George,

I would submit to the journal Polygraph your extremely well written reply to Menges for its consideration as a published reply to the original opinion piece.  Regardless of its editorial staff's ultimate decision, I see several benefits from such an action on your part as well as several other uses/outlets for your document should Polygraph chose not to publish it.

wrote on Feb 25^th, 2003 at 6:40pm:

George, I would submit to the journal Polygraph your extremely well written reply to Menges for its consideration as a published reply to the original opinion piece.  Regardless of its editorial staff's ultimate decision, I see several benefits from such an action on your part as well as several other uses/outlets for your document should Polygraph chose not to publish it.

Well, I guess this publicly settles once and for all the 'countermeasures don't work' BULLSH*T polygraphers love to spew here.

Having quickly read the Mendes opinion piece, the most glaring error is not the many of  commission that George so eloquently points out, but one major error of omission.  Mr. Menges forgets to the note that the behavior which is the subject of his critique is fundamentally caused by and preceded by a much more questionable ethical activity.  That activity of course is administering a "test" fully knowing that test (polygraph screening) has no diagnostic validity, has been described as a danger to national security by the NAS Panel, and likely victimizes thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of innocent US Citizens every year.  Shame on you, polygraph world.  The ethical quandary lies at your feet, not those who would protect our nation and its citizenry from your chicanery.  And with regard to that citizenry, the last time the public was broadly made aware of anything about polygraphy, we saw the limitations imposed by the EPPA.  So Mr. Menges, we welcome a public debate with you.  We hope that you will not shrink from public scrutiny and formal debate as your colleagues have hid from the issue of polygraph countermeasure efficacy.