Ex- Mounted Police boss sold horses, kept cash


Quote:

When their owners donated Nestor and Swannee to the Philadelphia Police Department, they thought the horses would become proud members of the elite Mounted Unit. Instead, the healthy equines probably ended up as dog food, authorities said yesterday. Lt. David Brown, the unit's commander, forged documents from the department's veterinarian saying that Nestor and Swannee were not fit for duty, sold the horses to the horse auction in New Holland for about $1,000 each, then pocketed the proceeds, authorities said.

For whatever reasons, Beech Trees, the Philadelphia Police Department has yelled "Uncle!" and stopped using the polygraph for pre-screening a little while ago.

I think they agree with your implied assumption in this case.

Yes, I am aware of that recent blessed event Fair_Chance. I would like to think that the powers that be realized that the polygraph is worse than useless when used as a screening tool, just as the recent NAS report confirms, and just what many of us here on the boards have been asserting for quite some time.

Easy Big Guy,

Don't have too much fun dancing on the graves!  I know you have suffered for a long time against the odds but you must try to be a gracious winner (or at least seem to try)!

Fair_Chance,

While I realize (at least I hope this is the case) you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, please be aware that any graciousness on my part would be irrelevant to what occured in Philly. I'm sure the machinations to remove the polygraph from the candidate selection process began long before I arrived on these boards, and I'm not nearly so egotistical as to think I personally had anything to do with the decison or the timing. Thus I am not the winner, rather the City of Philidelphia is. Acknowledging a correct decision could hardly be deemed discourteous.

Dear Beech Trees,

I was being very much tongue-in-cheek.  I was very affected by my negative poygraph experience.  Maybe I try to joke about it to cover up my hurt and disdain over it.  No negative connotations intended.

beech_trees,

I would expect that Brown, based on the article stating he retired in 1998, did not take a pre-employment polygraph.  I also can find no mention of a polygraph in the article you referenced.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2002 at 6:48am:

beech_trees, I would expect that Brown, based on the article stating he retired in 1998, did not take a pre-employment polygraph.  I also can find no mention of a polygraph in the article you referenced.

I would expect he did, JB. The Philadelphia Police Department instigated pre-employment screening of all applicants in the 1970's. (Source: The BBC, Loving and Hating Lie Detecting)

The Philadelphia Police Department has ceased using the polygraph in this application only within the past few months.

The article was referenced not to bolster my assertion that retired Philadelphia Police Lt. Brown passed a pre-employment polygraph exam, it was cited to explain the man's malfeasance and to point out the absurdidty of using the polygraph in a pre-employment setting to help determine future behavior.

Curiously, as of this morning The Philadelphia Police Department's website still indicates that the polygraph is used during the application process.

Beech,


Quote:

The article was referenced not to bolster my assertion that retired Philadelphia Police Lt. Brown passed a pre-employment polygraph exam, it was cited to explain the man's malfeasance and to point out the absurdidty of using the polygraph in a pre-employment setting to help determine future behavior.

That doesn't sound like an attack necessarily on polygraph.  It sounds more like you don't believe in the entire screening process.  You're saying that past behavior might not be a predicting factor for future behavior.  Not something I would completely disagree with--especially when it comes to "did you smoke marijuana 10 times or 11 times"... as if the eleventh time makes you a potential crook, but the first ten indicate good character.  Of course it would be nice to know if someone is an undetected felon or is affiliated with terrorist/foreign intelligence agencies (hopefully zero is the cutoff for those).  Either way, this argument is an overall suitability for employment in a sensitive positions issue--NOT a poly issue.  You have given one (of many I am sure) example of someone who might have beaten the poly or, quite possibly, had absolutely no prior history of deviant behavior, and still went bad.

Mark it down on the calendar.  I found something on which I agreed with Beech Trees. Don't get too excited though, because I'd like to add that he seems to just love pointing out every bad cop in the world as evidence that cops and polygraph(er)s are BAD.

Regards, my worthy nemesis, and good day.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2002 at 10:50am:

Beech, That doesn't sound like an attack necessarily on polygraph.  It sounds more like you don't believe in the entire screening process.

I'm sorry you feel that way. You are the second pro-polygraph individual on this board to draw the inference that because I believe reliance on a polygraph interrogation as part of a pre-employment condition of hire is fundamentally wrong, wasteful, and results in an extraordinary amount of people being excluded from hiring, that this also means I find the whole screening process lacking.

Such is not the case. I limit my criticism (at least within this current topic) to the use of the polygraph in pre-employment screening. To quote the NAS Executive Summary:

The use of polygraph testing for preemployment screening is even more complicated because it involves inferences about future behavior on the basis of information about past behaviors that may be quite different (e.g., does past use of illegal drugs, or lying about such use on a polygraph test, predict future spying?)... Scientific evidence relevant to the accuracy of polygraph tests for employee or preemployment screening is extremely limited. Only one field study, which is flawed, provides evidence directly relevant to accuracy for preemployment screening... Because the studies of acceptable quality [of the polygraph] all focus on specific incidents, generalization from them to uses for screening is not justified. [NAS's emphasis]


Quote:

You're saying that past behavior might not be a predicting factor for future behavior.

No-o-o-o-o-o I'm not saying that either, although the NAS does make that point in their report. I'm saying that the polygraph is worse than useless in determining that prior behavior.


Quote:

Not something I would completely disagree with--especially when it comes to "did you smoke marijuana 10 times or 11 times"... as if the eleventh time makes you a potential crook, but the first ten indicate good character.  Of course it would be nice to know if someone is an undetected felon or is affiliated with terrorist/foreign intelligence agencies (hopefully zero is the cutoff for those).  Either way, this argument is an overall suitability for employment in a sensitive positions issue--NOT a poly issue.

So it's 'Blame The Test-taker' now? You are playing an extraordinary game of Pass The Buck, and it's really ill-beseeming.


Quote:

You have given one (of many I am sure) example of someone who might have beaten the poly or, quite possibly, had absolutely no prior history of deviant behavior, and still went bad.

You raise an interesing tangential point. As I have heard first-hand detectives utter sentiments such as "When a perp is caught, the chances that it's the very first time that person is commiting the offense are so astronomically low as to be insignificant", one has to wonder. When a person placed in a position of trust over others (such as a police officer) decides to abuse that power, one must ask 'what went wrong'. Either the crucible of holding such power over others was to great for that person's character (certainly possible) OR that person's character was already established through prior bad acts that the polygrapher (in part) failed to detect.


Quote:

Mark it down on the calendar.  I found something on which I agreed with Beech Trees. Don't get too excited though, because I'd like to add that he seems to just love pointing out every bad cop in the world as evidence that cops and polygraph(er)s are BAD.

I think it's really unfortunate you feel that way. If you take a moment to think about it, I have been a vociferous critic of the use of the polygraph in almost EVERY possible setting.

From my own two experiences being on the receiving side of polygraph prescreening, I do not think the polygraph should be used at all during the fact gathering process.  The NAS report strongly states that no employment decision, either POSITIVE or NEGATIVE, should be based on pre-screening by itself.  Yet in most Federal pre-screening  uses, it can stop an application in its tracks without any further investigation.  This is WRONG!  As people find out that polygraphs used in this way do not work, they will not confess anything, and the whole polygraph process becomes a moot point.  

If I agrue with someone that they owe me twenty dollars and they say they only owe me ten,  I would suggest to take the ten dollars that we agree on and keep negotiating the rest.

The NAS was rather specific to pre-screening and screening polygraphs about the fact that they find them ineffective to predict if someone is a threat to security (the whole of a background check).  Let's take this off the table and then we can possible discuss other polygraph procedures which need further investigation.

If there are other legitimate uses of polygraphs (subject to great debate on this website), further research will bear this out.  The pre-screening and screening issues will constantly cloud the discussion and must be taken off the table of discussion by their removal from use by the polygraph proponents.

Fair Chance, hopefully as your name implies you will consider the following: Knowing full well that GM, BT and others will jump all over me, many, myself included, do not believe the polygraph should be used as the sole determinant.  That being said, despite what you state, it SHOULD be used as part of the fact gathering process ~note what YOU said ~FACT GATHERING ~ To be fair, yes there are cases (most?, I do not think so) where a "negative" (as you call it) polygraph can stop an application in it's tracks.  But what people should know is that in these cases, during the pretest, the applicant has denied some behavior that MIGHT preclude his hiring...he takes the examination, fails it and then confesses to lying about witholding the information.  Congratulations to him for being honest, but alas, he was too late. I assure you he was told up front to be honest (see the FBI manual on this site), but CHOSE not to be.  Now it is NOT a matter of the polygraph, rather it was his CONSCIOUS decision not to be honest.  What a lot of folks fail to consider is that there are many behaviors which are possible to overlook, especially when you weigh frequency and current involvement. Much more so than if the person CHOOSES to lie about it and demonstrate his lack of candor and integrity.  I am sorry, but I and many others DO believe that there is a deterrent effect in the prospect of taking a polygraph.  There are those who say that Ames and others defeated the process; while that may be arguably true, they represent a small segment and as bad a taste as that may put in your mouth, the prospect of taking a polygraph has stopped some from spying on their country.  Christopher Boyce from the  infamous Falcon & Snowman case is a case in point. He testified before Congress that the prospect of taking a polygraph caused him agreat deal of concern.  Enough to stop him? We may never know.  Has the prospect of taking polygraph ever stopped someone who has not yet been identified?  We can never know that. But I believe it has. It has been said that the polygraph is imperfect.  True, there are woefully few things that ARE perfect, but it IS the best thing we have at our disposal right now.  Can improvements be made? For sure that can be accomplished, but it takes committment, not just an attitude that "it is time to fold the tents".  There is a price that we must be willing to pay to enjoy not only the freedoms that we have, but because of our open society.  Whether we like it or not, polygraph may very well be one of those prices. I may be wrong, and only you know the answer here, but is there a possibility that out of fear of not getting the job you wanted, or whatever, you made a choice to be untruthful about a matter and when confronted about it, you admitted your transgression, were not hired and now you are "blaming" the polygraph?  I am not out to embarrass you.  You do not even have to respond to this, but MY experience (you cited yours) has been that this is exactly the scenario that occurs.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2002 at 6:00pm:

Fair Chance, hopefully as your name implies you will consider the following: Knowing full well that GM, BT and others will jump all over me, many, myself included, do not believe the polygraph should be used as the sole determinant.  That being said, despite what you state, it SHOULD be used as part of the fact gathering process ~note what YOU said ~FACT GATHERING ~ To be fair, yes there are cases (most?, I do not think so) where a "negative" (as you call it) polygraph can stop an application in it's tracks.  But what people should know is that in these cases, during the pretest, the applicant has denied some behavior that MIGHT preclude his hiring...he takes the examination, fails it and then confesses to lying about witholding the information.  Congratulations to him for being honest, but alas, he was too late. I assure you he was told up front to be honest (see the FBI manual on this site), but CHOSE not to be.  Now it is NOT a matter of the polygraph, rather it was his CONSCIOUS decision not to be honest.

Oh, but it is a matter of the polygraph.  What happens if this applicant, not being a lawyer, "fesses up" to something he or she considered minor and not initially worth mentioning after polygraph interrogation (the screening questions are generally subjective, you know)?  What if, after a rough session or multiple polygraphs, the desperate applicant falsely confesses?

Polygraph screening is a form of psychological torture, pure and simple.  No hiring decisions should ever be made based upon this process.

Skeptic

Dear Just a Voice,

I appreciate you reading my discussion and expressing your opinions.  That is what is special about this site.   Let me make this clear that in my two experiences with the prescreening process in the FBI,  I did not confess to anything because I have not done anything wrong to confess about.  I was accused of wrongdoing.  This accusal was strictly base upon polygraph interpretation.  I take exception to your assumption that the polygraph is part of a "total" screening effort.  The FBI, CIA, DEA, and Secret Service do not do any prior background examination prior to the polygraph experience. They base no questions on actual investigated life experiences.   If  "THEY" believe that you failed the polygraph according to "THEIR" interpretation, even without any admissions on their part, YOUR APPLICATION ENDS.    This is fact and policy in these government agencies.  What everyone keeps telling me is that this is part of a "Bigger" investigation of an applicant's background.  IT IS NOT! I have worked over ten years in law enforcement and eight years in the military.  I have nothing to hide and a proper background check will prove it.  I will not get that opportunity strictly due to the interpretation of a polygraph.  On no other evidence was my application stopped.  This has nothing to do about security issues.  This has to do with placing such a high amount of trust in an "instrument" without any confession or background investigation.  Can you not see the absurdity in this assumption?  I can because my current postion of in the Department of Justice requires me to have  a tremendous amount of integrity and my managers have already stated that they would never take any polygraph evidence against me without "witnessed and collaborated" facts and confession.  To blindly place absolute trust in blood pressure, pulse, breathing, and sweat measurements and tell anyone that this is "high probability fact" in pre-screening issues without investigation can not be logically argued with me.  I have stated that most back ground investigations should be able to be adjudicated without the use of polygraph. I am keeping an open mind to other polygraph use based upon more results of studies similar to the recent NAS study.  I state this, not withstanding confessions, or admissions, should an application be stopped strictly due to polygraph results?

beech_trees,

The quotes you used in your last post and accredited as being my assertions were not mine.

Noted and corrected. Sorry JB.

Fair Chance
You seem like a reasonable person, so here's the problem. Your thought about background investigations solving most hidden employee issues is just not true, Im sorry to say.  Just this year our department had  applicants admit ( after failing a polygraph) to an agg. battery, felony fraud, sodomy of a child, and of course drastically different drug use histories than placed in the application for hire.  We in contrast to the federal govt, do a background first.  Many of course fail for various suitability reasons, but if an individual is from another state, or thier violations are dated, a background will just not find it in many cases.  This was a common thread in the individuals having the histories I mentioned.
So if we followed the thinking as put forth here, we would have to take our chances in putting our limited resources in a background and calling the process over.  I suggest to you that that approach would of enabled several people that should never even come close to the uniform to be armed and go to work.  I have no hope that our psychologist would of been able to do more than the background investigators.  Does anyone have any good faith suggestions for the real world scenario that I am giving here? (please dont tell me to hire new fully competent background investigators, all are retired Det's with 20+ years experience) If your wondering how many good candidates we falsely turned away, let me say now that all DI charts (this year) were supported by confessions/explanations and then sent back out to background. Someone explain to me without rancor how to prevent an unsuitable candidate from being hired if the background can not provide a legal end to the application.

Dear The Breeze,

My contention is that my polygraph accusations were only accusations.  No background check was performed and there were no further investigations of any type to back the allegations: yet, my integrity is now in question due to a polygraph that the NAS confirms in prescreening situations is above chance but well below perfect (note, this was not specific incident testing because their were no known facts gathered because there was no investigation).

If you see my earlier replies to Poly-Cop,  my complaint is that there is no investigation at all by the federal agencies that I mentioned if you fail the pre-screening test (or come back "not withing acceptable parameters).  This is before or after.

Do you agree that non-specific incident general screening polygraphs are even close to accurate without external information that is gathered through the background check?

My other question, were the quality of FBI hires before 1994 so poor and had such problems that we indeed had to polygraph all applicants?  What did we gain?  Security, the NAS states no and we are opening doors to spies who are trained to pass the test because we are placing too much emphasis on successful polygraph testing.

There is no reasonable way to find the information which "accused me".  I will spend months if not years doing a freedom of information act trying to get my files from the Federal Government.

A far as legal rancor goes,  the polygraph is subject to significant questionable validity according to the NAS.  The door of legal rancor is just starting to open.  This is a nationally recognized agency of Congress and most judges would be hesitate to throw out such expert testimony

My time is limited because I am on my lunchbreak.  I would like to continue your discussion later.  You bring in many ideas to the discussion.

Forgive any typing errors or spelling errors, I am hitting the keys as fast as I can in my time alloted.

Thanks for reading my opinions and replying.

Fair Chance,

You wrote in part:


Quote:

...my integrity is now in question due to a polygraph that the NAS confirms in prescreening situations is above chance but well below perfect...

Note that the NAS found no validity for polygraph screening at all. Their conclusion that polygraphy can distinguish truth-telling from deception at levels "well above chance but well below perfection" was with regard to specific incident "testing" under conditions similar to those in the studies they reviewed, that is, with subjects who didn't understand that the "test" is a fraud and who were untrained in countermeasures. And the NAS found that "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." An example of an "other method" would be interrogating a subject with a polygraph substitute such as colander wired to a photocopier.

Breeze,
Assuming there is no dispute about what is learned from a polygraph interrogation then this is one area that the NAS concurs the polygraph is effective with naive subjects. The problem of false positives doesn't include confessional DQ's and the rate of false positives with the espionage screens the DOE uses is universally agreed to be far higher than the incidence of true positives, simply because, fortunately, the incidence of traitors is so low.

-Marty

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 25^th, 2002 at 5:50pm:

Your thought about background investigations solving most hidden employee issues is just not true, Im sorry to say.  Just this year our department had  applicants admit ( after failing a polygraph) to an agg. battery,

A BATF agent who allegedly terrorized a group of Indianola teenagers who had thrown toilet paper in his yard was charged Tuesday with drunken driving and multiple counts of assault.

As a member of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms this man was subjected to-- and passed-- a pre-employment polygraph.


Quote:

felony fraud,

For the second time in one week, a Houston police officer is involved in an alleged fraud case.

As a member of the Houston Police Department this man was subjected to-- and passed-- a pre-employment polygraph.


Quote:

sodomy of a child,

LOS ANGELES – A Los Angeles police officer was charged today with raping two women earlier this year while he was on duty, the District Attorney’s office announced.

As a member of the Los Angeles Police Department this man was subjected to-- and passed-- a pre-employment polygraph.

Jailed Teen Says Cop Fathered Baby... The girl had been called into court to answer questions about a police officer charged with having sex with her while she was underage.

As a member of the Ocala Police Department this man was subjected to-- and passed-- a pre-employment polygraph.


Quote:

and of course drastically different drug use histories than placed in the application for hire.

A Los Angeles police officer who was suspended late last month after being arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence has been charged with multiple drug-related counts including manufacture of GHB, sometimes known as a "date rape" drug, the District Attorney’s office announced today.

You already know this woman was subjected to-- and passed-- a pre-employment polygraph.

The polygraph is worthless as a pre employment screening tool, both as a means of checking accuracy of an applicant's information and as an indicator of future behavior. End of story.

beech trees,

Certainly, police officers who passed pre-employment polygraph examinations have gone on to be charged with and/or convicted of crimes, as evidenced by the examples you've cited. The LAPD may not be a suitable example though, since its pre-employment polygraph screening program began in February 2001, and it's likely the LAPD officers in the cases you cited were not polygraphed.

The NAS report indeed makes it clear that polygraph screening is without validity. But admissions obtained in the process may nonetheless be of some value. I think The Breeze has raised some interesting points, which I hope to address here this weekend.

As always George, keep me straight on my quotes.

Beach Trees, I believe you provided sufficient samplings to indicate future behavior is not predictable UNDER ANY TYPE OF TESTING.  I do not believe anyone can tell the future behavior of human beings from any type of current scientific test.

Breeze,

My orginal premise under this thread was that the NAS was very specific that no employment decision should be based only on polygraph results alone yet this is happening in Federal Agencies.  This is policy and this is fact.

This is wrong.

George,

Have there been any longitudinal studies on large numbers of police depts that have/have not done polygraph screenings? Since the polygraph seems to be such a key part of the hiring process I would expect there would be many or even some studies showing the value of it but I don't recall ever running across any.

Also, the polygraph may constitute a form of bonding much like that created by hazing rituals. The bonding created by these is incredibly strong and is one of the things that perpetuates the rituals.  Cialdini has a very good exposition on the power of this and certainly the polygraph with it's interrogation component may constitute functionally a form of hazing.

-Marty

Marty,

I am not aware of any studies of the kind you have described.

I'm skeptical that any bonds of camaraderie built through shared hardship, such as might be associated with hazing rituals, would be built through polygraph screening. The former is a group exercise, whereas the latter is one-on-one.

Marty,

You write in part:


Quote:

...the polygraph may constitute a form of bonding much like that created by hazing rituals. The bonding created by these is incredibly strong and is one of the things that perpetuates the rituals...

Although there clearly is bonding occurring as the result of polygraph screening, I believe you badly miss the population of where that bonding is occurring.  There is no more bonding amongst a group of employees as a result of having taken polygraph screening exams than there is amongst employees who have endured rectal digital exams in a yearly physical.  The bonding that has occurred has been amongst victims of polygraph examinations with many of these victims having been denied employment and not those who as present employees are merely sharing past memories of their hiring experience.  The good news is that those who actually share this bonding are the same who are thus motivated to create this site, contribute to it, and will ultimately be those who eliminate that which is anything but an experience to be treasured and remembered as shared trials of days gone by.

I once knew a LE fellow that told me that the polygraph was one of the most dreaded things that the officers were subjected to when they applied calling it invasive and humiliating. There seemed to be a sense that it was one of the common things they were subjected to - and passed - that they all disliked and feared to a degree.  That seems psychologically very similar to hazing and I suspect at least a part of it may be irrationally propogated for the same reasons.

-Marty

Drew,

I think if a rectal exam took 6 hours and involved more of a mental rape rather than just an unpleasant procedure that reflects in no way on character, it would have much in common with hazing, creating a bond amongst those who had been through it.

Of course the form of bonding created by being mentally raped and having one's character questioned by a process one later learns is essentially voo-doo is pretty strong too. That is a quite different thing and is perhaps the singular thing most likely to defeat polygraph screening. Were the polygraph not limited by law to a fairly small group it's likely it would have been abolished years ago as a result of these effects.

-Marty

BT
If I had your diligence in exposing human folly (outside of police work) I could do so in any career field you wish.  I have stories of Q-cleared child molesters, murderous physicians, and
now soldiers turned sniper if you would like to broaden your outlook.  I may be wrong, but our agency does not think the polygraph predicts future behavior.  If a 21 year old comes  to the dept, tells the truth and has no negative background, they may be hired.  They could then succumb to some personality weakness and commit one of the acts that you take such glee in finding on a national level.  There are many thousands of police officers, some are flawed, some may of been polygraphed...some may of been cancer screened and still got cancer, time for you to move on.
But speaking of predictions, I recently re-read my psych eval from my pre-employment testing and found that the psychologist made definite predictions of future behavior to include probable instances of discipline in a specified period.  I doubt if anyone in polygraph testing makes such forcasts, If im wrong let me know. (someone who actually knows please) I would be greatly interested to hear from a psychologist who may visit here what he feels would be the error rate in such predictions, and any studies to support the view.
I know its embarrassing when even George has to check you, but then jumping to conclusions has always been the area here where you have the greatest experience.
Since I provided actual examples, and you dismiss them with a flippant "end of story", maybe you are not mentally equipped to deal with a subject that has serious real world consequences.

Fair Chance
You seem busy so Ill keep it short.  I am not comfortable with what happened to you and am glad our agency does things differently.
We background first, verify all DI scores and re-investigate as necessary. In other words we value our applicants.
Another thing we do is to go over an applicants paperwork line by line and have them re-answer all the questions, prior to polygraph.  This not only centers any areas of concern that an applicant may want to explain, but I believe it makes the test very specific to an applicant who intends to lie about a portion of thier past. I think this has saved numerous applicants who changed a "no" to a yes with an explanation. Yes we video tape as well.
We go over results prior to the applicant leaving, there is no mystery or wonder.  I find the fact that you would have to file a FOI request alarming.
Obviously, local government is not federal and you have little worth as a mere applicant.  There is another in line with similiar qualifications.  Im not sure throwing out polygraph would fix hiring inequities, but more care should go into the approach with a qualified applicant.  At least a specific test for a failure...was this offered to you?
Im not sure what you meant by "legal rancor".  I was simply asking for a response free of animosity since its clear I am swimming upstream on this site. It almost happened.
Good luck in what you need to do.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 26^th, 2002 at 12:05am:

Another thing we do is to go over an applicants paperwork line by line and have them re-answer all the questions, prior to polygraph.  This not only centers any areas of concern that an applicant may want to explain, but I believe it makes the test very specific to an applicant who intends to lie about a portion of thier past. I think this has saved numerous applicants who changed a "no" to a yes with an explanation.

I disagree with this.  You may go over the questions one by one and define them, but the questions are still open-ended and (undoubtably) emotionally charged.  Or do you ask, "Have you ever illegally killed someone?  Have you ever illegally taken a car? Have you ever illegally taken a computer? Did you ever defraud someone of more than $250 in Maine?" etc., etc.  (I actually have no idea at what level Maine law defines fraud as a "felony", but I hope you get what I'm driving at.)

Even these questions are somewhat vague, and moreso because of the fact that most applicants are probably not legal experts.  What if they don't realize something they've done qualifies as a specific crime or (more ludicrously) a "felony" vs. a "misdemeanor"?  You'd be surprised how few people know the legal definitions of "fraud", "stealing", "voyeurism", "theft", etc. much less at what level these crimes constitute "felonies" (that's why we have lawyers, of course).

No matter how you slice it, a pre-employment screening poly is a fishing expedition, and due to the low rates of guilt present in your applicant pool, false positives are happening -- in fact, statistics say they're happening a lot more often than your polygraph screen is finding people with real problems.

Skeptic

I find it ironic and sad that you The Breeze would comment negatively upon sloppy research. George was right, I took about 5 minutes of searching to cobble together those few cases among thousands that demonstrate that the polygraph does not help in the application process insofar as it is purported to be used. If you want to label it The Coercion Tool rather than the Lie Detector, fine with me. If a police officer candidate is naive and foolish enough to buy the hogwash the polygraher is selling as well as the integrity of the process itself, then I suppose he gets what he deserves when he is arbitrarily accused of lying just to see how he reacts or to what he confesses.

It seems to enrage you when I point these cases out... you tend to characterize it as some sort of smearing campaign or hatefult trampling upon the hallowed occupation of law enforcement, instead of simple accurate reporting of the truth. I ask no one to extrapolate anything from the cases posted EXCEPT that the polygraph was useless in weeding out these criminals from the good officers.

Either one of two things are happening when a pre-employment polygraphed officer commits crimes:

1. He led a life of crime (or drug use, or deviant sexual behavior) prior to being hired, in which case the polygraph failed to detect his lies

2. He indeed was of sterling character and the occupation somehow morphed him into a felon. If that is the case then perhaps we need to look at other issues besides the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy.

I will refrain from posting other examples of police officers passing polygraphs and then going on to commit heinous acts of violence and oppression on other people as it really seems to anger you. Have a nice day

Dear The Breeze,

You answered that you are doing the following items:

1. In-depth background check, last chance to change applicant information, and then a polygraph.

2.  The polygraph proceedure is videotaped.

3.  You make records of the event easily available to the applicant in cases of dispute (or just general information).

This is so far a superior method than what I went through.

Are there cases where their are no negative findings which would not need any type of polygraph to "clear" them?

 I have discussed the fact if their are negative findings or absence of fact necessary to clear application discrepancies, a specific incident polygraph option could be given to the applicant.  The applicant should have the option to say no and their application stopped without any negative comments on their personel file.  This would have to be appealable to a group who can make security decisions concerning the position needing to be filled.  Extreme legal wrangling would be avoided in a vast majority of cases.

There should be many applications which need no polygraph intervention because everything fits and falls into place.  As you stated, someone who has traveled alot might have some blank spaces.  Unless you have a specific concern during this period,  that history should not be adjudicated by only polygraph.  This adjudication process could also lead to a security breach due to over confidence in the polygraph outcome.

The polygraph is going to lose its placebo effect as information is disseminated from people like myself and reports such as the NAS.  The amount of confessions are going to drop and its utility as a method to obtain confessions will become extremely poor.  

My legal rancor statement was in reference that if an employment decision is made with only polygraph results being used, the NAS report is opening the door to lawsuits based on its conclusion that pre-screening and screening polygraphs in themselves (minus confessions and admissions) are poor indicators of security risk.

Thanks for the discussion.

wrote on Oct 25^th, 2002 at 10:10pm:

Although there clearly is bonding occurring as the result of polygraph screening, I believe you badly miss the population of where that bonding is occurring.  There is no more bonding amongst a group of employees as a result of having taken polygraph screening exams than there is amongst employees who have endured rectal digital exams in a yearly physical.  The bonding that has occurred has been amongst victims of polygraph examinations with many of these victims having been denied employment and not those who as present employees are merely sharing past memories of their hiring experience.  The good news is that those who actually share this bonding are the same who are thus motivated to create this site, contribute to it, and will ultimately be those who eliminate that which is anything but an experience to be treasured and remembered as shared trials of days gone by.

Drew,

You raise an excellent point that, I had somehow overlooked (by focusing on those within organizations that rely on polygraph screening).

I have the deepest admiration and respect for the many polygraph victims I've gotten to know in the three years that I've been publicly speaking against polygraphy and am honored to have had the opportunity to meet some of them in person. But the principled efforts of people like yourself, David Lykken, Bill Iacono, John Furedy, and Al Zelicoff, who have not personally been victimized by polygraphy, are especially heartening.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 25^th, 2002 at 5:50pm:

Fair Chance You seem like a reasonable person, so here's the problem. Your thought about background investigations solving most hidden employee issues is just not true, Im sorry to say.  Just this year our department had  applicants admit ( after failing a polygraph) to an agg. battery, felony fraud, sodomy of a child, and of course drastically different drug use histories than placed in the application for hire.  We in contrast to the federal govt, do a background first.  Many of course fail for various suitability reasons, but if an individual is from another state, or thier violations are dated, a background will just not find it in many cases.  This was a common thread in the individuals having the histories I mentioned. So if we followed the thinking as put forth here, we would have to take our chances in putting our limited resources in a background and calling the process over.  I suggest to you that that approach would of enabled several people that should never even come close to the uniform to be armed and go to work.  I have no hope that our psychologist would of been able to do more than the background investigators.  Does anyone have any good faith suggestions for the real world scenario that I am giving here? (please dont tell me to hire new fully competent background investigators, all are retired Det's with 20+ years experience) If your wondering how many good candidates we falsely turned away, let me say now that all DI charts (this year) were supported by confessions/explanations and then sent back out to background. Someone explain to me without rancor how to prevent an unsuitable candidate from being hired if the background can not provide a legal end to the application.

Breeze,

There simply is no reliable way to prevent an ethically unsuitable candidate from being hired if the background investigation fails to turn up disqualifying information. As the National Academy of Sciences has made abundantly clear, polygraph screening is completely invalid.

Nonetheless, so long as people still believe that the polygraph can detect lies, polygraph screening can have some utility as a means of obtaining admissions that might not otherwise be made, as illustrated in the cases you cited. Considering that polygraph screening itself is without validity, and that some unknown number of deceptive persons can be expected to pass, it is likely that your agency's polygraphers would obtain even more disqualifying admissions if they were to routinely accuse all examinees of deception and to follow up with a full-blown "post-test" interrogation, regardless of how the charts are scored. However, this bluffery cannot go on indefinitely. As more and more people discover "the lie behind the lie detector" (i.e., that polygraph "testing" is a fraud), polygraph-induced admissions will inevitably dry up.

I think that your agency's use of polygraph screening only after a background investigation has been completed is commendable. Also commendable is your agency's practice of videotaping all polygraph examinations, which you mentioned in a separate post.

With regard to "good candidates being falsely turned away" you note that "all DI charts (this year) were supported by confessions/explanations and then sent back out to background." It is not surprising that there were confessions or explanations associated with all DI ("deception indicated") polygraph charts. Polygraphers routinely ask those who "fail" what they were thinking of when answering one or more questions. So, even where no confession is obtained, there is at least an "explanation."

A better way to assess the extent to which your agency may be falsely accusing the innocent and denying them employment based on polygraph chart readings is to candidly answer the following questions:

1) What percentage of applicants polygraphed "fail?"

2) What percentage of those who "fail" make no disqualifying admission(s) and are referred for further background investigation?

3) What percentage of these are ultimately hired?

4) Is passing a polygraph "test" a requirement for employment, either de jure or de facto?

Dear The Breeze,

I did not answer the last part of your last discussion.  I was offered no further option to "clear" myself of any accusations made by the examiner.

As you can see by the results of your posting, many people do read your opinions on this website.

I am doing my best to keep an open mind but the "emotional imprinting" that is created by a negative polygraph experience is quite impressive.  Why would anyone "hang-on" to such a short experience in their life?  Why would a person like myself spend significant parts of my free time at this website?  I know that what happened to me in that small room, by an inanimate machine, and abusive examiner was wrong.  I have served my country in the Armed Forces and Federal Law Enforcement for decades with great conviction without any such abuse (we know that the military and federal government like to play mind games too but I never felt it to be abusive).  I have a long history of fighting for what I believe in.  I do not believe the government that I pay taxes, fought for, and work for, should be using this method of employment screening.  If the NAS report never existed, I would still believe this.

I will use that same conviction to stop this nonsense of pre-screening.  If it was as accurate as proponents of polygraph assume, I would not have been accused and I might have believed in its validity.  My first hand experience with this "would be science" was awful.

You are doing your best at a tough job.  I do realize that no other alternatives but background checks are available.   I only know how it has affected me and I know how much it has also affected others in this website.

I look forward to your reply.

Fair chance, others
I do not have time to direct a comment to every question since my last post so I will come back to the issue.
Assume with me for a minute that the polygraph has some value in weeding out the unsuitable (naive or not)
Since I have seen this occur with frequency, please do not tell me that I am seeing a chance event, random act or blind luck. Im going to believe my experience more than a sincere, committed person with a failed polygraph under thier belt.
Now, we remove polygraph from the employment process and rely only on the background check.  Forgive me if I generalize, but this is where the LAPD and FBI were until recently.  This approach clearly does not have great success either.
Is it better to give someone a polygraph in a preapplication setting and have a chance of eliciting disqualifying information or trust to the background check and call the process finished when nothing is unearthed?  Both approaches are filled with the potential for error. (I realize that a knowledgable or manipulative applicant will not make admissions, but we will not likely find negative background information either).  Most large depts. and agencies have already answered this question, because results have been obtained not otherwise available (with background alone)
No one needs to write and let me know that a polygraph/background approach is eliminating qualified applicants since I have allready spoken of my agencies approach relative this issue. So George, large case, I dont know what the % of applicants are that fail, I would have to research it on a slow day.  But it is small, and retests are routinely given on specific issues of concern after a DI. The specific issue re-test has been effective in resolving problem applications.
Fair chance, you have too much honorable service to dwell on this issue long. If I had failed one of my several polygraphs over the years, I might feel like you do now.  As a former fed myself who went local for personal reasons, I understand that you have been embarrased by a "total numbers" process.
I respect your drive to post here with thoughtfullness, since you lack the venom of other especially unqualified posters.  Will you be in the calendar as well??

Breeze,

Following the issuance of the NAS polygraph study/report, the jury is no longer out on polygraph screening.  Polygraph screening is dead.  The jury is now out on organized polygraphy.  That which was previously recognized as stupid in every sector of the scientific world is now not only universally recognized as invalid but also now claims the dubious honor of having been officially declared stupid.  There may well exist a short term game of pay me now or pay me later, i.e., either the polygraph community and end users such as your department can responsibly end that which has been declared invalid or wait and be forced to do so through legislation that will likely be introduced over the next several months (I suspect the next session of Congress) and wait for the onslaught of legal claims to come.  If those two communities choose the latter course, I suggest not only polygraphers but also those making hiring decisions in human resources departments and continuing to use polygraph-screening results as a filter seek to greatly increase their professional liability insurance.  Furthermore the degree to which the polygraph community will have any credibility and the degree to which its input will be valued regarding the remaining specific issue testing will in large part rest with the degree to which polygraph screening is responsibly and in timely fashion repudiated by that community.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 29^th, 2002 at 7:15pm:

Fair chance, others I do not have time to direct a comment to every question since my last post so I will come back to the issue. Assume with me for a minute that the polygraph has some value in weeding out the unsuitable (naive or not) Since I have seen this occur with frequency, please do not tell me that I am seeing a chance event, random act or blind luck. Im going to believe my experience more than a sincere, committed person with a failed polygraph under thier belt.

Breeze,
To put it bluntly, all you're seeing is the effects of a good interrogation prop.  As George rightly observed, you can "weed out the unsuitable" with greater effectiveness if you accuse and interrogate everyone, not just those the polygraph "flags".

I am glad, though, that you don't use polygraph "results" as the deciding factor in your hiring process.

Skeptic

Anonymous

Anonymous
Your sweeping statements and wishful thinking say to me that you are not in government service and do not understand its mysterious ways.
Polygraph screening did not, and will not die as a result of the NAS report.  If you would care to wager, lets meet back here in a year and check status. Nothing too extravagant, Im just a local deputy. You may send me a gift certificate for dinner. (Drew, start the clock)
When you officially declare something as stupid, we may be talking about two different things. What you and other like minded folk think is stupid, others such as myself see as a regrettable necessity. (until something better comes along)
I think all will agree that the polygraph has been controversial for decades, and will continue to be so regardless of what happens on these pages.
Legal claims as the result of not being accepted for employment? dont hold your breath.  Waivers are standard practice, and besides if a person feels strongly about it, they should not apply to any wrong headed organization that requires such a foolish process to occur. Each step requires a statement of "voluntary" on the applicant's part.
Your comment about the polygraph profession needing to somehow distance itself from "polygraph screeners" is a classic. I think most do both as the need arises.
An animal rights activist will try to ban lion or bear hunting before getting to the point, no hunting at all. You dont attack the center, you attack the fringe and hope the center in time collapses.
A anti gun activist will talk about assault weapons and how no one needs them, (knowing not many own them) final goal of course is that no one needs any personal weapons.  The long term strategy of this site is clear, dont insult the readership with divide and conquer platitudes.
What is the slogan for this site again?
There is no more liability attached to polygraph than already exists in backgrounds (where a staff officer must make a judgement call) or to a psychological screen.  Did you know that if you are the VICTIM of certain acts, you cannot make it past the good Dr. of psychology?  So think about this for a moment....something unspeakable happens to you as a juvenile, no fault of your own, and as a result even as a completely qualified applicant you may not realize your dream of becoming a LE officer.
Gentlemen, where is the outrage?

Skeptic
As I understand the thought here, a "prop" is a misrepresented device used by LE to hopefully persuade a naive subject to be forthcoming. When I speak of polygraph results, I do not speak of some amount of fear generating a confession, using the "prop", but rather observable reactions as described in polygraph literature which could indicate deceptiveness.  I am actually surprised sometimes when I see this, with what looks to be a squared away candidate.  Even more surprised when the drug use goes from 3 to 53.  I would like to state the obvious again, knowing the scorn it will bring.
MANY PEOPLE LIE ON JOB APPLICATIONS.
Give me some ideas to solve that problem and I will listen.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 12:49am:

There is no more liability attached to polygraph than already exists in backgrounds (where a staff officer must make a judgement call) or to a psychological screen.  Did you know that if you are the VICTIM of certain acts, you cannot make it past the good Dr. of psychology?  So think about this for a moment....something unspeakable happens to you as a juvenile, no fault of your own, and as a result even as a completely qualified applicant you may not realize your dream of becoming a LE officer. Gentlemen, where is the outrage? Skeptic As I understand the thought here, a "prop" is a misrepresented device used by LE to hopefully persuade a naive subject to be forthcoming. When I speak of polygraph results, I do not speak of some amount of fear generating a confession, using the "prop", but rather observable reactions as described in polygraph literature which could indicate deceptiveness.  I am actually surprised sometimes when I see this, with what looks to be a squared away candidate.  Even more surprised when the drug use goes from 3 to 53.  I would like to state the obvious again, knowing the scorn it will bring. MANY PEOPLE LIE ON JOB APPLICATIONS. Give me some ideas to solve that problem and I will listen.

I wish I could, Breeze, if for no other reason than I'd be a good deal more well off than I am :)

How do you know that those deemed NDI aren't also concealing past indescretions (haven't we had this conversation)?

Also, are you privvy to all candidate results, or do you only hear about some of them?

Oh, and BTW, the psychological tests usually used in employment screening, e.g. the MMPI-2, aren't validated for such use.

Skeptic

Read and weep,

The polygraph is here to stay ladies and gentlemen.  Why are you so scared?  Now tell the truth or I'll request that you submit to a polygraph ;D

Dear The Breeze,

I guess we will agree to stay on opposite sides of the street on this one.  Can you help little "george" and Polyman 2002,and Polydonotlie create postings with better substance?  Their terse statements do not even have a little meat to chew on during a discussion.

Like yourself, I have no illusions that the polygraph will end with any discussion here.  It will only be when the utilitarian mission of the polygraph loses its kick.  I do think the tide is slowly going out.  Days, months, or years, it will slowly resolve itself.

Unlike myself, there are many people who are part of the "numbers game" who have been affected by polygraph who do not enjoy my curent job and position. They truly do suffer and I think the country suffers when we do not get the best and the brightest.  The FBI has computer systems that cannot get memos from one office to another.  The Federal Law Enforcement Agencies truly need the best that we can get.  I would hate to see the best not be considered based on polygraph pre-screening.  I think you should write to them with your system.  I absolutely know that it is better than what they have now and any improvement is better then none.

You know that I do not agree with you on polygraph pre-screening, but I will agree that as a minimum, the background check should be done and the polygraph itself should be videotaped.  I will pay you six dollars out of nine but I will argue about the rest of the bill.

You keep throwing carcasses on the table and we will keep picking at them.

Regards.

Breeze,

That which the NAS panel has concluded is a danger to national security and a blunt instrument not to be trusted is most assuredly dead.  The viability of polygraph screening is no longer an issue; the only guesswork surrounds the burial date.  With regard to the jury being out on organized polygraphy regarding its handling of the aforementioned burial, it is not the pro or anti-polygraph communities (or their goals, desires, strategies, etc) that I refer to but the American public.  Perhaps you did not notice, but every major wire service, every major paper, newscast in America carried reports, op-ed pieces, etc regarding the NAS panel's report.  This is no longer a secret to the American public, and the death sentence to polygraph screening is no secret to your community.  One proponent (Dan Sosnowski) tests the public opinion waters and is badly embarrassed; the rest of your leaders are cowering in the shadows hoping to buy time, but they can dream on.  I would expect to see first changes in the screening program of the NAS panel's host, DOE.  I predict this will be followed by greater changes and likely abandonment with a new Congress.  This will spread amongst the federal polygraph community then to state and local municipalities eventually reaching you.  I do know something about the intransigence and inertia in government and therefore don't pretend to know the exact timing of when polygraph screening goes from dead to seriously dead.  To borrow loosely from a more precise form of human behavior this is no longer a matter of thermodynamics (end products) but of kinetics (rate of getting there).

Anonymous
I think skeptic told me once to "be careful with that backpedeling" Just a thought.  You sounded pretty sure of yourself in your last post, now just sure that it will end someday, at sometime.  I think it will too, maybe with Drew's technical assistance.  Neither of us know, but having been in one government agency after another since 1980, I can tell you that inertia is strong.  I was looking forward to collecting my bet...pity.  And just who are those referred to as "Your leaders" and "Your community". I am a lowly Deputy not subject to any calling except as my agency and conscience directs, certainly not part of a vast network engaged in a polygraph cover up.  As far as the DOE is concerned, I know something about that agency, and of course they will now alter the screening rules for who receives a polygraph as part of the reliability program.  This decision to financially engage the NAS was in my opinion to support such a move that had already basically been decided was a problem area.  You will now see a much reduced pool subject to polygraph and perhaps the testing will become more specific and be done in phases.  This will actually help the DOE conduct business more efficiently, and maybe Zelicoff can stop whining as I am sure his job function will be excluded.
Skeptic
Your right, we have, and I dont.  But how will I know from a background alone? bad situation isnt it? Remember we polygraph after a background investigation has done what it can do to verify a subjects responses.  You were the only one to pick up my challenge about speaking to other inequities in the process, which makes you honest.  For the rest of you... why not speak out about all injustice, why just the narrow focus on the polygraph?  This is my main problem with numerous posters here.  Abolishing polygraphy will not significantly enhance fairness in a process that can be arbitrary, prone to nepotism, and gutted by human failing.  It has become a lighting rod for what should be a larger cause, thats all.  I would have much more respect for the directors here if they took up the issue of federal or local law enforcement hiring as a process rife with error, than attacking a single part.  And no one needs to tell me about how a single phase like polygraph has undue weight.  We have people fail written tests, which could be attacked as being written for a certain demographic. Flexibility and strength tests that are challenged as arbitrary, how strong, swift or flexible do you need to be to do this job, where is the research? Dont tell me Cooper standards, Ive read them.  Many fail here.  I have already spoken of the subjectivity in the Psychological screen, and how completely qualified applicants will not move forward if the Dr. thinks that background issues could impact the applicants ability to deal with a serious similiar situation occuring in front of them.  Do they know this for sure? how could that psychological interview accurately predict future performance in any kind of specific way?  Skeptic has already pointed out the misuse of a screening tool in this area.
In short, dont ask more of the polygraph phase that you have allready ceded in other areas.
And Fair Chance
I can barely form a complete sentence, let alone help others do so, but thanks for the thought.  Perhaps they are reacting with anger at what they see as hypocritical advice potentially harmful to LE and national security interests, like advocating "countermeasures" to help the innocent get through a polygraph.  Maybe they see, like anyone else with common sense, that such advice will clearly be given to criminals and not only used by the righteous. Anti-advocates will say the polygraph is too prone to error, and use of countermeasures should not matter. A polygrapher will say that such use can cloud and confuse an issue and has no place in responsible literature.  Have you read Williams text he sells on the internet? Pure junk, and badly dated.  I wonder how many have lost out on such advice.  George and Gino at least are up to date, even if ethically challenged!
To answer at least a couple of your other points, thanks for believing that we may indeed do a few things right around here.  I have reached a position where I can take some small credit for that, although most things I have mentioned are common sense. I am in a position to review any applicants file, and I know what the issues are before hiring.
I do not think anything I say would cause a large federal agency to change a thing.  Backgrounds at that level are expensive, and the hope is that the polygraph will "weed out" unsuitables prior to spending real money.  Obviously this is what you ran into.  I think its plain by now that I do not agree with this approach. When I sucessfully completed the hiring process for the Secret Service, it took a year, and investigators did many things we locals cannot afford. I dont know what it costs per applicant, but you can well imagine for someone like me (and you) who served here and/or overseas in the military. They actually went to the bases.
As far as a carcass piling up I hope to do that this weekend on my deer hunt, so I wont be posting here for awhile.

Breeze,

You wrote in part:


Quote:

As far as the DOE is concerned, I know something about that agency, and of course they will now alter the screening rules for who receives a polygraph as part of the reliability program.  This decision to financially engage the NAS was in my opinion to support such a move that had already basically been decided was a problem area.  You will now see a much reduced pool subject to polygraph and perhaps the testing will become more specific and be done in phases.  This will actually help the DOE conduct business more efficiently, and maybe Zelicoff can stop whining as I am sure his job function will be excluded.

Now, the National Academy of Sciences concluded, "Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice for DOE employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

The appropriate response to that conclusion is not to simply reduce the number of persons being screened, but to abolish polygraph screening altogether.

Your suggestion that Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff's reasoned opposition to polygraph screening stems from nothing more than concern over his being personally required to submit to a polygraph interrogation is particularly outrageous, and merely shows that you don't know Al Zelicoff.

George
I have a minute here before I run off to engage in a barbaric and senseless blood sport.
No outrage is necessary on your part, I may not personally know Al but have been in more or less continual contact with our National labortories in various contexts since 1985. (SNL, LLNL, LANL, NTS, OR even Rocky Flats and SRS) Many times I have seen the researchers there resist what I felt were common sense security practices as being intrusive. I will not be specific, but just believe me that many engaged in such research find the atmosphere of security oppressive, and not campus like. I have often wondered if they knew where it was that they worked. (and the type of research they were involved in)
This is especially prevalent in the University of California contractors.  I also have many friends and associates that work directly for the labs, both federal and contract.  I am on firm ground here george.  Im sure you think Zelicoff is a sterling individual due to his anti polygraph platform, and he may well be, but overall many of his associates I do consider whiners in regards to the day to day realities of securing our national labs.  Most would be much more comfortable in academia, if someone would fund thier research.  
Maybe one mans whiner is anothers freedom fighter.
Im curious though, why have you ignored the substance of may last couple of posts and zero'd in on a sentence?
When I gave my opinion on where DOE will probably go, it is nothing more than an informed guess. Neither of us can say what the "appropriate response" will be, because there are many behind the scenes that will now weigh in in the aftermath of this report.
But, I would be very surprised if the DOE abandons its polygraph program.

Breeze,

You are right to characterize anything you and I might surmise as exactly that, nothing but a guess, and regarding actions not likely yet decided upon by the decision makers.  That having been said, Spence Abraham now has political cover (a program which is the foolishness of a previous administration), scientific cover (NAS panel study/report) and the likely strong support/encouragement of the two "national laboratory" US Senators, Domenici and Bingaman to completely purge that which has been declared a danger to national security and a blunt instrument not to be trusted.  Although, again, the timing is uncertain, this seems like a no-brainer to me...

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 31^st, 2002 at 5:35pm:

George I have a minute here before I run off to engage in a barbaric and senseless blood sport. No outrage is necessary on your part, I may not personally know Al but have been in more or less continual contact with our National labortories in various contexts since 1985. (SNL, LLNL, LANL, NTS, OR even Rocky Flats and SRS) Many times I have seen the researchers there resist what I felt were common sense security practices as being intrusive. I will not be specific, but just believe me that many engaged in such research find the atmosphere of security oppressive, and not campus like. I have often wondered if they knew where it was that they worked. (and the type of research they were involved in) This is especially prevalent in the University of California contractors.  I also have many friends and associates that work directly for the labs, both federal and contract.  I am on firm ground here george.  Im sure you think Zelicoff is a sterling individual due to his anti polygraph platform, and he may well be, but overall many of his associates I do consider whiners in regards to the day to day realities of securing our national labs.  Most would be much more comfortable in academia, if someone would fund thier research.

First of all, Breeze, what may be true for some scientists at the labs is not necessarily true for the labs' foremost opponent of the polygraph.

Regardless, your assessment seems at odds with the stated opinions of several national lab researchers that the problem was not just the polygraph, but rather that the polygraph had been instituted in place of reasonable security precautions (e.g. guards at the doors and searches).

No scientist likes restrictions, but then, workers in many settings tend to blow off steam by bitching occasionally.  I don't think that necessarily translates into real, honest disdain of or lack of understanding the need for security precautions, much less opposition to the polygraph simply because it's "unpleasant".

Skeptic

Breeze,

If I focused on one particular point you made (your characterization of Dr. Zelicoff as a "whiner" concerned only with his personally being required to submit to a polygraph screening examination), it is because I thought it incumbent upon me to defend an honorable man against a scurrilous charge. In smearing Al Zelicoff and insisting that your are "on solid ground" even after conceding that you don't even know the man, you have displayed the same cavalier attitude toward the truth that you did when you falsely accused me of having lied to the FBI (in the message thread Constricting your sphincter). (In that same message thread, you also insisted that the polygraph had caught Soviet spy Edward Lee Howard, even though by all accounts he only began his espionage after failing the polygraph and after being terminated by the CIA. Now that the National Academy of Sciences, whose polygraph panel members met with the CIA polygraph unit, has emphatically stated that polygraph screening has not caught a single spy, can you concede that you might have been mistaken about Howard?)

Dr. Zelicoff headed a panel of senior scientists at Sandia whom lab director C. Paul Robinson commissioned to conduct a review of polygraphy before the Department of Energy implemented its polygraph screening program. The conclusions they reached in their report, titled "Polygraphs and Security," are similar to those reached by the NAS panel. This is hardly "whining," Breeze.

Finally, you'll note that I did provide "good faith suggestions for the real world scenario" you requested in my reply to you dated 26 October.

George
You certainly seem passionate in protecting Mr. Zelicoff. I bet he can fend off my vicious attacks alone, and knows where to find me.  Such vehemence from calling a group of scientists (including Al) whiners? Many are assuredly whiners in regards to security and I have witnessed it many times. (I also think Carville and McAliffe are whiners, so lets talk about democrats for a nice change of pace.) Hardly a smear campaign as they go.  But suit yourself.
I hardly have a cavilier attitude towords the truth, but will generalize on occasion as you do.  Our previous discussion was on your admissions to the FBI after your failed polygraph.  You said I overstated it and you did not lie on your application. I wondered what you would have to explain in a post test if you had been completely forthcoming, and asked you to post it. You said it was private. Is that essentially correct?
In reference to Howard, my source said he was removed after failing a CIA polygraph.  I wondered how it could be believed that he was removed from duty, relocated to Santa Fe and had FBI babysitters if not under intense scruitiny? Does the CIA have counterintelligence officers watch everyone it lets go? Why did he run to Moscow as a non spying civilian? Would you do that??
Let us both assume we do not have all the information, and apply common sense and reason. My problem with your source is that this author could not possibly know when Howard was compromised, but is stating an appearance of fact.  I also believe the CIA may not blurt out every fact in reference to its spies, thier compromise, access or capture.
My line threatened the often repeated belief on this site that spies have not been caught by polygraph.  As far as the NAS comment in this area, they have what they were allowed to see.
The problem with some posters here is that anything published that fits their viewpoint is continually paraded as ultimate truth! Let me give you the basic answer, I dont find your Howard source authoritative!
When you spoke of Zelicoff being a part of the input prior to DOE's adoption of its current screeing program, let me ask you a question: why do you suppose that groups input to Sandia management (and then to DOE/HQ) had so little weight?  
And finally, I may be confused but I re-read the post you left on the 26th and the only suggestions I can see are; you wondering if we should not accuse everyone of deception and fish for admissions.  I thought I was asking a serious question, do you really think you gave me anything constructive?
I read on another thread someone commenting about your employment with the Iranian government, to which you answered that you were not employed by Iran.  Then the question became providing services via contract.  Have you spoken to that?  You are getting evasive again George, like when I asked you about your clearance adjudication process, or FBI admissions. Or granting a "free pass" to other aspects of federal and local hiring that are at least as troublesome as polygraph. You can do better.
At least you have not taken up the very irritating habit of calling your opponents "sporto" or other unique identifiers designed to convey some false sense of intellectual superiority.  
Also, on a side note- the quality of the input on this site has been drastically reduced lately.  Some threads are barely worth wading through. Comments?
(please dont re-hash the idea that we are all running for our lives)

Breeze,

You write:


Quote:

...My line threatened the often repeated belief on this site that spies have not been caught by polygraph.  As far as the NAS comment in this area, they have what they were allowed to see...

And you would have us believe the intelligence community leaks their screw-ups with the polygraph (e.g., Ames, Montes, etc.) but hides their successes....yeah right!....what have you been smoking or what are you hoping we are smoking to accept that line of reasoning??

You further write:


Quote:

...the quality of the input on this site has been drastically reduced lately.  Some threads are barely worth wading through...

That which has deteriorated is the commentary from your philosophical soul mates.  I suggest you ask them directly rather than have us guess as to that which has affected them.  That which you suggest mockingly may not be far wrong though...they may not be running, but the NAS report has clearly left all but the half-brains of the polygraph world speechless.

Breeze,

I have a couple of statements and questions.

Statement: I believe the propolygraph poster/s ( I think it's just one) started the smear tactics and name calling on these boards.

Statement: I am not qualified to inter into this debate between you and George but you seem to have a personal vendetta going here.

Question: Do you believe that all elected politicians and appointed officials i.e., Judges and prosecutors should have to pass a polygraph in order to assume their jobs? These people have more to do with the welfare of this country than all of the secret investigators of the FBI, CIA, etc.

Question: If you believe they should, would you campaign toward this end?

You honest answer please.

Breeze,

You write:


Quote:

You certainly seem passionate in protecting Mr. Zelicoff. I bet he can fend off my vicious attacks alone, and knows where to find me. ?Such vehemence from calling a group of scientists (including Al) whiners?

No, Breeze. Such "vehemence" stems from your very specific characterization of Dr. Zelicoff as a "whiner" concerned only with his personally being required to submit to a polygraph screening examination.


Quote:

I hardly have a cavilier attitude towords [sic] the truth, but will generalize on occasion as you do. ?Our previous discussion was on your admissions to the FBI after your failed polygraph. ?You said I overstated it and you did not lie on your application. I wondered what you would have to explain in a post test if you had been completely forthcoming, and asked you to post it. You said it was private. Is that essentially correct?

Breeze, you falsely accused me of having been untruthful in my FBI application process. When asked on what basis you made that claim, you referred to my testimony before the National Academy of Sciences, smugly stating, "When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed." But when I asked you where in my testimony before the NAS I had indicated that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application, you could not point to any such statement. (Apparently, you had never even listened to my remarks.) Instead, you demanded that I prove my innocence by posting my FBI HQ file and that I discuss my security clearance. My reply remains that "regarding security clearance matters, I have nothing to add to my remarks at the NAS meeting, and I see no compelling need to post Privacy Act information about myself to counter your completely unsubstantiated accusations against me." To date, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your libelous claim I was untruthful in my FBI application.

When I spoke of your "cavalier attitude toward the truth" I was referring to your demonstrated willingness to malign individuals without evidence.


Quote:

In reference to Howard, my source said he was removed after failing a CIA polygraph. ?I wondered how it could be believed that he was removed from duty, relocated to Santa Fe and had FBI babysitters if not under intense scruitiny? Does the CIA have counterintelligence officers watch everyone it lets go? Why did he run to Moscow as a non spying civilian? Would you do that?? Let us both assume we do not have all the information, and apply common sense and reason. My problem with your source is that this author could not possibly know when Howard was compromised, but is stating an appearance of fact. ?I also believe the CIA may not blurt out every fact in reference to its spies, thier compromise, access or capture. My line threatened the often repeated belief on this site that spies have not been caught by polygraph. ?As far as the NAS comment in this area, they have what they were allowed to see. The problem with some posters here is that anything published that fits their viewpoint is continually paraded as ultimate truth! Let me give you the basic answer, I dont find your Howard source authoritative!

Your source who told you that Edward Lee Howard's CIA employment was terminated "after failing a CIA polygraph" is by all accounts correct. But this is entirely consistent with Howard having begun his espionage after, not before, failing the polygraph: the issue then was not espionage, but alcohol consumption. Again, as I mentioned in the message thread Constricting your sphincter, with regard to the Howard case, see Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus's 20 July 2002 article,
"CIA Defector Howard Said to Have Died in Moscow." Concerning the timing of Howard's failed polygraph and the beginning of his espionage, Pincus writes:


Quote:

Howard joined the CIA in 1981. In 1983, as a newly trained case officer, he and his wife, Mary, also a CIA officer, were prepared for an initial posting to Moscow. But Howard failed a polygraph on the eve of their departure. Howard was fired from the agency after his case was reviewed, an investigation during which his heavy consumption of alcohol also became an issue. Although the CIA helped him get employment with a state government agency in Santa Fe, N.M., Howard's drinking got him in trouble there. Faced with financial problems, he apparently made contact with Soviet agents in Vienna in 1984 while on vacation with his wife, and allegedly sold them secrets he had learned while preparing for the posting in Moscow.

You say that "my source" (Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Walter Pincus) "could not possibly know when Howard was compromised." Not so. Pincus also reveals how Howard's espionage was ultimately discovered: "In August 1985, armed with a tip provided by Soviet defector Vitaly Yurchenko, the FBI identified Howard as a possible CIA mole."

Again, if Pincus is correct, it appears that Howard began selling secrets after failing his CIA polygraph, not before. You may not consider Walter Pincus to be a reliable source, but you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that Edward Lee Howard was engaged in espionage against the United States at the time of his failed CIA polygraph.


Quote:

When you spoke of Zelicoff being a part of the input prior to DOE's adoption of its current screeing program, let me ask you a question: why do you suppose that groups input to Sandia management (and then to DOE/HQ) had so little weight?

It is abundantly clear that the Department of Energy made its decision to adopt polygraph screening for political reasons -- to deflect criticism of lax security at the DOE laboratories following release of the Cox Report. So long as the public at large believes in the lie detector, policymakers can create the public impression that they are "getting tough on security" by ordering more polygraphs. Which is precisely what then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson did.


Quote:

And finally, I may be confused but I re-read the post you left on the 26th and the only suggestions I can see are; you wondering if we should not accuse everyone of deception and fish for admissions. ?I thought I was asking a serious question, do you really think you gave me anything constructive?

Yes, my suggestions to you were sincere and intended to be constructive. I was not suggesting that you should accuse everyone of deception and fish for admissions, but observing that you are likely to get more admissions this way, rather than by limiting yourself to accusing those who "fail" a completely invalid "test."

You seemed to be under the impression that your department has very few, if any, false positives because, as you note, "all DI charts (this year) were supported by confessions/explanations and then sent back out to background."

I pointed out that it is not surprising that there were confessions or explanations associated with all DI ("deception indicated") polygraph charts because polygraphers routinely ask those who "fail" what they were thinking of when answering one or more questions and hence, even where no confession is obtained, there is at least an "explanation."

I suggested a methodology by which you might better estimate the extent to which your department may be wrongly turning away truthful qualified applicants based on false positive polygraph outcomes.


Quote:

I read on another thread someone commenting about your employment with the Iranian government, to which you answered that you were not employed by Iran. ?Then the question became providing services via contract. ?Have you spoken to that? ?You are getting evasive again George, like when I asked you about your clearance adjudication process, or FBI admissions. Or granting a "free pass" to other aspects of federal and local hiring that are at least as troublesome as polygraph. You can do better.

The thread to which you refer is My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed), where "patriot" knowingly and falsely claimed that I am currently working for the Iranian government. (I don't, and never have, neither as an employee nor as a contractor.)

As for "granting a 'free pass' to other aspects of federal and local hiring that are at least as troublesome as polygraph," AntiPolygraph.org exists for the specific purpose of exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. Certainly, there are other troubling aspects of federal and local hiring, but this website exists to address the specific, unnecessary, and avoidable harm being caused by reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

Wow you certainly are bitter. I guess this board is a good thing for you.
At least it gives you something to do.
By the way the polygraph is good for one thing , screening applicants for previous drug use. Don't you agree.  GEORGE.

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 4^th, 2002 at 11:05pm:

George You certainly seem passionate in protecting Mr. Zelicoff. I bet he can fend off my vicious attacks alone, and knows where to find me.  Such vehemence from calling a group of scientists (including Al) whiners?

Rather slippery of you, Breeze.  The car salesman in you is showing.

You said:


Quote:

As far as the DOE is concerned, I know something about that agency, and of course they will now alter the screening rules for who receives a polygraph as part of the reliability program.  This decision to financially engage the NAS was in my opinion to support such a move that had already basically been decided was a problem area.  You will now see a much reduced pool subject to polygraph and perhaps the testing will become more specific and be done in phases.  This will actually help the DOE conduct business more efficiently, and maybe Zelicoff can stop whining as I am sure his job function will be excluded.

(emphasis added)

There's really no way out of the fact that you were referring specifically to Dr. Zelicoff, not "a group of scientists".

Skeptic

TRUTH HURTS DOSN'T IT gEORGE. :'(

skywacher,

What truth?

George and posse
Lets not spoil a beautiful day of Republican victory in petty bickering.  And since all of you no doubt had a hand in this triumph, lets celebrate together.
That said let me hit a few of your high points.  First off Anonymous, thanks for neatly proving my point.  Had I known earlier that I was a dope smoking half wit, I could of saved myself much aggravation.
George, you continue to use first year legal language in a ham fisted attempt to have me not talk about your background.  The fact that you had difficulty with the FBI during your failure there, the fact that you had unexplained clearance problems, and the fact that you are hiding behind your own privacy (if there is nothing, whats private?) say to me that there is more to this story.  Of course it must be substantiated by the one who needs to answer the integrity question George, thats you. This is not a court case and I am not prosecuting you.  If it was, you would be compelled to produce.  Attempting to make me look cavilier when you of course know that I could not produce anything on FBI letterhead, does not automatically make you forthcoming. It does not automatically make my beliefs correct either.  So George, clear the air.
I have talked to those that do have information, but it is still up to you.  You see, when you make statements like referring to Richardson as the FBI's leading polygraph expert (when he was never certified, and did few tests) those around here with any objectivity, and not willing to carve in stone anything that comes from your keyboard, start to wonder.  My belief remains that you and the truth have a fragile relationship.
And George, since its important to this site that no spy ever be caught by polygraph, I will allow that Howard was fired for being an alcoholic (what test question was that?) He had never been compromised, or ever considered espionage when he failed his screen, and was driven into the arms of the Russians by FBI bungling. Does the term "mole" apply to former employees?
Your right, I can provide no evidence as to when Howard actually turned, since he would have to provide it and he has choked on his own vomit.
As you pointed out elsewhere Richardson has been elected.  Will you now direct your resources in exposing the lack of veracity he has exhibited? Lately, there seems much interest here in exposing this man as an enemy of the cause.  I will be interested to see how this will be done as the post NAS report let down occurs. (and awfull reality sets in)
Finally to your very helpful suggestions disquised as questions about the process, your clarity in explaining that anyone who fails a polygraph will likely give an explanation is a revelation.  Those like me use such explanations to evaluate the information that has been provided.  It is clear to me that you prefer this term, as much more gentle than confession.  You had things that merely needed to be explained to the FBI, not confessed.  Since such explanations come to us after a background has been conducted, it was not previously available.  Its strange to me that such an invalid process continues to yield such valuable additional explanations.  When you say you want to end polygraph fraud,waste, and abuse: are you saying there is a place for polygraph when those characteristics are eliminated? Why not just say you want the procedure stopped, in all circumstances?
If the conduct of polygraph is as you say an avoidable harm, what harm would come to my agency and then to the citizens from hiring someone who has many explanations to make after a failed polygraph?
I know you have some victory celebrations to attend to, so I will stop here.

Breeze:

You wrote:


Quote:

This is not a court case and I am not prosecuting you.  If it was, you would be compelled to produce.

This is inexcusable ignorance from a law enforcement officer.  If this were a court case, the accused would be required to produce: ZERO.  In case you don't know this, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime.  The accused may sit there in silence, if he so chooses, and still be found not guilty if the prosecution fails to prove the case.

In this mini-prosecution you have going here against George, you have produced zero evidence against him, just unsupported, unsubstantiated accusations.  Don't you have higher standards of proof than that?  Why don't you quote the portion of his NAS testimony where you believe he made some damaging admission.  If you have done so already, could you please recite it again?

And if this were a court case, the 6th Amendment allows the accused to confront witnesses against him.  Your "sources" would have to come out of the woodwork and withstand cross-examination.  Somehow I doubt they would fare very well.

wrote on Nov 6^th, 2002 at 8:55pm:

Breeze: You wrote: This is inexcusable ignorance from a law enforcement officer.

But not from a Republican ;)

Seriously, Breeze is well-named.  He evidently thinks lots of hot air will cause his readers to forget what he actually says, and bluffing will take care of the rest.  Unfortunately for him, it's all there on the message boards.

Skeptic

Skeptic
Good one!
I guess it will be a long 2 years eh?
Hi again Mark.  Thanks for the tips, but you see I already know that this is no prosecution, and rules of evidence do not apply. It is my opinion, freely expressed on this "free" site. (much like the comments made about me, sort of goes with the territory)
If you find my comments and questions inappropriate, boorish or judgemental than use those terms. The fact that others have the same information that I do, and have stated so here, should show you that it is not just a product of my imagination.  I am merely curious when I see George make such a vigorious defense of his virtue, when called.
To your point, would you consider the use of pre-trial interviews, record requests and subpoena orders as compelling, even for the innocent?
Your right though, the guilty can just sit back and say nothing waiting for the case to be proved.  This is wise.  I asked specifically about the clearance issue because this is something I can check rather quickly, and he most definitely has left out significant detail.  I think this bears most directly on the work that is being done here on this site.  The platform is predicated on innocent victims relating frightfull tales of abuse at the hands of barely educated polygraphers.  If George was to accept some responsibility for what happened to him during his failed employment attempt,( like having something to explain) this would not play well.
Hey, at least you just called me ignorant and not a used car salesman!

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 6^th, 2002 at 11:21pm:

Skeptic Good one! I guess it will be a long 2 years eh?

I'm a Minnesota Vikings fan, which means I'm used to seeing my team snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It'll be a long two years.  It will also be interesting to see how the GOP does with no one to blame.

BTT.

Skeptic

Breeze,

I have seen nothing remotely derogatory against George.  The fact that he makes a vigorous defense of his virtue does not necessarily tell us anything about his virtue; it's the content of his defense that counts.  And on that score, I would have to say that he has eviscerated his accuser(s) (I'm not aware of anyone but you; am I missing someone?).

Really though, George need not defend himself.  This site is not about George's personnel record.  It's about the polygraph.  His arguments have been vindicated by the NAS study.  Even if he were a pathological liar, he is still right about the invalidity of the polygraph.

Good point about producing evidence, though I believe it's limited to physical evidence (hair samples, blood, fingerprints et al).  I do not believe it extends to testimony, as that would violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  In any event, as you acknowledge, the prosecution still has to prove the case; the accused need not disprove it.

As far as your comments being inappropriate, boorish, or judgmental, boorish probably works best.  Are you just trying to rile George?  Do you honestly believe he is at fault for being deemed "deceptive" on the polygraph?  In the larger scheme of things, does it even matter?  I guess your harping on his record, and making unsupported allegations, also strikes me as mean spirited and untrustworthy.

There seems to be a general theme here among some pro-polygraph people that we are just a bunch of whiners who are disgruntled at having been denied federal employment (I don't fit this category) and just refuse to take any responsibility for our failures.  I read this theme in your comments.

But this viewpoint is an evasion of responsiblity itself.  Lumping everyone in there is intellectually lazy.  Here's an analogy you might like: it's like the leftists who blame everything on American imperialism and foreign policy, including 9/11.  No matter what happens on the international scene, it can be traced back to that.  Same with some of the pro-polygraph people: never mind the NAS study, the problem is with the disgruntled liars.

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 12:23am:

There seems to be a general theme here among some pro-polygraph people that we are just a bunch of whiners who are disgruntled at having been denied federal employment (I don't fit this category) and just refuse to take any responsibility for our failures.  I read this theme in your comments.

Dear Breeze,

Hope you had a good time in the wilderness and obviously the game warden did not find you.  How about them Republicans (!*#^rascals!)?

I have a good federal law enforcement job.  I am over the initial "shock" of being found "not within aceptable parameters."  I did go into both sessions with belief in the system and polygraph.  I told 100% of the truth and was like a deer in the headlights when my examiner starts going off on me.  I just can't understand how they could get things so wrong in my situation.  I have NEVER used drugs, I am so clean that my wife calls me "SAM the EAGLE" from the Muppet movies.  I am not begging for a job.  They could have easily not advanced my application and I would not have dreamed of appealing any decision that they made.  They can hire and fire anyone they please (the FBI is an excepted service in the Federal Government).  All of these references to high accuracy of the polygraph do not mean anything to me if I am in the margin of error.

We have discussed what your department is doing right but if the polygraph was so infallible, I would not be on this website.  I would be singing its praises.  They do not come out and tell you why you are not within acceptable parameters.  It is frustrating trying to get information.  It is not about being denied Federal Employment, I am just trying to get some type of adequate explaination of what went on in my case.

Make sure you put your venison in the freezer. It is going to be a long cold winter.

Regards.

Mark
Im glad you chose to respond, I actually like the way you make your arguements, with only occasional name calling (itself an unfounded generalization, as I am being accused of)
Its clear we move in different circles, but I can assure you that there are questions about George's record.  But you may be right, It matters little to me personally and is certainly not a quest.  A check of recent posts will show that he for some reason, brought it back to the front which caused my latest exchange.  I do not believe I had spoke on that topic for quite a while.
To answer your question in the most direct way possible, yes I do believe he has left out detail, and is partly responsible for his failures.
Its funny you speak of untrustworthiness.  That was my original thought about the advice given when I logged on here.  A site that could give comfort to criminals is beneath contempt in my view.  I am prepared to admit that you and fair chance were most certainly treated unfairly.  I think thats wrong, but not exceptional.  It could just as easily occurred in a background check where an enemy or ex-spouse created a doubt.
I think the cyber warriors here will be more comfortable preaching to the choir, without any dissenting views so I will minimize future involvement.

Quote:

I am prepared to admit that you and fair chance were most certainly treated unfairly.  I think thats wrong, but not exceptional.  It could just as easily occurred in a background check where an enemy or ex-spouse created a doubt.

Thanks for acknowledging the unfair treatment I received.  You're right in that it's not exceptional, and I make no claim that it is.  Many people suffer far worse fates at the hands of government incompetence.  But it still should not have happened, and was eminently avoidable.

I also think you are correct that a background check could unfairly exclude someone from employment, or falsely accuse someone of a crime because of someone else trying to, say, even a score.

One of the main points of this website though, if I may take the liberty of saying so, is that we know the polygraph does not work for screening purposes.  Why compound an already imperfect system with a device that, at best, sabotages accuracy?  If we simply removed it from the process, the imperfect systems would still be imperfect, but not nearly as much.  This would be the case even if, as you say, this site was helping criminals.

breeze,

i've read through several of your posts-- you seem to rail at the unfairness of the psych exams time and time again. what were you accused of? did you psch interviewer make you cry or something?

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2002 at 3:48am:

breeze, i've read through several of your posts-- you seem to rail at the unfairness of the psych exams time and time again. what were you accused of? did you psch interviewer make you cry or something?

Congrats, Breeze -- I guess casting aspersions towards anti-polygraph people isn't fun anymore for the kids.  Your turn...

Ever so sincerely,
Skeptic  8)

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:18pm:

A site that could give comfort to criminals is beneath contempt in my view.  I am prepared to admit that you and fair chance were most certainly treated unfairly.  I think thats wrong, but not exceptional.  It could just as easily occurred in a background check where an enemy or ex-spouse created a doubt. I think the cyber warriors here will be more comfortable preaching to the choir, without any dissenting views so I will minimize future involvement.

Breeze,

Can't argue about the enemy or ex-spouse doubt.  Seen it happen and it is not pretty.  Like Mark, I am just trying to clean things up alittle.  The polygraph pre-screening can be uglier than the divorce because at least you know why the divorce attitude is happening (does not justify the attacks but helps one to deal with negative emotions and outcome).

If you do not post for awhile, I have enjoyed the exchange.  Good health and good hunting!

Enjoy Life!

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 6^th, 2002 at 11:21pm:

Your right though, the guilty can just sit back and say nothing waiting for the case to be proved.  This is wise.

He didn't write 'guilty', detective, he wrote 'accused'. See, unlike your personal system of beliefs, here in the US citizens enjoy the supposition that they are innocent until proven guilty in court. Nice slip, Freudian or otherwise.

The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might.-Mark Twain

Mark
You and Fair Chance seem to be the only critics around this site both gainfully employed and having some integrity, so I wish you (both) good luck.  I just cannot see your view of eliminating polygraph, simply because it may have problems. I have already pointed out some of the people that would of been hired if we shared your view.  Not acceptable.
Gail (ill leave off the "the") I thought I was pointing out a hiring hurdle that was at least as fraught with error as polygraph, but you had the light from GM's picture in your eyes and may of missed it.  Had I cried on any of my several psychological exams (not a bad idea) I might be making money now! like alot of really useful ideas, yours came too late.  Besides, If I was doing something other than picking up human filth, I could never of met you or beech tree's and been humbled and humiliated by your blistering wit.
And skeptic, Im not quite sure how pointing out a silly post of no quality makes me culpable, but its your story to tell.  Frankly you have grown more hysterical lately and seem to be taking your preceived role here far too seriously.
And finally everyones's favorite, BT, I realize you got concerned when I said I would minimize my involvement. But in this very small and inconsequential corner of cyber space a posting a week should still be considered wasteful.  Still I will value your insightful law tips and lessons on police responsibility.  Your contributions to law enforcement have not gone unnoticed.
But why risk carpal tunnel or your manicure on someone so unworthy? why dont you re-gain that enlightened state where you had washed your hands of me? Will I ever be rid of your obtuse "I gotcha" observations?

Breeze,

I feel slighted again. You didn't include me amoung the gainfully employed. You should get away from your machine
and come mining with me. You would be supprised how some real heavy duty work builds muscles, clears the mind, lifts the spirit, keeps you young and generally makes you feel worthwhile. Your hands will be more happy on the controls of a D9G Dozer than they do on the controls of a polygraph machine. I wouldn't be afraid to bet the profitability would be much greater. If your trigger finger gets itchy, you might get a chance to pop a cap on an attacking griz. That is if your hand is not shaking so bad that your finger can't find the trigger. You, too, would wish it never to happen again. I would have to warn you of a big difference between the D9 and a polygraph subject. You lie to the D9 and it will kill you.

On a serious note: You haven't answered my question about  the politicians and appointed officials having to pass the polygraph in order to assume or keep their positions.

Another question: What percentage do you think would pass.

"Instead, you demanded that I prove my innocence by posting my FBI HQ file and that I discuss my security clearance. My reply remains that "regarding security clearance matters, I have nothing to add to my remarks at the NAS meeting, and I see no compelling need to post Privacy Act information about myself to counter your completely unsubstantiated accusations against me." To date, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your libelous claim I was untruthful in my FBI application."


George,

I believe that The Breeze suggested that you post Privacy Act information concerning pre-employment documents related to your application with the FBI. Permit me if you will.

1) On the "Personal Statements" link of this site, there is a posting by "Captain Jones."  It is my understanding that this is you.  My appologies if I am wrong. Throughout your statement, we learned all about your exploits. How you attended the USAIC and the DLIFLC.  We are able too read with great envy the numerous Letters of Appreciation you received from the likes of William S. Sessions, Bruce Canaga, Louis Freeh, Bill Perry, and General Gordon Sullivan.  We learned about your work you did in NYC and in LA.

2) On your other web site, www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/

We learned much more about you.  Upon entering the site, we find another photo of you, the one with the dashing bolo tie. We learned that you attended and graduated from East Moriches Union Free School in 1978.  We learned that you then graduated from Westhampton Beach High School. You were in the Band, the Drama Club, and the French Club. You then obtained your undergraduate degree from UCLA and went on to work on your graduate degree.

We learned about your translation of Habib Levy's work and how you moved to The Hague, Netherlands where you worked for the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

You talk about your favorite platform, the Apple Macintosh and all the macros that you've written for Nisus Writer and WordPerfect.  Of course we can't forget all the translation work that you've done.

We get the honor of reading your copyrighted work such as the "Clintonic Verses" and your "Sundry Prose & Poetry." Heck, we even get to read all about your participation in the 3M marathon in Leiden on June 14, 1998.  "Hup George!" "Hup George!" This written account is also copyrighted.



Now, I am not a profiler, but I got to wonder why a guy who posts all these details about his life, won't put these silly accusations to rest. What was said during your FBI polygraph examination? Did you make damaging admissions? You see George, you love to see yourself in print, on the web. You love to tell us how intelligent you are - not directly, but by posting all of the boring details of your life. After all, East Moriches Union Free School? Your favorite platform? The Clintonic Verses?

Under Privacy Acts laws, former FBI SA Jack Trimarco can't give his side of the story, but one person can and that is you George! I feel that I can safely assume that you long ago filed for a copy of your FBI polygraph examination report and all the associated pre-employment documents.  What is one more document about your life posted on the these sites?

If I were interested in learning more about the polygraph and the authors of this site, I really would like to know the true motives of the individuals.  No one can deny that you are a highly intelligent person, but maybe you were outsmarted on the day of your polygraph examination and you gave that one disqualifying admission. I certainly don't know, but inquiring minds want to know!  

wrote on Nov 17^th, 2002 at 4:21am:

If I were interested in learning more about the polygraph and the authors of this site, I really would like to know the true motives of the individuals.  No one can deny that you are a highly intelligent person, but maybe you were outsmarted on the day of your polygraph examination and you gave that one disqualifying admission. I certainly don't know, but inquiring minds want to know!

Mr. Dawg,
Although it seems like a favorite topic among polygraphers here, I would like to point out (again) that George's background or credentials have absolutely no bearing as to the accuracy of his information or the ethical questions regarding his position.

The continual attempts to redirect the debate through ad hominem arguments and credentialism fallacies should be duly noted by all readers for what it is: forfeiture of any debate about the polygraph.

I believe George Maschke, like myself and all other posters, have the right to provide as much or as little information regarding themselves as possible.  The arguments either stand or fall on their own, and George's are well-documented and referenced.

Perhaps should the day come when polygraphers address those arguments and the definitive findings of the NAS report directly, musing on the motives of individual posters will be worthwhile.  I am doubtful that day will arrive soon.

Skeptic

And by the way, Breeze, I'm sorry you feel my insistence on holding you responsible for your own words constitutes "hysterical" behavior.  You'll pardon me if I disagree, as well as if I determine for myself what "my role" (if one can be defined) is in these discussions.

Skeptic

Dawg
You have hit on a key point that makes the faithful here nervous....did the leader make admissions that show the polygraph functioned correcty, leading to a proper DI call?. (As polygraphers see it)
Always someone will blurt out that this does not matter, that George could be a rapist etc. etc. and that has nothing to do with the arguement over validity.  As if someones background, ethics and history would never have a bearing on what they espouse currently.  Mark Mallah said recently that I was the only person following this line, which is clearly not true.  I guess what we do Know about George's lack of candor is looked at like some kind of diversionary tactic instead of what it truly is. ( A fairly serious credibility dilemma)
Credibility.....that abstract and quaint notion when you have been so very wronged.
Two Block, sorry I ignored you.  Just what would said politicians be polygraphed on? What is the topic we are discussing here.  A polygraph to see if they have done exactly what? you may be getting little response to your question because it shows little understanding of how the tool is used.  Our applicants may be tested on material presented in their applications. Criminals are tested on specific acts.
Refine your idea and run it through the backchannel committee for re-submission.
As to mining, sounds like hard work.  I did see the mining/prospecting channel on Dish but you are clearly on a different level than those chucks.  Bears? I have already checked that block so no worries, you keep bulldozing the countryside, and Ill shoot them when they flee your mining tool.  Set it up!

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 8:30pm:

As if someones background, ethics and history would never have a bearing on what they espouse currently.

Breeze,
You'll note that no one has claimed the above -- someone's background may indeed have a bearing on what they espouse.  You have simply failed to show how George's background has anything to do with his arguments here.  That's called argumentum ad hominem.

For your reading enjoyment, here is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

     The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
     argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
     person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
     Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
     gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
     attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

     There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
     (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
     the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
     (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
     assertion the author points to the relationship between the
     person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
     (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
     person notes that a person does not practise what he
     preaches.

Examples:

     (i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
     following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
     (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
     taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
     hominem circumstantial)
     (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
     are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
     circumstantial)
     (iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
     more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

     Identify the attack and show that the character or
     circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
     or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:

Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80


George didn't come up with the idea that the polygraph is flawed and easily beaten, nor is he remotely alone in his claim that he was wrongly tagged as deceptive.  Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences said just this in their recent report.  Thus,
your assertion that his character in any way influences his message is completely bogus and ad hominem on its face.


And since you said people here claim background never has anything to do with the positions they espouse, let me add the following:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Straw Man
Definition:

     The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
     usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

     (i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
     wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
     Canada.
     (ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
     the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
     should realize that there are more important things than
     convenience.

Proof:

     Show that the opposition's argument has been
     misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
     argument. Describe the stronger argument.

References

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138

Skeptic
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about.  Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity!  I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams".  In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion.  You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 9:06pm:

Skeptic Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about.  Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours? I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity!  I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams".  In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion.  You may or may not find this instructive. Do you have anything not prepared you want to say? What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??

Sigh.  did you bother to read anything from what I posted, Breeze?

Anything at all?

Really, I was trying to make things as easy for you as I could...rather than post links, I even brought the relevant information here to you for your perusal.  

Obviously, it was my mistake to assume you are interested in honest debate regarding the polygraph.  Others have evidently picked up on this; I must be a slow learner.

Skeptic

Breeze,

If memory serves correctly, on at least two occasions in the past you have informed us you were leaving us (message board participation) for more meaningful pursuit with the intention of not returning to those who you generally characterized as not appreciating your input.  The merits of that input not withstanding, I believe your continual "bad penny" returning act has led to a credibility problem for you (Are you hoping if you do this enough we will eventually beg you to stay??).  By contrast nothing, including your cowardly and libelous innuendo, has in any way tarnished George's credibility, unlike your own words that have tarnished yours.

Anon.
I believe I have recently said I would minimize involvement.
Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?  How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site? some here need this for validation, some say its relaxing, others say they just like to argue.
Nothing any of you say affects me in the least, and Im sure I wont be on the calendar when it gets published.
Skeptic....nice dodge.  No one noticed, really.
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:

Skeptic....nice dodge.  No one noticed, really.

I'm sorry, Breeze -- was there a point to your complaint about my posting methodology, aside from avoiding what I wrote to you?


Quote:

Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

In fact, IIRC, I have criticized ad hominem attacks made against pro-polygraph people.  Of course, "everyone does it" is hardly a defense, wouldn't you agree?

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:

Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

To my knowledge, I have never made an ad hominem attack on these boards in lieu of a reasoned counterpoint to an argument in which I am engaged. If you would care to point out where I have done so, I'd be happy to reconsider that position. When the debate breaks down (as it inevitably does when you or one of your ilk becomes frustrated that the smoke-and-mirrors crap that you're taught to say in polygraph school results in howls of laughter from our side), I usually try to refrain at least for a little while from wallowing in the gratuitous insults.... however...

Pinhead replies beget fullbore retorts. I don't back down from the debate and I certainly don't back down when the bullying starts from your side.

BT
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down.  Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard.  This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you.  I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post.  Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face.  I will let others decide if you could ever have anything original to bring here.
Skeptic wonders if I want to debate the polygraph.  Check my posts for my interests.  I have always been mystified at the sloppy legal advice and guidance given by a few posters here to applicants and others, who are merely trying to educate themselves and unfortunately landed here.  My focus has been the ethical considerations, more than the technical. (which I am not qualified to comment on)
Far from being ashamed at what I have written friend skeptic, perhaps someone who has not bought into the victim mindset in vogue here will actually think and consider before gratuitously clenching thier buttcheeks or attempting to manipulate thier breathing.  But I think you know this, when you make your attempts to marginalize my comments.
But lets talk about something else, if anonymous agrees.
Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder.  Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission!  It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation.  So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.

Wow Breeze...another amazingly short week since we last were subjected to inane commentary from you.  Perhaps in the next week (???) you might care to peruse the NAS panel report.  It might suggest something meaningful for you to bring to our attention...  With regard to your stated intended behavior regarding frequency of message board posts and your credibility deriving from actual practice, I personally could care less.  It is not your credibility with regular contributors to this site that is at stake for you though but with those not aligned and whom you might care to influence and who might consider the apparent (or lack thereof) stability of your thoughts and intentions…

Breeze,

You write in part:


Quote:

Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder.  Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive. If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission!  It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation.  So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue. Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.

As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings (including your own).

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:

Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.

I find your posts quite lucrative.


Quote:

And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?

To the best of my recollection you have only raised one ethical 'conundrum' here, one of your very first postings questioning the ethics of using countermeasures (and by necessity lying about their use) when applying for federal law enforcement (FBI I think). When thoughtful replies concerning that aspect of polygrapy were posted, you somehow morphed our responses into a discussion about the court-sanctioned technique of lying to suspects, or undercover law enforcement lying during the course of an investigation-- a cognitive leap that still leaves me scratching my head.


Quote:

How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site?

Indeed, how could you? The fact that your vituperative, non-stop boorish spew reflects badly on your character, your department, and most importantly your intelligence would be of little importance to you since you hold everyone on these boards who does not think exactly the way you do (or indeed, is not similiarly employed and does not have the same political affiliations) in utter contempt. I ask you, given the transparency of your loathing, why should we likewise care what you have to say?

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 21^st, 2002 at 8:14pm:

BT Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down.

It is your fabrication, not mine The Breeze, when you write 'intellectual inferior'. Please do not attribute words or thoughts to me that I have not written.


Quote:

Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard.

Your characterization, not mine.


Quote:

This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you.

My goodness detective, are YOU about to lecture me on the rules of decorum? Is there no end to the depths of your arrogance?


Quote:

I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post.

No, I did not detective. I merely questioned seeming inconsistencies within your first few posts and asked for clarification. What is the problem with that?


Quote:

Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face.

I've made it a consistent rule to not comment in any way about my profession nor my life experiences, because (as I have always asserted), they bring nothing to the validity of the debate surrounding the abuse of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy-- not to mention the fact that my stance could, if discovered, bring an end to my chosen career. Nevertheless, you caught me in an especially cranky mood, breeze.

On September 14th of last year I led a three man team onto the pile that was formerly known as The World Trade Center. The group with whom I went to New York handed out Ultrathermic torches (which burn at 8900 degrees instead of 1800 like an acetylene torch). We handed out IR pole cams, which had a chest monitor and a pole that would extend to about fifteen feet... these could be probed in the pile to see if there were bodies or hazards before they were uncovered. We gased, oiled and handed out small portable generators that could be taken on the pile to run light equipment. We taught ESU and firefighters going on the pile how to use the equipment. We also took the equipment from those coming off the pile, refilled the oxygen tanks, replaced the used batteries with new recharged batteries and re-outfitted the new guys going on the pile. In addition, I worked two thirty-six hour shifts at Ground Zero NYC excavating and searching for survivors.

Guess what? None of the above means jack to our discussion here-- just like the number of times you've faced danger yourself likewise means jack. It's irrelavent. Batman is fond of the piss analogy, so I'll use it here-- it's a pissing contest that has no bearing whatsoever on these discussions.

Dep Dawg,

FYI, if you search the archives of the (I think) Washington Post (maybe the NY Times), Late 1999/early 2000, I do believe you will find an interview conducted with GM concerning polygraph.  In this interview the ever mysterious Capt Jones is reveled to be our beloved founder George Maschake.

PS:  George update your photo on the UCLA web site http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/

Beech Trees
I am not sure if you finally felt a need to prove you are not a desk bound geek or what caused your latest incident of venting, but Im sure we all admire you.  I do not believe I seriously talk about dangers I have faced, but you on the other hand may feel you need to prove something.  If I have brought up the issue of background, it is because some one that has experience with the polygraph (to me at least) has more credibility when talking about the manner in which it is used.  You have instead taken this to mean that I or others are comparing our courage, character, or worth of profession to yours. I have no idea if you are a lion or a weasel, but I do know that you will borrow a passage from a traitor like Ames (Aftergood letter) rather than provide something original.  What you do lack in experience you make up for in hysteria and that is why people interact with you poorly.  I will just ignore your personal remarks in the last post where you made yourself look like an ass.  If you want a lesson in communication without condescension, see most of fair chances responses or even Mark M's.  As for replying to me, you have nothing I need.
George?
Since we understand that you are the reserve officer who asked to remain anonymous (asked who?) please explain why you felt it necessary to caution me on authorship.  I am who I said I am, as you know.  But how can we believe any testamonial presented here in these circumstances? and why not just be up front?? By the way on this topic, what did the agency fail you for, since it was not a test for espionage.
If you want, I can approach my Sheriff about an honorary commission in the reserves, or maybe the mounted patrol.  Let me know.
Your other site is quite interesting...
Pissing on nettles indeed!

wrote on Nov 25^th, 2002 at 10:54pm:

Beech Trees I am not sure if you finally felt a need to prove you are not a desk bound geek or what caused your latest incident of venting, but Im sure we all admire you.  I do not believe I seriously talk about dangers I have faced, but you on the other hand may feel you need to prove something.  If I have brought up the issue of background, it is because some one that has experience with the polygraph (to me at least) has more credibility when talking about the manner in which it is used.

Breeze,
By any chance, do you have more than one person posting under your name?  You seem very unaware of what "you" have posted previously or the context in which people reply to you.  In a prior post, "The Breeze" did indeed taunt Beech Trees regarding danger he's faced, saying that "calling [you] a liar" was about the closest he's come to danger.

At the very least, you are sometimes extremely unclear.

Skeptic