The_Breeze wrote on Sep 11^th, 2003 at 4:55pm:

George Some quick thoughts before I start work. Posting a link (which most will not access) is not the same as discussing fully the content of the message, of course since the content works against your goals and philosophy this is not surprising.

Get over yourself, Breeze.  He not only posted a link, but the entire text of the address, in direct contradiction to your complaint.  Your M.O. seems to be that you never admit you're wrong (no matter how obviously you are), but in this case, you look like an idiot for continuing the argument when George clearly did exactly what you said he didn't do.

You don't have to take my advice, of course, but you really don't want to pursue such an obviously losing line of argument.  At least have the honesty and integrity to admit it when you're so clearly mistaken.  


Quote:

McSlarrow seems to making specific reference to  polygraph success in uncovering espionage directed against our country.  You and others frequently state that this has never happened, (based on comments made by government officials favorable to your view) Do you think spies are merely "stupid enough to make admissions" or were they presented with evidence backed up with polygraph results leading to confession.

Unfortunately, McSlarrow's comments don't make clear the process by which the espionage was uncovered (he himself may not know the details).  Your own questions above reveal the fact that drawing firm conclusions one way or another is unwarranted, and indeed, McSlarrow's comments (which you posted) seem to indicate admissions, not polygraph charts, were what stopped the espionage.

The bottom line is, by making inferences from what McSlarrow said you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: pushing your bias.

The burden of proof is upon pro-polygraph people to demonstrate that the polygraph itself caught spies.  I see nothing in McSlarrow's testimony that indicates this issue is resolved.  But please, feel free to post the relevant quote that does so.

Skeptic