I have the opportunity to take the poly over again in a few weeks with the LAPD.  I have been reading about the sting and the other poly manuals.

Id like to know how many people have tried and suceeded.

I asked a similar question of George, but I phrased it like this, has anyone ever reported failing the polygraph after using the book? He told me that the only report he had was one person who made damaging admissions failed. So basically everyone, to his knowledge, who has used the book passed.

NotMeNotMe
I am curious how you got a second chance at taking the poly?  Did you appeal the 1st one after being notified that you failed (via the mail) or were you told after the test  itself that you had inconclusive results? Was the poly given to you before or after your background investigation was complete?
Also, have you had good luck speaking with your background investigator?????? Some that I know have ot and are quite frustrated!  
Thanks, and I look forward to your answers.

Actually when I applied for the LAPD I thought nothing of it really and I did not complete the application until I was at the testing facility.  Some of the administrtators complained that it was incomplete and other parts of the app were unreadable.  Oh well.  

I took a test passed that, I got an interview psch eval piss test phys and background invest and I paased it all.  I manage to irritate my background investigator since I couldnt remember all the loations I lived atr since I moved alot.

All in all in order to make it to the LAPD you just need to complete those processes.  Just complete not needed to do well.  Im reading about the sting and im gonna read georges pdf file too.

It is shocking how little you need to know or be qualified to be a cop.  All u need is a diploma, be healthy and pass the poly-SERIOUSLY

A highschool diploma

Also I wrote those personnel people a letter.  (I told them to carefully review my results and asked them to see if I failed to answer what is my true name also- cus i was a bit intimidated and I felt I chewed up in every question)  To be honest I didnt expect to get polyied but I did everything in 3 days phys and all.  They gave me another poly i really didnt ask for it.  But that is what they decided to do and I decided to take their offer.  The part where I got DQ was something I never did I swear.  

My problem is I get nervous alot.  I may not show it but I get nervous.  What can I do.  Hopefully knowledge is POWER.

I’m just curious, what is your ethnical background? I have seen a lot of other people trying to get in with the LAPD and I have seen nothing but horror stories. I am amazed you were so flippant and so successful.
Also, read the book and you'll be fine, just remember to practice. If you go in knowing you will pass, you will. Read as many post in the section about sharing experiences (the third one) as you can and you will see just exactly what to expect, then as you are testing you will be able to determine the polygrapher's next words. It's almost comical.

I took the LAPD poly some time ago. Early this year and the poly guy said I neither failed nor passed, but needed to reschedule me for another poly b/c i was swallowing and moving my fingers. He said what is the problem? I replied "nothing." The first set of questions he said were atrocious. My breathing and whatever else he was measuring. So we'll see what happens the next time. I tried some anal puckering, but didn't on and off then on the 2nd set , did most anal puck. After the second set of questions he said there a little better than the first but he has nothing to work off of, whatver that means. I this torture just to join the worst police force in the world. He started telling me that they do this b/c of internal problems. start polying the internal folks, or do adequate BI...don't use the poly as the main source to the BI, that's why you have folks with history but no one every caught that paper trail. That's LAPD fault not the new candidates fault.

Dear NotMeNotMe:

Maybe the better question would be, "Would you folks even tell me how many have used countermeasures and failed?". or
"Is it realistic to expect that somone who tried to use polygraph countermeasures would get back on this sight and admit they still failed?"  Figure the odds.  Gotta be more than just one.  If it is just one, then why so much pissing and moaning about polygraph?  If everyone was "beating" it, then who would care whether it is used or not.

My money says a lot of the folks who are dumb enough to use countermeasures get caught, they just don't come back to this site.  Look at the postings, always the same three or four folks giving "advice".  Kind of makes you wonder why, if there are so many out there who have been so successful in beating the box!

Batman

Batman,


Quote:

If everyone was "beating" it, then who would care whether it is used or not.

Many people discover this website only after having been falsely accused of deception by a polygraph chartgazer, having not had any particular motivation to research polygraphy beforehand.


Quote:

My money says a lot of the folks who are dumb enough to use countermeasures get caught, they just don't come back to this site.  Look at the postings, always the same three or four folks giving "advice".  Kind of makes you wonder why, if there are so many out there who have been so successful in beating the box!

Why do you think it is dumb for a person to use countermeasures?

Batman wrote on May 31^st, 2002 at 5:44pm:

My money says a lot of the folks who are dumb enough to use countermeasures get caught, they just don't come back to this site.  Look at the postings, always the same three or four folks giving "advice".  Kind of makes you wonder why, if there are so many out there who have been so successful in beating the box!

I'm presuming from the ferocity of your posts that you are a polygrapher, or at least have some sort of financial interest in maintaining polygraphy in the screening process in law enforcement hiring.

May I ask, how many test subjects have you caught using the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector?

Countermeasures worked for me.

After reading "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" a few times I went into the test knowing what to expect... a big help. There was an incident at the office which I knew something about, but knowledge of the incident could have gotten me canned or may have forced me to rat someone out. After 13 years on the job, there was no way I was going to lose it all due to this voodoo crackpot of a test.

The woman giving the test did pretty much everything that "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" said she would. First, she showed me her "high-tech, state of the art" testing apparatus. It was a $1100 laptop. She also showed me the software she used from John Hopkins University that did the scoring for her. She showed me results of two tests she claims she did on her own- I don't know if she thought I was stupid or what, but the files she opened had the words "demo" in the file name. I almost laughed in her face. Afterwards, she sat on the back of her chair, one foot on the seat of her chair, and the other on the seat of my chair, forcing me to keep my legs squeezed together while she asked a bunch of questions. This went on for almost 30 minutes and was quite uncomfortable. This was her way of trying to get me to feel as though she was "in control".... far from it. I knew what she was up to, and again I found myself trying not to laugh in her face.
Then she hooked me up to the machine and made me sit there for another 20 minutes while she typed the questions into to her cheesy laptop, then she printed them. She sat on the desk, practically right on top of me, and reviewed the questions.
Then, the test.
It was a direct-question test (I think that's the name of it). There were no "control" questions, just direct ones. "Did you do this" and "Did you ever do that". When she asked the questions about things that had nothing to do with why I was in there, I did the butt-squeeze thing. Most importantly, I paid close attention to my breathing. I made sure that it was consistent. In fact, answering her questions came second- breathing was most important and my first priority.
Keeping your cool and relaxing, and not being intimidated by the tester or the machine is also important.

Anyhoo, I still have my job and passed with flying colors.

Thanks, antipolygraph.org. You saved my career.

Debtman,

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

You have shown that knowledge is power and that countermeasures do work when applied correctly.


Now you should make sure that your co-workers who may be subject to testing also are aware of this website.


Way to Go!!!


Fred F. ;)

Yes,

Countermeasures do work! Now if we could get all our politicians to have to take a polygraph. America would have less corruption. Probably, the polygraph would be outlawed.
As a person who had to take many polygraphs, I think it's the biggest intrusion into ones privacy ever. Anything embarrasing that happened in ones life is revealed. I support banning the polygraph. Since, I dont have to take them anymore. I will do everything in my power to help support outlawing them. Polygraphers do TRY to employ BULLYING tactics to gain CONTROL over the indiviual. Nobody knows how it feels until they are FORCED to be hooked up to a machine. Forcing someone to take a polygraph to get a job in america is just a joke. At one of my tests the polygrapher was joking about all the countermeasures that are freely available on the Internet. I dont know what the hell brought up that conversation. But, he was like hinting he KNOWS ALL THE SECRET COUNTERMEASURES. Don't fall for it. Never admit employing countermeasures even if confronted by it. If your polygraph is INCONCLUSIVE. Sell your polygrapher on the IDEA that no particular question BUGGED you. In most cases, If he believes you he will PASS YOU. Be polite and respectful at all times. It's like going to a job interview and you want a job. Kiss his butt and make him like you. Don't be a jerk, cause he may think there is something you are hiding. Everyone has skeletons in their own closets they wouldnt dare tell a soul. To force someone to admit to something very embarrasing can create long term effects on his self esteem. I am so surprised this polygraph hasn't been bashed by the Supreme court yet. It's funny it wont fly in the court of law. Well then why is it even allowed in the good ole USA. This polygraph must be stopped soon the longer it goes on the worse it will get. Hell pretty soon you may have to take one to get your license renewed. Think this is far fetched. Mark my words down the road.

We need some powerful attorneys that stand up for the constitution involved in making the proper petitions to have this argued in the highest courts. The techniquies offered on this site PROVES within a reasonable doubt that its just body reactions that cause a person to pass or fail. Interrigation techniques are employed to get one really nervous before he even takes the test.

LOL! Enough babbling for now! Thank you to all users that share similar ideas on banning the polygraph.

BTW: Don't listen to these IDIOT polygraphers. If the countermeasures don't work the first time. Try again and again until they do work. Don't give up hope.  You will pass it's all in your ATTITUDE. Dont let mind games from polygraphers get in the way. They are just mad cause this site makes their job more difficult. Why else are they here? They want to learn all the newest techniques because their job's are hanging by the thread having books and information freely available on the internet.

You must pass the relevant questions. Plain and simple.

The other 5 questions they ask you are irrelevant to the test.

Make sure the control questions you give those ole butt cheeks a squeezin.... Not to much tho or it puts the lines off the chart.... hahaha!

Relevant questions "Have you ever ......."
                         "Besides what you told me today, Have you ever"

Control questions "Is there anything on this test that I didnt ask you that you are afraid I will ask?"


ETC ETC... Read the book.....

wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 11:53am:

If the countermeasures don't work the first time. Try again and again until they do work. Don't give up hope.  You will pass it's all in your ATTITUDE.

When done properly, there would be no need to do it again and again. The *only* way a polygrapher can ascertain if you did or did not use countermeasures is if you tell him. That does not preclude the polygrapher from arbitrarily accusing you of using them. I have heard from more than a few people that their polygraph interrogator told them flat out in the 'pre-test interview' that they were presumed guilty until proven innocent by their magic spirit box.

Beech Trees:

Here you go again, commenting with such authority.  What do you base your comments/advise on?  How do you know when a polygraph examiner can or can not identify countermeasures?  You said the only way a polygraph examiner knows if countermeasures are used is if he is told by the examinee.  Exactly what is this comment based on?

Batman

Batman wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 8:33pm:

Beech Trees: Here you go again, commenting with such authority.  What do you base your comments/advise on?  How do you know when a polygraph examiner can or can not identify countermeasures?  You said the only way a polygraph examiner knows if countermeasures are used is if he is told by the examinee.  Exactly what is this comment based on? Batman

Batman,

Although your question was addressed to beech trees, I'll answer it. Peer-reviewed research by Dr. Charles R. Honts and collaborators suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In addition, there are to my knowledge no published articles or book chapters outlining any methodology for detecting such countermeasures. These factors help explain why Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge has had no takers to date (150 days and counting now).

Mr. M:

What exactly does "peer reviewed research ... suggests" mean?  Research can "suggest" many things.  I suspect that the use of the term "suggest" in this context simply means that this particular research can be interpreted in various ways, depending on what point the proponent or opponent wants to convey.

Often times research is like statistics.  One can twist and turn them to an advantage no matter what they really convey.  

Was the research you reference "real" world situations, or were the polygraph exams conducted under a controlled setting?  Most polygraph research I have seen, that is quoted by the opponents of polygraph, utilizes controlled setting examinations administered pertaining to some sort of "mock" crime.  I have got to believe these type examinations do not provide a true picture of polygraph examinations administered pertaining to actual criminal activity.

Thoughts?

Batman

Batman,

You ask:


Quote:

What exactly does "peer reviewed research ... suggests" mean?  Research can "suggest" many things.  I suspect that the use of the term "suggest" in this context simply means that this particular research can be interpreted in various ways, depending on what point the proponent or opponent wants to convey.

When I spoke of this research "suggesting" that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it's because I don't believe that the available research conclusively proves the point. Nonetheless, a reasonable inference that such is the case may be drawn therefrom. That is essentially the conclusion of Honts himself, which he expressed as recently as last year at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee. (Click here for a RealPlayer audio file with his remarks on countermeasures.)

Honts et al.'s research was indeed conducted under controlled settings, with subjects receiving at most 30 minutes of instruction about polygraph procedure and countermeasures. The research was also conducted in the absence of jeopardy. Under field conditions, it seems likely that subjects would have much stronger motivation to master polygraph countermeasures and would likely spend more than a mere 30 minutes to prepare themselves. You'll find abstracts of Honts et al.'s countermeasure research in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (Have you taken the time to read the book?)

If you are aware of any credible evidence that the polygraph community has developed a better-than-chance technique for detecting countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, please let us know.

George,

You suggested:


wrote on Jun 28^th, 2002 at 8:07am:

"Under field conditions, it seems likely that subjects would have much stronger motivation to master polygraph countermeasures and would likely spend more than a mere 30 minutes to prepare themselves." .

I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught, the unsure subject would be more likely to "screw it up" and easily confronted if coutermeasures were suspected.  I have read a few posts on this site in which just this situation appears to have occurred...

Polycop...

wrote on Jun 28^th, 2002 at 2:41pm:

I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught...

What about the negative consequences of being falsely accused? How would the physiological output of a test subject who fears a false accusation which might result in the destruction of his family, his career, and his reputation differ from someone fearing detection of an actual crime?

wrote on Jun 28^th, 2002 at 2:41pm:

I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught, the unsure subject would be more likely to "screw it up" and easily confronted if coutermeasures were suspected.  I have read a few posts on this site in which just this situation appears to have occurred...

How would the negative consequences of being caught increase the likelihood of a polygrapher detecting countermeasures? How would they increase the likelihood that the subject would admit to having employed countermeasures?

What posts are you referring to? I'm aware of only two posts wherein the author claims to have admitted using countermeasures: Reformed and Grateful posted by Zena/Boy Wonder on 17 May 2002 and What you teach DON'T WORK! posted by "screwed" four days later on 21 May. The first is an admitted fabrication and the second is highly suspect.

Polycop,

   I believe it quite likely that that which primarily distinguishes the environment of a CQT (probable or directed-lie) polygraph examination regarding a real crime versus a simulated crime relates to the consequences of the relevant issues.  The fear of those consequences and accompanying heightened physiological response to relevant questions on a polygraph exam is quite natural and may well result in this type of examination being made more accurate for guilty subjects and less accurate for innocent examinees in a field setting.  This, of course, is true because a large response to relevant questions makes more likely an accurate result for a guilty examinee and less likely an accurate result for an innocent examinee.  Unfortunately polygraph validity studies which utilize simulated crimes may well have this effect masked in the absence of any meaningful relevant issue consequences, i.e.,  simply suffer from a lack of external validity.

   I believe this aforementioned effect is manifested day in and day out with the sorts of polygraph screening examinations that are widely administered to applicants and employees in this country.  If I am correct, it is not much of a leap in logic to see that in a real setting that innocent examinees have a substantial reason to employ countermeasures to correct for this effect.  You are correct in assuming and even suggesting that this need does not necessarily and theoretically equate to a successfully employed solution.  The answer for innocent examinees however is not to let this need go unanswered because of any theoretical associated risks and/or empty bluff(s) of detection, but to become knowledgeable and efficient in doing that (properly employed countermeasures) which will lead to a successful outcome.

I'm curious:  Of those  of you who used the CM's and passed your tests, would you care to post your true name and the organization you "beat"?  If not, how come?  Or do you think that organization, and perhaps yourself, view this as cheating?

Eastwood,

I think the answers to your questions are self-evident. It would be foolhardy for anyone who used countermeasures and passed an employment-related polygraph interrogation to post his/her true name and the name of the organization involved. To do so would be to invite retaliation.

With regard to the truthful using countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome, as Elizabethan playwright Henry Chettle once wrote, and as we explain in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, "'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver." Do you disagree?

Eastwood wrote on Jul 7^th, 2002 at 8:35pm:

I'm curious:  Of those  of you who used the CM's and passed your tests, would you care to post your true name and the organization you "beat"?  If not, how come?  Or do you think that organization, and perhaps yourself, view this as cheating?

I can only speak for myself on this, Eastwood.

I'll take your last question first:  I would no more view as "cheating" the use of countermeasures to ensure a correct outcome on what otherwise would be a roll of the dice than I would view it as "cheating" to sell my qualifications in a job interview effectively, or use personal connections for an "in" to a position.

The polygraph does not indicate truth or falsehood.  Its use in employment screening (aside from elicited confessions) amounts to the use of a tarot card reading to determine whether I would get a job.  That is neither fair to me nor, in fact, to the employer who foolishly relies upon it, who would quite possibly be missing out on needed talent otherwise.  I'm sure the polygraph rejects qualified people and passes unqualified people all the time; at least in my case, I could ensure that the correct outcome was reached.

As for the first question:  I have no doubt that most employers who would rely upon the polygraph in the first place would incorrectly view countermeasures as "cheating" and a sign of deception, which is the reason I would choose anonymity.

Skeptic

I can think of very few things that would be more foolish to do than to post one's name and the name of the employer they "beat", using CM's or otherwise, in a public forum such as this. Several years ago, before I ever knew anything about CM's or even the polygraph itself, I took a polygraph and blatantly lied on it. I passed that polygraph, according to the examiner, "in record time". The only thing I knew going in was that there were things I'd done in the past that ONLY I knew about and therefore didn't need to feel nervous about questions dealing with those incidents. They would have DQ'ed me from the job. (For the record, these were things I'd done without *any*harm coming to others...at the time of my polygraph I was a recovering alcoholic/substance abuser and it was this that I lied about). Several years before THAT polygraph (when I was in recovery), I told the absolute truth about every question asked (there were no questions on substance abuse or alcoholism), and I failed. So to further explain the problem that I (and presumably most other opponents of the polygraph here) have with the polygraph, here it is in a very small nutshell: One can tell lies and pass it. That same person can tell the truth and fail it. Period. I simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND why you proponents of the polygraph fail to see the problem we have with this!!! Either you've never been forced to take one to get a job and been falsely accused of lying, or you truly believe this machine detects lies.

I can tell you this; I will have a very hard time taking anything that the pro-polygraphers seriously when Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community is accepted. No matter the result! Put your money where your mouth is, gang! I forgot who it was, but one loudmouth made a statement that read something like this; "I'd love to see you anti-polygraphers get in my chair! I could write a book about your admissions!". Here you have a man blabbing crap like this when this challenge was made MONTHS ago. PLEASE get Dr. Richardson in your chair, or be silenced. Of course, I have no doubt this was a troll in the first degree, but it does apply to all pro-polygraphers. The challenge has been set forth. Accept it or quit spreading the toxins.

Eis

Ah jeez, I'm an idiot. Sorry; when I posted that last tidbit I was busy yelling at my dogs outside. Upon re-reading it, I realized a sentence made no sense. The first sentence in the second paragraph SHOULD read: I can tell you this; I will have a very hard time taking anything that the pro-polygraphers SAY seriously UNTIL Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community is accepted.

Thank you for your patience with this slowly depreciating mind o' mine. :)

Eis

wrote on May 9^th, 2002 at 4:54am:

Actually when I applied for the LAPD I thought nothing of it really and I did not complete the application until I was at the testing facility.  Some of the administrtators complained that it was incomplete and other parts of the app were unreadable.  Oh well.   I took a test passed that, I got an interview psch eval piss test phys and background invest and I paased it all.  I manage to irritate my background investigator since I couldnt remember all the loations I lived atr since I moved alot. All in all in order to make it to the LAPD you just need to complete those processes.  Just complete not needed to do well.  Im reading about the sting and im gonna read georges pdf file too. It is shocking how little you need to know or be qualified to be a cop.  All u need is a diploma, be healthy and pass the poly-SERIOUSLY

It is amazing that you will actually be a law enforcement officer.  LAPD must be hard up.

watcher wrote on Oct 10^th, 2002 at 3:52am:

It is amazing that you will actually be a law enforcement officer.  LAPD must be hard up.

Yes, say hello to your polygraphing BI friends in the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division. Their hard work really helped weed out the bad apples.

How is it that it is totally acceptable to use review materials and to even be coached to pass tests such as the ASVAB, SAT, MCAT, LSAT, and many other life-determining tests, but some of you consider ANY assistance with the polygraph to be so patently immoral?
The polygraph doesn't come near to perfection in its results as even one of these above mentioned tests.  Yet, every year there are thousands of seminars that help prospects hone their test taking skills, and looking at my class ads right now in the local paper, there are 18 ads for coaches to help folks pass these various tests.  I find it utterly foolish to submit to any test without preparation.
When the test is flawed, as is the case with the polygraph, there should be an even more vigilant attempt to prepare oneself for such a test.  To not do so, is merely stupid.

 

I can answer that question for you.  Don't too many people pass the polygraph using counter measures.  However, I can assure you that everyone pass the polygraph when being truthful.  Your future, career, and destiny is in your own hands ladies and gentlemen.  Just tell the truth.

Polyman:
That is patently untrue!
The polygraph is biased against the truthful, and the NAS report supports this.
While I can totally understand fears of future employment by the polygraphers, I am sure the Good Old Boy Network will find you suitable work elsewhere.  Misinformation will do nothing to secure your livelihood.
With all due respect, until a scientifically accurate test can be developed, which the NAS says it has no evidence of such a possibility, such junk science does nothing but make absolute comical fools out of the proponents of this trickery.
Ms. Cleo has been exposed for her fraud, as will this fraud.

Dear Seeker,

Do not be alarmed by Polyman2002's prattle.  He has impressed me that he can put more then three sentences in one post.  I am suspicous that he had help (from his twin brother little "george").  Please be happy that everytime he is reading your postings that you are helping him with his reading skills.  If you look at his discourses on other threads, he is still having problems comprehending "the book."    His special flare for inflammatory remarks is almost at the high school level.  Please keep posting and maybe you will help him get to college.

When he presents us with serious discussion, we will then take him seriously.

Four days after my first post the Maschke cult is still at it.
You malcontents really have nothing to do.
Pretty good for a fifth grader. Don't ya think.

Dear little "george,"

Everytime you post, people hold their breath hoping something  of substance will be forthcoming, why must you disappoint them so?

Seeker wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 4:05am:

Polyman: That is patently untrue! The polygraph is biased against the truthful, and the NAS report supports this.

Of course it is, and Polyman knows it.  You won't hear one word about the evidence of the polygraph's accuracy from these flacks.  Their function is to mislead, not argue honestly.

These are just desperation propaganda tactics by a group of worried polygraphers.

Take it as a compliment.  They may have felt they could ignore the end-the-polygraph movement before.  We evidently have their attention now.

Skeptic

I guess I'm not as brilliant as all the PHDs who have signed the on-line petition.
I guess in order to be that intelligent you have to be in the cult or should I say one of maschke's malcontents. :'(
I do love this game.

wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 8:05am:

I guess I'm not as brilliant as all the PHDs who have signed the on-line petition. I guess in order to be that intelligent you have to be in the cult or should I say one of maschke's malcontents. :'( I do love this game.

george,
You don't have to be as brilliant as anyone else.  It would be nice, though, if you could make an attempt at engaging in honest debate regarding the polygraph.

Skeptic

yes, little george...you do love the game...for to you, it is nothing more than that...a game.
By the way...are all of these spankings that you are getting turning you on?  You sure do come back for more of it!

don't worry about nerves. they are your baseline, activate countermeasures above that line on control questions. laugh inside at silly little machine....

wrote on May 9^th, 2002 at 4:59am:

A highschool diploma Also I wrote those personnel people a letter.  (I told them to carefully review my results and asked them to see if I failed to answer what is my true name also- cus i was a bit intimidated and I felt I chewed up in every question)  To be honest I didnt expect to get polyied but I did everything in 3 days phys and all.  They gave me another poly i really didnt ask for it.  But that is what they decided to do and I decided to take their offer.  The part where I got DQ was something I never did I swear.   My problem is I get nervous alot.  I may not show it but I get nervous.  What can I do.  Hopefully knowledge is POWER.

don't worry about nerves. they are your particular baseline. employ countermeasures on control questions, laugh on inside at silly little machine.

don't worry about nerves. they are your particular baseline. employ countermeasures on control questions, laugh on inside at silly little machine. ;)