Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Joe, you did a cut and paste from the abstract. You have not read the complete study, correct? Further, my article was more of a micro-study, i.e., one examiner with 25+ years of experience running exams on clear-cut criminal issues in a police setting. The fear/hope spot has been discredited by some of the higher-profile polygraph "scientists," but I disagree with them. A countermeasure challenge series would help clarify things,  but the dedicated-to-truth fakers say such a thing would just be a "circus stunt." In other words, they're chicken. As to why I run tests, it's all supply and demand. But at least I make sure the client knows that polygraph validity is grossly exaggerated. Additionally, more and more of my time with clients is spent consulting, not testing.

  Yes, I did read it all and I'm still having issues with the 100% number.  I do find the fear/hope spot an interesting concept though, and would like to see some independent analysis of the theory. 

Anyway, yes I did cut and past the abstract and even said that I did.  Remember when PP posts made fun of me for long posts.  I try to cut it down, but sometimes things just need to be said lol. 

I do not agree with the other examiners that the CM challenge would be a circus stunt.  HOWEVER, I do think it would become a circus stunt by one side or the other for shameless self promotion.  I also think it would become a three ring circus of excuses and accusations of hackery coming from whomever is on the losing side of the "contest." (lack of a better term)

Honestly, I think it would create more questions and controversy than answers and solutions.

As to your answer regarding why you still run tests, at least it was an honest and straightforward answer to a honest question.  Better than what I get down here in Texas