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

George Your evading.

Oh, please.  Breeze, your glass house is in bad need of replacement panes.

When you acknowledge and apologize for the fallacious and libelous nature of statements you've made here in this public forum, when you deign to answer even a few of the multitude of appropriate questions put to you by George, Beech Trees and others, come back and accuse someone of "evading".  Until that distant day, statements such as yours aren't even laughable -- they're self-evidently pathetic.


Quote:

I do not care that others have not accepted your sites challenge, that is a personal decision.

Do you even know what the issue is, here?

This is a matter of a profession making claims that it fails to back up.  The polygraph community has repeatedly stated it can detect countermeasures.  The burden is on their shoulders to back up that claim.  They have failed to do so, despite specific challenge -- and their silence is deafening and damning.  Have you even thought about considering both sides of this issue?  Or are you really just here for attention and to "stir things up"?


Quote:

I do not care that you believe your and Gino's document is the final authoritative word on the matter either.

No one has claimed it is.  But then, it's always easier to win an argument if you're the only one arguing, isn't it?


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.

Most of us already have, bud -- we've done the polygraph thing.  As have several spies who have beaten the polygraph.  Your choice of evidence on this entire issue is tremendously selective and one-sided.

I know you don't like it that people here (such as myself) believe your honesty and integrity are questionable.  Unfortunately, you don't give us much reason to conclude otherwise.

Skeptic