The poster LieBabyCryBaby has been banned. The decision to ban him from these forums comes after numerous violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy. In his own words: "I come around every now and then to ruffle your feathers and laugh at you, and then I find other entertainment."

At this time, we feel it is appropriate to disclose LieBabyCryBaby's true identity: Special Agent Shawn Hacking of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), currently assigned to DEA's Seattle Division.

The sort of behavior displayed on these forums by SA Hacking is particularly disturbing coming from a federal law enforcement officer. In view of the fact that SA Hacking at times posted from IP addresses registered to his employer, it is not clear whether his activity here is sanctioned by his superiors in the polygraph unit, Seattle Division SAC Arnold R. Moorin, or DEA senior management.

It should also be noted that before registering as "LieBabyCryBaby," SA Hacking had trolled here as AnalSphincter (he later deleted this registration). He simultaneously created a female sock-puppet and putative CIA employee, LoopyLuWho, to agree with and praise his posts as AnalSphincter.

While trolling as AnalSphincter, SA Hacking expressed the view that the risk of a false positive on a CQT polygraph examination is "Certainly less than your chances of dying in a plane crash." A view that no one with any understanding of polygraphy would share, and that it is hard to imagine SA Hacking himself truly believes.

UPDATE: A 2-mb PDF file with a compilation of all of Special Agent Hacking's posts as LieBabyCryBaby has been attached for reference purposes.

---

These guys are pompous assholes who should have nothing to do with anyone's career.

I hope you report him to his superiors.

I wonder if my elected reps would be interested in this waste of  taxpayer dollars.  He probably spends hours at a stretch in the office we paid for, trolley, posting...etc.  Would hurt writing him a letter.

TC

It would appear, based on the post from Administrator, that Dr. Maschke and Mr. Scalabrini are both more talented and considerably more patient than their badly behaved detractors.  They have demonstrated the investigative skills and perhaps interrogation skills that were questioned by these recent detractors.  And based upon the Administrator's accounting, they have exhibited years of patience with the last individual “outed” and in gathering information about the same.

I think, however, the greater takeaway message from this is not that George and Gino are smarter than these individuals and that they have the skills to out the mean spirited and those who misbehave, but that they have the ability to distinguish between those who merely disagree and those who seek to disrupt.  Public Servant of days gone by and Pailryder and YankeeDog of more recent times come to mind as examples of the former.  These and other polygraphers have debated issues and perhaps have disagreed with the site's hosts over these issues as much as those who have been outed.  The difference between the latter two groups is not only behavior but focus.  

Polygraph practice, policy, and procedure are topics that should be debated with vigor.  Personal attacks on the pro and anti-polygraph visitors to the site and the victims of polygraphy that come looking for explanation should be altogether disallowed.  Even argument from merely a position of authority should be discouraged.  

It would appear that all that George and Gino preach can be found within TLBTLD.  If there are errors, they should be pointed out with the EVIDENCE of such.  I personally have witnessed no evidence to indicate that these two individuals are not willing and prepared to be shown wrong about anything that they have proclaimed.

It should be fairly easy to distinguish what is fair game and relevant and what is not...

As a taxpayer, I am outraged that Special Agent Hacking would use government computers, and presumably his work time, to troll the internet.   Public servants should do their private internet surfing on their own computer and on their own time.  In the private sector, such excessive internet surfing at work would lead to a firing.

The Department of Justice must certainly have published instructions prohibiting this type of abuse of government computer systems.  The DEA IG should investigate this abuse.

George, do you have any plans to present a formal IG complaint to DEA or the Department of Justice?

So is this guy a DEA polygrapher or active Special Agent?  At any rate, he was at one time an active SA conducting investigations, and interrogating suspects.

Applicants should always remember that many if not most agency polygraphers are actually trained INTERROGATORS.  Most applicants go in to a polygraph not know this, thinking the nice gent/lady about to "test" them are just polygraph "technicians".  It's a ruse.  You are going in the the polygraph room TO BE INTERROGATED!  Don't ever forget it.

Note, polygraphers here routinely deny that the polygraph is an interrogation.  This is reason enough to know that it actually IS.  You have to take the advice polygraphers give, and DO THE OPPOSITE!

To wit, they consistently advise applicants to "I am here to help you through this.", and "get everything off your chest", and "The more you tell me and talk to me THE BETTER!"  Yeah, right!

TC

Meangino,

AntiPolygraph.org has no plans to file a complaint against Special Agent Hacking.

TC,

All DEA polygraphers are special agents.

Getrealalready,

Indeed, it is not our general policy to seek to embarrass or humiliate those with pro-polygraph viewpoints who choose to participate in this forum. Numerous polygraph examiners have expressed their views and criticisms forcefully yet civilly.

To those in the polygraph community who are following this message thread,

If you wish to participate in the discussions on this forum, your participation is welcome. If there is anything we've said that you think is wrong, you're welcome to say so and offer counterarguments. We are not afraid of opposing viewpoints and welcome the opportunity for a rational exchange of views with those who may disagree with us on polygraph matters. And if you choose to participate in such dialogue anonymously, we respect your choice.

But if your primary purpose is to "ruffle feathers and laugh" -- as by his own admission was the case with Special Agent Hacking --  then you risk being named and shamed, and we suggest that you seek amusement elsewhere.

Absolutely disgraceful post.  To reveal a potential identity of a user while hiding behind the "Administrator" moniker is both cowardly and distasteful.  You are obviously attempting to hurt someone who basically had an opinion and thus hurt your whittle feelings. 
This post must be the summarization of the actual integrity and consistent with the thought process this site represents.  The “Administrator”, who wishes not to be identified (hypocrite), in his attempt to condemn the views of someone who actually made good  points rather than act accordingly. 
It’s a shame that this site could actually have some validity instead of being shown for exactly what it is, a bunch of adults who cry, blame others, and hold vendetta’s, which is iron because that exactly what LBCB claimed and M quickly dismissed. 
The more you cry, whine, complain, conspire, and now harass others the more you give credence to what all of your detractors say about you.

George W. Maschke wrote on May 17^th, 2009 at 5:37am:

Meangino, AntiPolygraph.org has no plans to file a complaint against Special Agent Hacking. TC, All DEA polygraphers are special agents. Getrealalready, Indeed, it is not our general policy to seek to embarrass or humiliate those with pro-polygraph viewpoints who choose to participate in this forum. Numerous polygraph examiners have expressed their views and criticisms forcefully yet civilly. To those in the polygraph community who are following this message thread, If you wish to participate in the discussions on this forum, your participation is welcome. If there is anything we've said that you think is wrong, you're welcome to say so and offer counterarguments. We are not afraid of opposing viewpoints and welcome the opportunity for a rational exchange of views with those who may disagree with us on polygraph matters. And if you choose to participate in such dialogue anonymously, we respect your choice. But if your primary purpose is to "ruffle feathers and laugh" -- as by his own admission was the case with Special Agent Hacking --  then you risk being named and shamed, and we suggest that you seek amusement elsewhere.

Pathetic that the "ruffle you feathers" comment is actually that offending to anyone over the age of 4.

You just gave LBCB more credence to his claims by contributing.

I have checked this site from time to time over the years but what this site did by actually calling out the possible identity of one of it's users shows very bad taste and would compell a lot of users, trolls or not, to not trust what this site stands for.

You can hide behind the, "he offended me with his 'ruffled feathers comment'" all you want but it only shows the petty nature this site represents. 

Unacceptable and very unprefessional. 

I better not say much more otherwise you'll have my name on a post.  Do you guys even comply with your own privacy policy?  Pathetic

meangino wrote on May 14^th, 2009 at 1:53pm:

As a taxpayer, I am outraged that Special Agent Hacking would use government computers, and presumably his work time, to troll the internet.   Public servants should do their private internet surfing on their own computer and on their own time.  In the private sector, such excessive internet surfing at work would lead to a firing. The Department of Justice must certainly have published instructions prohibiting this type of abuse of government computer systems.  The DEA IG should investigate this abuse. George, do you have any plans to present a formal IG complaint to DEA or the Department of Justice?

You sir are a moron.  Who says that the Administrator is reliable?  Who said it was on a goverment computer?  Who ever said it was during his work hours?  If you know any of this please elaborate but if you're making assumptions, well good for you.
M should file a complaint, it would only show his continued contempt for people who disagree with him and actually have quality points, did I mention who also have more experience, credibilty, blah blah blah.

This thread was garbage and you are a follower.

Tron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 10:58am:

You sir are a moron....

Such personal attacks are not acceptable and contravene the posting policy you agreed to at the time you registered on this forum. If you are willing to engage in a civil exchange of views on polygraph matters, your participation here is welcome. But name calling and flame-baiting is not.

Tron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 10:51am:

I have checked this site from time to time over the years but what this site did by actually calling out the possible identity of one of it's users shows very bad taste and would compell a lot of users, trolls or not, to not trust what this site stands for.

It can hardly be considered improper for a web site to repeatedly ban a person and, when the bans are repeatedly ignored, finally post the person's name.

It is not in violation of any "privacy policy" and is not even in violation of the usual rules of the Internet. 
No one has ever been banned from this board for posting opinions in opposition of the board's founders.  It has never happened.

The same cannot be said for many other boards, including some with a pro-polygraph slant.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 11:15pm:

Tron wrote on Jul 5th, 2009 at 10:51am: I have checked this site from time to time over the years but what this site did by actually calling out the possible identity of one of it's users shows very bad taste and would compell a lot of users, trolls or not, to not trust what this site stands for. It can hardly be considered improper for a web site to repeatedly ban a person and, when the bans are repeatedly ignored, finally post the person's name. It is not in violation of any "privacy policy" and is not even in violation of the usual rules of the Internet.  No one has ever been banned from this board for posting opinions in opposition of the board's founders.  It has never happened. The same cannot be said for many other boards, including some with a pro-polygraph slant.

Wow, way to take a stance on something.  So please post your real name and occupation along with where you work.  Why not since I am disagreeing with you it only makes sence.  Because as soon as someone has "ruffled feathers" that seems to be the consequence. 

You failed miserably with your comeback be the way.  You are actually comparing the integrity of people who are banned and make new accounts with that of those who hide behind monikers and give out personal information about employer and the like only in an attempt to shame and embarrass that person.

Then I remind myself what website I'm on and it only seems appropriate to do so.

A bunch of whiny people who failed at obtaining a job because they either lied or what other excuse they can come up with.

Liars would try to shame someone, anyone else for their own gain.

Keep it up guys.  I am sure the winds of change will happen someday, especially with the integrity I have seen on display as of late.

I just spent a couple of hours reading Special Agent Hacking's posts. Thank you George Mashke for compiling those into one link for us. Now that I thanked George and gave credit where it is due I must also ask George a question. What in the hell were you thinking? Here's a DEA Special Agent who is also obviously a polygrapher and knows what he is talking about, and you people banned him from coming here and exposed him on a public web site? While I would not agree one hundred percent with anyone's opinion on the polygraph, not even an experienced polygrapher, Agent Hacking's posts are for the most part excellent and they tell a story that can be summed up like this:

People who have no experience with the polygraph should not be advising other people about it. People who have never even passed a polygraph--is it true that George Mashke really failed every relevant question on the F.B.I. polygraph test?--should not be telling other people to try using countermeasures to pass the test, especially when studies show that it does not work. People who take such advice are fools who probably should not be pursuing careers in law enforcement.

That about sums it up. To be honest the posts get a bit repetitive and it makes one wonder why Agent Hacking didn't just get bored and go away on his own. People like Mashke are not going to get the message Agent Hacking repeatedly delivered because it does not correspond to their own opinions. As Anais Nin said: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." People who failed the polygraph test, whether innocently or not, have a bias. They see the polygraph through their own clouded lens. I have never seen an actual false positive thank God, but since no test is perfect I have to accept that it can happen. What Agent Hacking obviously believes is that the false positive is very rare--which I have to agree with--and people who failed the polygraph test even if they were an actual false positive should not be assuming that it is a common thing and trying to influence the actions of other people.

I have to agree with Tron. The administrators of this web site have shown a complete lack of integrity by exposing anonymous people who disagree with them. Now think about this for a moment. DEA Special Agents are truly special people who often put themselves in dangerous situations while trying to keep drugs out of the hands of stupid people. It is my understanding that all DEA polygraphers began as regular Special Agents and that the position of polygrapher is a specialty within the DEA. If you were a DEA Special Agent, would you not want to remain anonymous on a public web site? Agent Hacking apparently never even once posted that he was a DEA Special Agent, and unless I'm missing something he never even claimed that his viewpoint as a polygrapher was the DEA's official viewpoint. He always wrote anonymously with the expectation that his anonymity would be respected. But when he poked fun at people on an anonymous web site because of their inexperience and said that they amused him and should not be giving out bad advice he was exposed. This is a lack of integrity on the part of the administrator and a betrayal of confidence. For a web site that is supposedly a forum for both sides to discuss and even argue about a subject, this is no way to encourage anyone from the other side to take part in such exchanges. If Mashke wants a one sided web site where he and other people like him can voice a one sided opinion based on nothing but their own negative experiences, then he certainly has that. He and others who failed the polygraph have their own little world in which to agree with each other and mislead others. They won't listen to the voice of experience because that voice doesn't agree with them. As Henry David Thoreau said "It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear."

I commend Special Agent Hacking for his efforts. Not for ridiculing Mashke and others because that is stooping to the level of those who were not worth his time. But for advising people who have to take a polygraph test on the right way to do it. Shame on you George Mashke. Good job Special Agent Hacking.

Tron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 10:58am:

meangino wrote on May 14th, 2009 at 1:53pm: As a taxpayer, I am outraged that Special Agent Hacking would use government computers, and presumably his work time, to troll the internet.   Public servants should do their private internet surfing on their own computer and on their own time.  In the private sector, such excessive internet surfing at work would lead to a firing. The Department of Justice must certainly have published instructions prohibiting this type of abuse of government computer systems.  The DEA IG should investigate this abuse. George, do you have any plans to present a formal IG complaint to DEA or the Department of Justice? You sir are a moron.  Who says that the Administrator is reliable?  Who said it was on a goverment computer?  Who ever said it was during his work hours?  If you know any of this please elaborate but if you're making assumptions, well good for you. M should file a complaint, it would only show his continued contempt for people who disagree with him and actually have quality points, did I mention who also have more experience, credibilty, blah blah blah. This thread was garbage and you are a follower.

Tron, I will refrain from expressing my opinion of your posts. 

Since George was able to identify the poster as a DEA agent with the Seattle DEA office I presumed the poster's IP address was a government computer.  If SA Hacking was posting from a non-government computer and a non-government network, and on his own time, then there would be no basis for the complaint I asked about.

However, I bet my money he was trolling the web from a government IP address.  Such an action would fit the tenor of his posts.

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.

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.

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."

"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?

Quote:

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 (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

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

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.

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.

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

Why would ridiculing and flaming be necessary at all?

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. 

 

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.

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

I agree you and I do not engage in such things, but ridiculing and flaming are not limited to one side on this board.

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.

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. 

Quote:

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

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.

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.

No, keep posting! 

TC

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

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

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

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)?

Meangino,

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