett

Quote:


Well, well, well.

How conveeeeeenient!

We'll just have to find a way to luuuuure their lurkers over here, won't we?   

Church Lady

T.C.,

When quoting something, whether a message board post or a news article, please include a link to the source. The message you cited is to be found on PolygraphPlace.com:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum6/HTML/000078.html

At PolygraphPlace.com, they get away with such false and misleading claims as Lou Rovner made by forbidding polygraph critics from posting on their message board.

Whoops, answered my own question.

I delved a little deeper, and yes, they refer to a "study" done by a practicing polygrapher, allegedly a PhD.

So that's their "scientific research"?

TC

From a pro-polygraph board:

Quote:


Of course, no citations are provided.  Probably referring to so-called "studies" conducted within the industry.

I suppose if I replied and pointed out the NAS report, it would be deleted.

TC