Batman wrote on Jan 30^th, 2003 at 1:02am:

In most debates one has to establish some level of bonifides to be considered knowledgable on a particular subject.  On the subject of polygraph it's time for you to establish yours, then maybe we can debate.

Ridiculous, unless one is claiming personal experience on a subject.  It is not necessary to have such to carry on a meaningful debate -- it is simply necessary to be able to back up assertions with authoritative sources.  This happens all the time in debate.

Batman, I honestly wouldn't care a whit whether you are a polygrapher or not, unless you either a) lied one way or another about it, calling into question your intentions or b) made claims that directly require personal knowledge.  Most of what we discuss here doesn't require personal knowledge.


Quote:

Stop with the bullshit and get serious.  If you want to debate then establish your right (other than just having an opinion and an asshole to voice it) to do so.  Lay out your credentials by answering a few simple questions.  Once you do that then maybe we can talk.  Until then, get back to the barn yard and keep pecking!

So, in other words, until one is a terrorist, no one has the right to criticize terrorists or call them cowards?

For the record, no, I'm not saying polygraphers are the moral equivalent of terrorists -- far from it.  But the idea that one has to be a veteran polygrapher to see -- and criticize -- the polygraph's flaws, or have been or known a polygrapher to recognize the unwillingness of the profession to back up oft-stated claims, is ludicrous on its face.  This is, indeed, a form of cowardice.

Still not much in the way of logical debate from the "pro-polygraph" side.  An awful lot of "non-anger" about that countermeasure banner, though.

Skeptic