The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:

George Your [sic] evading. I do not care that others have not accepted your sites [sic] challenge, that is a personal decision.  I do not care that you believe your and Gino's document is the final authoritative word on the matter either.

I did not state or mean to imply that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is the "final authoritative word" on any matter. However, it is, as I mentioned previously, well-documented with ample references that skeptical readers may check for themselves. Moreover, I am confident that most intelligent readers will find our arguments regarding polygraph procedure, policy, and countermeasures to be compelling.


Quote:

I have asked why your collection of anti polygraph freedom fighters will not put action to words (endlessly rehashed, check BT's re-warmed response to me) It is a simple proposition.  By your own actions, stop talking about what a ridiculously flawed procedure polygraph screening is and do something about it. Why are you waiting for someone to prove your point by participating in a staged event, or publishing available information for your use?

I think that what you have suggested would be an imprudent diversion of AntiPolygraph.org's limited resources. That the polygraph can be (and has been) beaten through countermeasures is readily apparent, supported by empirical evidence, and acknowledged by the polygraph community itself.

In my opinion, our time and effort is better spent on improving public awareness of polygraph issues and political outreach.

As for Beech Trees's "re-warmed response" to you, I note that you have dodged the very cogent questions he has put to you.


Quote:

After you have manipulated the hiring process, post the results to the world, and prove your point with something tangible. (rather than footnotes)

Karel F. Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, and Ana Belen Montes were all double-agents for foreign powers before they successfully "manipulated the hiring process" by beating the polygraph. If that is not tangible enough for you, I don't know what the hell would be.


Quote:

Stein is the only one who had the balls to specifically address the point, while incidently reinforcing one of mine-even though Im sure he did not mean to. There seems to be a small group of people keeping this site alive with reasonable intelligence and vast amounts of energy (at the keyboard), why is this not translated into something joe average applicant can understand and use to his benefit?

We have produced something that "Joe Average applicant" can understand and use to his benefit. It's called The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and it has been downloaded over 50,000 times. It is quite possibly the most widely read book on polygraphy ever. Watch for the 3rd edition in 2003.


Quote:

If polygraphers are cowards for not participating in your countermeasure challenge, what label should we apply to someone who lacks the fortitude to back up thier convictions?

What convictions have we failed to back up? Again, that which is found in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is backed up by ample references that skeptical readers can check. If those references are beyond you reading level (or perhaps your attention span) that is a problem with which I cannot help.