J.B.,

In your post of 3 March, you wrote in part:


Quote:

Your argument is that polygraph is "not better then chance".

J.B., my argument is not that polygraphy is "not better than chance," but that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance under field conditions.

And in your post of 7 March (today) you write:


Quote:

George must prove, with substantiated evidence of comparable scientific disciplines, that polygraph is not scientifically valid.  It is his assertions and this discussion is based on those and the past rules of discourse he has used.

No, J.B. The burden of proof rests with you (and other polygraph proponents) if you would have us believe that CQT polygraphy is a valid diagnostic technique. Respectfully, I don't think you've met that burden. Not even close.