Ark, I likely would have won in a landslide if I sent refrigerator magnets bearing the slogan TRUST YOUR CHARTS to a thousand APA members. 

But irrespective of the message, there's a logistical problem: The APA does not make a complete member directory available to its membership.

There's a partial member directory on www.polygraph.org, but it's limited to those individuals who pro-actively registered on the site. Last time I looked, that on-line directory contained about 600 names. My hunch is that it's largely the same bunch that actually took the time to vote.

As for identifying the non-voters, all we know is that more than 80% of the APA membership didn't vote.

Dan is it possible for you to find out the members who did not vote? I think all you need to do is write a couple hundred personal letters to them.

Dan, 25% is not trivial.

There were 2,472 eligible voters, though it appears that less than 500 APA members actually cast a ballot.

In the race for president elect, McCloughan received 339 votes (75%); I received 116 votes (25%).

Unlike last year, I did no active campaigning (as through email to APA members, for example), other than to post election related topics on a couple of forums.

By the way, APA examiner membership is made up of 1,239 law enforcement examiners, 1,065 private examiners, and 413 government examiners.

What were the results of the election?

The American Polygraph Association 2016 electronic elections -- scheduled to start July 3rd at 0001 hours DST and run through 2359 hours DST on July 9th -- have hit a snag: the independent hosting web site is mysteriously down.

There was a similar false start last year, yet the vendor -- Votenet, based in Arlington VA -- was retained.

Given that we are in the midst of a holiday weekend, speedy resolution would seem rather unlikely.

Is this latest foul-up a mere coincidence, I wonder? 

Yesterday I again emailed my opponent for the office of APA president elect -- APA director Jamie McCloughan -- and asked him point-blank why he won't debate the issues with me.

Mr. McCloughan has yet to respond.

I hope the "dedicated to truth" APA electorate will take note of this continued stonewalling.

things got quiet here real fast

Let's get things back on track...

If my opponent for APA president elect -- APA Director Jamie McCloughan -- refuses to debate the issues with me, he should withdraw from the race.

Mr. McCloughan, are you, or are you not, dedicated to truth?

I have a better idea. 

Out and about right now, but then they probably know that. When I get home, I am.upping the ante. 

No one will like it, but what's good for the goose

lieguy8,

As we used to say in the army, you're a bold mothercrappity smacker.

Too bold, in this case.

ATTENTION: I'll pay $1,000 to the first person who conclusively identifies lieguy8.

I can do check, money order, PayPal, electronic transfer, or even arrange a cash hand-off at Caberet Royale in Dallas.

If anyone has any information regarding the identity of lieguy8, please call me directly at 603-801-5179.

Sign me,
Dedicated to Truth

Just say when.

Too close to home.
Too close to home.

Bronze Leaf Dr
Spring Creek Pkwy
75
W. University Dr
West St

Something to think about, Joey

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brunchberry+Ln,+Plano,+TX+75023/@33.0610308,-9...

Joe, those are two good questions.

In my opinion, the best way to curb the kind of anti-competitive behavior you speak of is through polygraph-consumer education and awareness, as well as through the APA's rigorous endorsement of a comprehensive bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, which could contain specific items geared toward consumer protection vis-a-vis the open market.


As for using polygraph to "clear" ethics issues within the microcosm of the polygraph industry, forget it. Polygraph is without any proven scientific basis. It functions best as a pseudo-scientific contraption (bogus pipeline) that aids the investigation and interrogation process by facilitating admissions. 

For almost 95 years (!), the courts have overwhelmingly declared polygraph inadmissible, condemning the "test" as being unreliable.  And for good reason -- it is. Thus, it would make little sense to use polygraph in ethics investigations. 

It seems to me that far better remedies would be available through the courts, or perhaps agreeing to binding arbitration with a reputable -- and neutral, obviously --arbiter, wherein the rules of civil procedure are generally followed.

And now I wait to be served.   

But my questions to Dan and Jammie stand

1.  It's one thing to say you are against anticompetitive behaviors of your members, and lets not deny that it doesn't, because I have evidence otherwise.  What do you plan to do to curb apa members from engaging in anti competitive behavior?  This protects everyone in the industry

2, If we sell polygraph, should the APA, follow suit with AAPP and the Arizona polygraph industry, and require polygraphs for examiners, when necessary to clear ethics investigations?  If you believe polygraph examiners should not be subject to the very tests we sell; why?

SPECIAL POLYGRAPH EPISODE, PART 2

Seems I have cut a nerve in Texas, Lets see is I can cut a wee deeper

Seems the truth can be hard to swallow in Texas, but now I know I have their attention.  I have had three, very angry phone calls about last nights show.  What was their review, well, lets just say, it was strong.


There was also some discussion on anti trade, and anti competitive issues and that as APA members, I thought this behavior was frowned on. 

If they were pissed at what I said last night, well, lets just say I won't be driving a convertible or washing dishes next to the kitchen window anytime soon; especially with the treats I have had in the past from Texas Association of Polygraph members.

Also we I'll be talking about his Dan is actually right about a few things.  I know the texans will be listening.

A fifteen-year claim of 98% accuracy

> Home-grown "Model Policies" that have little in the way of scientific foundation

> Staunch resistance to a bill of rights -- similar in spirit to those in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test-takers, to elevate informed consent and minimize potential harms

> An industry-insider culture that is insular, closed-minded and self-protective

All good points in some way.   


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/maxprovocateur/2016/06/15/special-polygraph-episode....

New for the 2016 American Polygraph Association election cycle is the use of Dropbox, an online file-hosting service.

Dropbox is the APA's chosen venue -- available to its members via the "2016 APA Elections" page on the APA web site -- for posting each candidate's 500-word statement and photo, prior to the electronic elections which run from July 3-9.

Also enabled via Dropbox is a dialogue mechanism, ostensibly for APA members to post comments and/or questions in the run-up to the election proper.

On the Dropbox pages for both myself and my opponent for APA president-elect, Jamie McCloughan, I took the opportunity to post the following comment:

George Maschke has generously offered to facilitate a live debate between me and my opponent for APA president-elect, Jamie McCloughan -- as well as host debates for other APA office seekers.

Such a venue would overcome the limitations imposed by the 500-word candidate statements that appear on the APA web site and in its magazine.

APA politicos Walt Goodson, Skip Webb, and Barry Cushman have expressed a desire to make the candidates more accessible to the APA electorate during the election cycle, so that voters can make a more informed decision.

Well, boys, here's your chance to walk the talk.

Would you endorse such a venue? If not, please explain why.

Learn more here:
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1465505671/15#15

Let's see what the "dedicated to truth" APA administration has to say. 

My prediction is they will do anything and everything to avoid, besmirch or discredit such an opportunity.

Should that be the sad outcome, it will be most telling of their true values.

You know, I should thank you for not calling in last night.  it seems I hit some sore spots in Texas with what I said, while waiting on you to man up (so to speak)   

I will clarify tonight.  Who knew using this format of media would have gathered the most response I have been looking for over the past two years when people started telling me this was an issue for the courts.

Anyway, have to set up the pod cast.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jun 14^th, 2016 at 3:38am:



Indeed, the APA has, to a great extent, fueled the polygraph indu$try. Here are some reasons why...

> A fifteen-year claim of 98% accuracy

> Home-grown "Model Policies" that have little in the way of scientific foundation

> Staunch resistance to a bill of rights -- similar in spirit to those in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test-takers, to elevate informed consent and minimize potential harms

> An industry-insider culture that is insular, closed-minded and self-protective

> Continued avoidance of a countermeasure challenge


People, it is time to eradicate the APA's self-made legacy of unrealistic expectations, and be forthright about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph “testing.”

As American Polygraph Association president elect, I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the APA, and to the entire polygraph profession. Members, please join me.   

And Mr. McCloughan, should you ever muster the courage to debate me -- preferably out in the open -- I'll be waiting.

First, you came to me.  I didn't write that email.  You asked for a debate, took it upon my self to facilitate that you get treated better than I did.  My mistake, I apologize for even trying.  I now totally get why some of the other responses were curmudgeonly.  Maybe I should learn to do the same.  With age comes experience, it's a hard lesson to learn; but like drinking orange juice after brushing your teeth, one that we all have to relearn the hard way.  

I tried to give ya the vocal forum and linked it here.  You had your cake and could have ate it too.   

You say you want the forum, but, it was just handed to you, and linked to here for all to hear.  I am just to a point, where I think you don't want to debate; you want a debate or platform where you have the advantage and control so you can dictate the narrative and agenda.  That is not how debates work.

You aren't even trying anything else to make him want to debate you, other than shooting your mouth off here.  And even then, all you can say is

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:


Seriously?  That is all you have to convince him?  

Dan, what is in it for him to debate you?  That is the real question.  He has this locked up so far as he is concerned.  Even you acknowledge you know you'll lose.  What kinda person runs knowing he is going to lose, and not at least try to pull off an upset?

Oh and as the copyright talk, well never mind.  

Done with this.  Have fun.  

Back to handling real issues and corruption in the industry. When you get done thinking little bugs are tough, come on down and try fighting a gorilla and her trained chimps.  The APA is the least of the Industry's problems.

Joe, I appreciate your interest to facilitate a debate, or even provide a solo platform, to bring more exposure to the APA election process.

But the fact is that www.antipolygraph.org is the Ferrari of polygraph-information web sites. It has masterful administration, worldwide recognition, and a highly regarded history going back more than 15 years.

In other words, www.antipolygraph.org has gravitas -- street cred.

By contrast, your Internet resources are like a wheezing Yugo -- at least audience-wise -- yet you insist on copyright restrictions(!). 

Think I'll pass.

Look, Joe... If you can get Mr. McCloughan to participate on your channel, I'm all in. Otherwise, I'll stick with a proven forum that's far better equipped to get the word out.

-----------------------------

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that the "dedicated to truth" APA establishment politicos scatter like cockroaches when faced with the harsh light of scrutiny.

In all fairness, Mr. McCloughan may be busy with the functions and festivities related to the American Association of Police Polygraphists national shindig, which is taking place this week at the Mohegan Sun casino and resort in Connecticut.

As an aside, I'm always amused when polygraph seminars are held at casinos. It seems most fitting, given the crapshoot nature of the "test".

I'm hopeful, that, over the next few weeks, Mr. McCloughan will be man enough to debate the APA-election issues with me -- anywhere on the world wide web for the public to behold.

most of all it would benefit the members

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:


Oh come on Dan.  You know I agree with you so much, but seriously?   

I was working on a deal that could have made it possible.  He is not doing to debate (speculating) when there is nothing in it for him, and in a debate structor which has an appearance (no offense GM, this is how they probably see it) of being biased.  Frankly, you had a way better chance of you letting me arrange it than here.

I personally want to see one happen.  I think it would give the voters a better understanding of the dynamics going on.  Moreover, I think it gives both parties more than 500 words for their platform, and questions can be asked and answered.   

If you think that calling him out like this will work, think again.  It's human nature man, there is nothing in it for him.  Personally, I think it would benefit both of you

If Mr. McCloughan doesn't have the stones to debate me, he should withdraw from the race.