My apologies for the previous post - I inadvertently posted before copying my response to the page.

Batman, I would like to address your commentary.

First: As you yourself define it, the polygraph is a "test". So, much like any other test I have taken in my life - driver's test, English test, Graduate entrance test, etc - I wanted to understand what I could expect and be prepared for all variables - what to bring, what I should wear, what to expect, even whether I should eat, drink, or take my medicine before the exam. Unfortunately, my assigned investigator has been completely unaccessible so I have to do all of the "research" myself.

Second:  Long before I even came across this particular site I began the education process on polygraphy. It was only after reading some of the posts here did I really get a deep-rooted interest.  Also, I assume you will be the head "goofball" because you were one of the few opinions that I actually paid particular interest to throughout my "research" - you see, I guess that you assume I am anti-polygraph, however, those words never left my mouth. I enjoy seeing and hearing from both sides of the coin whether I make my opinion known or not.

Third: I was no more concerned with the specific question about driving under the influence then, than I am now sitting in front of my PC. What did concern me however was the uneducated  (she professed she had no college education) and inexperienced (after I asked about the "science" of polygraphy, she mentioned her three weeks of "intense" training) examiner who's personal bias and individual interpretation of the semantics "under the influence" would serve to render a decision about me. I wanted to clarify whether she defined "under the influence" as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving. If it were the latter, my answer was a resounding "No." I just wanted to close the gap so to speak and diminish any possible differentiation in definition that may have existed between myself and the way she defined the question.

Fourth: Countermeasures??? Who needs them? I told the truth and that will set me free - right?

It wasn't interesting that the examiner mentioned I had problems with the question about providing false info on your application...it was interesting that she mentioned I would have fared differently and my chart would have been scored differently (somehow?) if this was a criminal case versus a "civil case" (as she referred to it).

Not only was it not a "civil case", but more importantly, wouldn't the perception of deception and a lie be the same regardless of what type of "test" I was taking?

I welcome and appreciate any other intelligent and reasonable comments regarding the original post - thank you!