Batman wrote on Jan 21^st, 2003 at 11:55pm:

Anonymous, I know this site is not really one for political debate, however it does, in a somewhat perverse way, center around discussions pertaining to truth and deceit; so I guess the topic of Bill Clinton does, in a way, fit right in. I guess I can only ask that if a person is willing to accept the supposed good that occurred under Clinton's watch (economic growth, which in reality was a result of initiatives implemented years before) along with his utter contempt for the truth, then why would that same person be so against polygraph?  Even though it has its weaknesses, some good is derived from its use.  The "take the good with the bad" principle applies in both cases.

It probably is a very good thing that this isn't a political discussion forum, Batman.  If you think I'm ruthless with polygraphers, you should see how I am with dittoheads and freepers ;)

Regardless of what one thinks about Clinton (or Dubya, for that matter), for whatever real or imagined reason, the fact that someone worse than Gelb can be found is certainly beyond dispute.  It is also irrelevant to whether a man who has forged academic credentials should be touted as "beyond expert" in polygraph administration, or whether such a snake-oil salesman, as someone who was elected to serve as APA president, reflects poorly on the APA and the polygraph profession (or worse, is typical of both).

Skeptic