Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 9 post(s).
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2008 at 8:32pm
  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 5:07pm:
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).


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!
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:40pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2008 at 9:08pm
  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on Apr 4th, 2008 at 5:07pm:
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


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? Wink
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2008 at 5:54pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
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. 


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
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2008 at 5:07pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2008 at 8:36am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
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.


Well, well, well.

How conveeeeeenient!

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

Church Lady
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2008 at 6:36am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 3rd, 2008 at 11:54pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 3rd, 2008 at 11:46pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
From a pro-polygraph board:

Quote:
Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the huge amount of scientific research that shows the high accuracy of a well-conducted polygraph test. They are similarly not aware of several surveys demonstrating that the scientific community supports the use of polygraph testing.


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
 
  Top