Saidme wrote on Sep 4^th, 2003 at 7:26pm:

George Regarding your letter to the committee; you forgot to tell them how you were wronged by the polygraph.  I think it's only fair you let them know where your agenda sprouted.

It occurs to me, Saidme, that you might benefit from a  visit to Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies.  In particular, check out Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem).

Please don't feel bad, though.  This most basic of logical fallacies (attacking the messenger instead of the message, in an apparent belief that doing so actually responds to and counters the opponent's argument) is far and away the most common argument technique exhibited by polygraphers on this site.  Fortunately, it's fairly obvious to even the casual observer, and I'm sure it would be obvious to the Committee, as well.

It comes down to this:  what, exactly, does the origin of George's "agenda" have to do with the accuracy of what he's saying?  You need to give a specific answer to this question in order to avoid the "ad hominem" fallacy mentioned above -- simply saying "his feelings towards the polygraph are the reason he's opposed to it" won't cut it.  They're two separate things.

Such a lack of understanding of logic does go a long way towards explaining blind faith in the polygraph...

Skeptic