wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2002 at 2:58pm:

PDD-Fed, When I describe the Relevant/Irrelevant technique as a "thoroughly discredited" methodology, I am not quoting any individual, but summarizing what I've observed....John Reid and Fred Inbau exclude the R/I technique from their classic book, The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique and James Allan Matte similarly excludes it from his more recent reference work, Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph. And over the past thirty years, the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph has published only a few articles on the R/I technique. (I believe they can be counted on one hand.) The most important of these articles is Raymond J. Weir's 1974 article, "In Defense of the Relevant-Irrelevant Polygraph Test" (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 119-166). That Weir felt the need to write an apology for the R/I technique is an indication of the low regard in which it was held within the polygraph community even 28 years ago.

George, I guess what I have an issue with is your phraseology.  Since when does the lack on inclusion in a book, the use of one procedure more frequently than another, or a practioner defending a particular testing technique, mean the procedure is "thoroughly discredited?"  I have not seen a  single article in ANY polygraph journel indicating the R&I should NOT be used.  Not one single word against its utilization, yet you have repeated claimed it is "thoroughly discredited."

Heck, even mammograms, which have had several articles come out recently seriously questioning its utility in early detection of breast cancer, would not be described as "thoroughly discredited."  Please watch how fast you banter particular words around.  Some might describe your choice of words as "spin." ;)

This leads me to another point I would like to comment on.  In a recent string between you and Polycop, in which he desribed the academic association between DoDPI and Argosy University, you described Argosy as a "for profit outfit."  I have no doubt you chose those words carefully for their full spin effect..

First of all, any private university I have ever heard of is, "for profit."  If I am wrong about this, perhaps you would like to provide me with a list of "Not for profit" private universities?

Next, the term, "outfit," immediately brings to mind a business concern instead of an academic institution.  Is the University of Alabama or Nova University, an "outfit?"

Of course I expect anti-polygraph spin on any site called, "anti-polygraph.org.  It is that sometimes it is so obvious as to need pointing out... ::)

Regards...

PDD-Fed