George , it wasn't an ad hominem attack, merely an observation that his/her screen name and his/her style match.  I don't intend to be goaded or baited into the type of discussion it appears to me he/she wants to have.

After reading your quote from Lykken, I still don't understand the significance of the issue.  I guess first one needs to understand that Lykken is a polygraph advocate, not a detractor.  His objection is to the CQT not the use of the instrument to separate the guilty from the innocent.  These objections stem from the fact that the Government chose the CQT format over his proposed format, a variation of the Guilty Knowledge Test, which he advocates.  So if you want to have a discussion of self-serving statements and misinformation certainly we can start with his book.  This is a statement of my opinion only.  After all Lykken concludes by saying he doesn't have a problem with lying to criminal suspects generally, just in telling some lies.  Certainly an interesting ethical deliniation.

Sorry I didn't get to your previous post earlier, but I'll address it now.  George I don't care whether you or anyone else on this site believes anything I write.  As I previously acknowledged I will not alay the suspicions of the doubters, no matter what I write, so its not an issue worth debating.

I see where the confusion comes in regarding my e-mail with Dr Barland and I gratefully accept your apology.  I originally learned of your site and your download sometime late last year or early this year.  I had read both your download and Williams' book, along with several others prior to my recent meeting with Dr Barland.  While I perused your site, Stoppolygraph, Nopolygraph, and Williams' site occasionally I didn't spend time studying in detail the threads, posts, and alerts.  I basically scanned them for anything that caught my eye and to see if any of my prospective examinees appeared to be posting.  Dr Barland's recent suggestion to me, when we met at DoDPI, was to take a more active interest and to re-read and study your download in detail, which I did.  That is what I was alluding to in the message.

Also you may rest assured that I, like many other examiners, are in frequent contact with DoDPI.  You may also rest assured that any confirmed or suspected countermeasure polygraph examinations are provided to them, from my agency at least.  In fact I have four more that I will be forwarding today, three from your site and one from Williams'.  These three are part of the 17 I mentioned earlier.

I also acknowledge that you clearly state the purpose for making your download available, I'm not suggesting that you are intentionally trying to help criminals defeat the polygraph.  In fact I have noticed that you frequently avoid interacting with criminals, who post here.  Certainly that is evidence to me that your expression of intent is true.  Of course since it is available to anyone with a computer and internet service you can't regulate those who would use it for other than what you intend.  I'm not really clear on what you are writing here though.  Are you stating that it is your belief that countermeasures will not help guilty people defeat the polygraph and your only intent is to ensure that innocent people pass by augmenting their naturally occuring responses?  I also noted that you mentioned in an earlier post that some countermeasures may be counterproductive to helping those innocent people.  I certainly agree with that and I commend you for your candor.  As Dr Barland noted in the "To those who have tried countermeasures" thread, there are risks.  Certainly neither you nor I want to have an innocent person countermeasuring their way into a false positive.  I can see where it might be argued that you have a vested interest in raising the rate of field false positives, but I don't believe that is what you are trying to do.  Though I disagree with your basic premise that innocent people need to augment their responses in order to pass a polygraph, I acknowledge that you believe it and your stated intent is genuine, in my opinion.

I note too, that you frequently mention the Honts studies in this thread and others.  As I stated I'm not qualified to enter into a debate on the research, although I again would like to point out that the Amicus brief I referenced earlier references numerous peer reviewed studies which support the reliability and validity of the CQT.  I read a thread on this site in the policy forum where someone is preparing to discuss those studies with you.  I'll certainly follow that thread with interest.  I'm also glad you acknowledge that the implementation of countermeasures is not easy and requires extensive study and practice.

As a final note to this post, Wannabe has been addressing the question I asked him here in another thread.  I want to ensure that everyone following this thread was aware of that.  He has stated that he visits other polygraph websites, both pro and con to collect the information, which he used to form his opinion.  While I disagree with his conclusion, I commend him for his dilligence in researching the topic.  This is an important issue to the discussion in this thread.  I want to again encourage anyone who is contemplating using the information from this or any other website in an important life decision to go to the source of that information and review it for themselves and not rely on someones else's interpretation and summary of that information.