Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 22 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge (Read 366643 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #150 - Feb 15th, 2005 at 6:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, anxietyguy.

If you can do nothing but make unfounded, ignorant claims about polygraph and come up with ever more insulting remarks, I will stop responding to your posts.  Come up with something that makes sense and is worth responding to, and maybe I'll address you again.
« Last Edit: Feb 16th, 2005 at 2:29am by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box anxietyguy
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 121
Joined: Apr 19th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #151 - Feb 16th, 2005 at 1:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
That was the desired effect.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #152 - Feb 16th, 2005 at 4:05am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
anythingformoney wrote on Feb 9th, 2005 at 9:17pm:
One thing I don't get about all this countermeasures stuff: 
 
If a person continually shows an abnormal response to a "relevant" question, despite a manipulation to the "control" questions, wouldn't that be a dead giveaway to an experienced polygrapher?


No, it wouldn't. A person who is truthfully answering a relevant question might nonetheless show strong reactions when answering them for reasons other than deception. It was with this understanding that John E. Reid developed the probable-lie "control" question "test" (CQT).

If a polygrapher is going to assume that anyone who consistently shows a strong reaction to a relevant question must be lying, then he might as well use the relevant/irrelevant technique, which had been widely abandoned by the polygraph community, but seems to be making a comeback as the trickery on which the CQT relies becomes more widely known.

Quote:
What I mean by "abnormal response" is an obvious reaction that is consistent throughout the exam.  A person who HAS used illegal drugs, for example, and lies about it, is really going to have much more of a response to that question than the polygrapher usually sees on that question.  If that strong response is consistent over the course of the whole examination, it seems to me that any polygrapher worth his salt would see that reaction despite the control question manipulations.


But polygraphers have no way of differentiating between the anxious-but-innocent examinee and the anxious-and-deceptive one. Moreover, consistent responding to a relevant question at a lower level than resonses to associated "control" questions has not been demonstrated to be a reliable indication either of deception or countermeasure use.

Quote:
And don't polygraphers move the relevant questions around during the test so that you'd have to manipulate ALL of the control questions at the right time to get them to counter the obvious and consistent relevant question response?


Yes. But so what?

Quote:
Not only that, but wouldn't it appear strange to a polygrapher that not just one or two control questions "spike" off the chart, but that ALL of them do?


In applying countermeasures, it is not the objective to create reactions that "'spike' off the chart," as you put it, but rather more subtle reactions that are in line with what polygraphers generally expect to see. Moreover, since all control questions are specifically intended to evoke a response, it should hardly appear "strange" to a polygrapher that an examinee would physiologically react to them.

Quote:
It's my understanding that people taking a polygraph usually are MUCH more concerned about one particular control question than the others, so I think that if all the control questions are showing very high reactions it might lead to suspicion.


It might well lead to suspicion, but the fact that a subject responds strongly to all "control" questions has not been demonstrated to be a reliable indication either of deception or countermeasure use.

Quote:
About the "challenge" that is the topic of this thread, how would using simulated crimes in a lab setting prove anything anyhow?  And it's certainly not practical or even possible to take the "challenge" using real polygraphs, so the "challenge" isn't realistic.  No wonder the "challenge" is ignored.


Dr. Richardson's challenge affords the polygraph community an opportunity to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures in a controlled setting under double-blind conditions. Considering the present absence of any credible evidence that polygraph operators can reliably detect countermeasures (and the existence of peer-reviewed research that suggests they can't), Dr. Richardson's challenge should be welcomed by any polygrapher who truly has confidence in his ability to detect countermeasures.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #153 - Feb 16th, 2005 at 8:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
OK, George, I have a few moments now to respond thoughtfully to your post. 
 
First of all, a confession.   When I made the post you quoted--which was, I recall, my first post on this forum--I wanted to appear as just another anxious, worried visitor.  I fully expected that none other than you, George, would reply to it, since it expresses apparent ignorance with regard to the polygraph, and I knew someone like you probably could not resist a chance to address my feigned ignorance and perhaps develop another unwitting convert to your cause.  Truth be told, I know all the answers to each question that I asked in that first post; however, I thought I'd ask those seemingly ignorant questions as a way of dipping a toe in the water, so to speak, to discover its true temperature.  In other words, I wanted to test you, George, in order to ascertain just how much true knowledge you had vs. how much tired, unfounded rhetoric you might also have.  I'm pleased to announce that my post had its desired effect.  You actually do possess some knowledge of the polygraph, albeit regurgitated knowledge you have obtained from books rather than actual experience.  In fact, I have little argument with some of your statements, which proves that you reguritate quite well.   Tongue  Of course, if we both just sit here and regurgitate, I think we'll make everyone sick, but sometimes it takes reguritation to fight regurgitation.   Undecided  At least my reguritation is backed up by actual experience.
 
That said, I'll take a few moments to respond to your response.  I won't really address all of your responses, since I already know the answers to my own questions.  However, I'd like to discuss countermeasures a bit.

With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you.  These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-" crowd-- such as yourself--so often rely.  I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice for you, George.  The studies I refer to are the following:

Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K.  (1996)  Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281.

Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108.

Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247.

Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees.  (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing.  Academic Press, 2002.)

What does that last statement mean to this forum, George?  It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge to your audience you are doing absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher.  Meanwhile, you are providing the guilty with knowledge that may help them avoid being detected altogether.  When seen in that light, so much for your forum being a service to the innocent.

With regard to your comments on the CQT and the R/I tests, I don't know that the R/I technique is really making a "comeback."  It never really left.  The NSA uses it almost exclusively.  However, I foresee the use of the DLT (directed lie test) increasing.  Also, the GKT, which is based on more sound scientific principles than the CQT and has been used by Japanese law enforcement almost exclusively with excellent results, may also be incorporated with more frequency within the U.S.  Finally, the BLT, an old standby, will never go away.  It's high in cholesterol, true, but yum, yum, yum!

One more thing.  The "challenge" which is the subject of this thread is an empty challenge.  Even if the pro-polygaph community were to accept such a challenge and "prove" its own agenda, the "pro-" people wouldn't really prove anything since they couldn't effectively equate their laboratory findings to the real world.  At the same time, the "anti-" crowd, which eagerly accepts any favorable laboratory study as "proof" of its own agenda, would justifiably, albeit uncharacteristically, reject such findings on the same basis.  So what's the point?  For those reasons, as well as such a study's prohibitive cost in dollars and time,  the "challenge" is ignored.






« Last Edit: Feb 16th, 2005 at 10:09pm by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #154 - Feb 17th, 2005 at 6:00am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
anythingformoney wrote on Feb 16th, 2005 at 8:52pm:
....With regard to countermeasures, there are several studies--some old, some new--to which I may refer you.  These studies are based almost entirely on laboratory experiments, upon which the "anti-" crowd-- such as yourself--so often rely.  I question the credibility and practicality of applying any laboratory study of the polygraph to the real world, but since the "anti-" crowd really has nothing but laboratory studies to support many of its arguments, these studies should suffice for you, George.  The studies I refer to are the following:

Ben-Shakhar, G. and Dolev, K.  (1996)  Psychophysiological detection through the guilty knowledge technique: the effects of mental countermeasures.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 273-281.

Elaad, E. and Ben-Shakhar, G. (1991) Effects of mental countermeasures on psychophysiological detection in the guilty knowledge test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 99-108.

Honts, C.R., Raskin, D.C. and Kircher, J.C. (1987) Effects of physical countermeasures and their electromyographic detection during polygraph tests for deception.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 241-247.

Now, what these studies show is that, while countermeasures may increase false negative outcomes (guilty suspects classified as "innocents"), they have absolutely no effect on innocent examinees.  (Ben-Shakhar, G. "A critical review of the control questiions test." Handbook of Polygraph Testing.  Academic Press, 2002.)

What does that last statement mean to this forum, George?  It means that by providing countermeasure knowledge to your audience you are doing absolutely nothing to help the innocent except make them screw with their own heads and possibly be detected by the polygrapher.  Meanwhile, you are providing the guilty with knowledge that may help them avoid being detected altogether.  When seen in that light, so much for your forum being a service to the innocent.

A.S.,

It is pretty obvious why countermeasures wouldn't help the "innocent" in GKT's. The most obvious one being that the innocent examinee is unaware of the specific knowledge associated with the crime. On a CQT, an innocent examinee is fully aware that reacting to the key question will likely have him/her found deceptive. Worse, innocent examinees with a modicum of independence and motivation will likely research the CQT and quickly discover the deception involved. This perhaps was less true in the one CQT study you cite that predates widespread internet access.


Quote:
With regard to your comments on the CQT and the R/I tests, I don't know that the R/I technique is really making a "comeback."  It never really left.  The NSA uses it almost exclusively.  However, I foresee the use of the DLT (directed lie test) increasing.  Also, the GKT, which is based on more sound scientific principles than the CQT and has been used by Japanese law enforcement almost exclusively with excellent results, may also be incorporated with more frequency within the U.S.


Increased use of the DLT does help alleviate some of the issues around informed examinees. It still needs, as the National Academy of Sciences recommends, serious validation efforts.

As for the GKT, it really would be a major step forward if it saw more use in forensics instead of CQTs. It has the potential, unrealized at this point, of widely being accepted in legal procedings. Other techniques (hi Drew!), which may identify awareness of information, may be less susceptable to CM's which can produce false negatives in GKTs.

One other point. Ben-Shakhar's CQT review in Kleiner's "Handbook" is quite worth reading. He addresses screening application of the CQT only in the last few paragraphs, where he describes the additional, inherent, flaws. Simply, he is strongly dismissive of CQT for screening.

Marty
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #155 - Feb 17th, 2005 at 2:51pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have no real argument with your arguments,  Marty.  Nice explanations, and you pointed the reader to additional information.  Yes, Ben-Shakhar is one of the more vocal critics of the CQT, but his findings regarding countermeasures both oppose and support my own personal views regarding the CQT.  He is indeed much more supportive of the GKT.

Regarding your comment about the internet and the CQT, I strongly agree.  One reason why I am here on this forum is because the internet has made it possible for the innocent, curious examinee to research the polygraph prior to his or her exam.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation on the Net regarding the polygraph--much more on this website than any other--and the innocent, curious examinee may use that misinformation to his or her downfall.  Meanwhile, some of the information on the Net--again, much more on this website than any other--may actually aid the guilty examinee in producing a false negative, something I would hope no "anti-" member of this forum or its administrators would actually condone.

Thank you for an intelligent post.  Intelligent posts are rare on this forum, and welcome.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #156 - Feb 17th, 2005 at 4:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
A.S.

In a couple of different posts you mention that various research has shown/indicated that countermeasures are more effective for the guilty examinee trying to "beat" the exam than for the innocent examinee trying to protect himself from the error inherent in the (presumably we are largely talking about the PLCQT) lie test.  Two points about the latter group of people and their examinations:

(1)  Clearly they would not have to be concerned regarding and to make a judgment about using countermeasures if you and your colleagues would cease and desist from using techniques (CQT exams in particular) that are rife with error, lacking any serious theoretical foundation and which are particular insidious for innocent examinees.  I am pleased to see you comment favorably about Gershon's work and opinion and hope that you are fully utilizing the considerably more sound and preferred concealed information tests.

(2) With regard to countermeasure effectiveness as employed by innocent examinees, I will suggest that much of the research you cite would not be expected to show anything about effectiveness in a real world setting.  Simulated crime studies have essentially no negative consequences for examinees (in fact many have the rather comical circumstance of positive rewards for passing polygraph exams in the absence of  negative consequences for failing the exam and no positive incentive for anyone to commit the crime(s) in the first place).  It is responsiveness to the negative consequences (imprisonment, job loss, etc.) connected with relevant issues that produces false positive results for innocent examinees in the real world.  In the absence of such consequences, there is very little for a properly applied countermeasure to be effective in thwarting.  Although a bit beyond a message board discussion, this leaves us with what I and the thousand plus individuals who have contacted me over the last decade have claimed and know...CQT examinations (particularly in a screening application) are producing untold numbers of false positive results across this country and elsewhere and need to be of concern to both agencies using these exams and the individuals placed in positions of having to take them.
« Last Edit: Feb 17th, 2005 at 5:02pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #157 - Feb 17th, 2005 at 10:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Actually, what I said, Drew, was that research shows that certain countermeasures may assist a guilty examinee in producing a false negative, but it also shows that those same countermeasures do absolutely nothing for the innocent examinee.  Other, very credible research I have cited that was done in field conditions shows that the CQT is 90.5% accurate when using independent examiners to review the raw data, and even more accurate when the original examiners were used.  Think about that for a moment.

Now, suppose we just throw the research away and go on common sense alone.  If the polygraph works much better than chance, as even the NAS claims, what would using countermeasures do for an innocent examinee?  Would it make the polygraph work even better?  If so, then I think that George and Company's scare tactics with the scared little boys and girls who run to this forum seeking answers are unfounded.

When you say that the CQT is producing "untold numbers of false positives," where is the evidence?  Do you have any idea how many polygraphs are done in the U.S. alone each year?  Well, I'm willing to bet that if you took all those polygraphs and subtracted the few people on this obscure forum who claim to have unjustly failed the polygraph, you would come out to about 98% accuracy for the polygraph.  The other 2% are here, Drew, bitching, whining and moaning.  And how much of that 2% actually deserved to fail the polygraph because, surprise, surprise, they were actually lying to a relevant issue?  You "anti-" people have an inflated opinion of yourselves and your silly forum.  Just because you come here and find 10, 100, or even 1000 people to agree with you, you in an extremely small minority.  The bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers are all here.  You who failed the polygraph--many or most of you justifiably--have a bone to pick while the world goes on around you.  The millions of others who passed the polygraph fair and square aren't here, Drew.  They have no reason to be.  They go about their daily lives, while mostly scared little boys and girls and those who feed their fears hang out here.

Don't worry, though--I will become bored with you all, and you can have your silly forum with your silly and mostly unfounded opinions all to yourselves.  The other 100 million or so people who have successfully passed the polygraph are mostly ignorant of your very existence.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sluggo
User
**
Offline



Posts: 27
Location: Dallas, TX
Joined: Jun 25th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #158 - Feb 17th, 2005 at 10:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Thank you for your input Dr. Richardson; I enjoy your insight.

-----
And AnalF... 

Quit flattering yourself by who responds to your postings, and on what you determine as, "Intelligent posts are rare on this forum, and welcome.".   

Most users of this website will debate notions of the actual value Polys provides to society.

BTW, I recently retook two polys I failed a few yrs back, as sort of as a 'piece of mind' kinda thing.  --And found that CMs can't be detected.

- Both poly operators had worked w/the Dallas Police dept. 
- Both were Cert for Sex Offender Testing.   
- One had over 13 yrs exp, one was coming up on 20. 
- One has been the past Chair Tx Asso of Poly Examers.   
- One used CQTs, the other used relevant/irrelavent Qs.

I used CMs in both (....since the truth didn't work the first times...).  I passed both (not that that matters, since they aren't reliable anyway...).

NEITHER "certified examiner" DETECTED CMs. 


So, there's your answer re: the ability of CM detection.

Also, I'm not an expert on using CMs, but they sure seem to work fine for us  novice types.  So, again, if it's so easy to trick this tricky machine.... what's the value of keeping them?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #159 - Feb 17th, 2005 at 10:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
So, which relevant issues did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use?  And are you sure you didn't just come up inconclusive on those polys and then squeak by the next time?  Remember, there is a chasm to leap from outright passing to outright failing a polygraph.

Also, I don't need to flatter myself on this forum.  Some of you flatter me enough when I simply read your sorry replies to my posts.  I am flattered simply by comparison.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #160 - Feb 18th, 2005 at 12:06am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Also, Drew, as I've said in another thread to George, I see other forms of polygraph with a bright future.  I see the R/I and CQT remaining steady, while the GKT and DLT are coming up strong on the outside.  I really do like the GKT, which is based on good scientific principles, and I favor the DLT over the CQT simply because it is less stressful for both the innocent examinee and the polygrapher.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sluggo
User
**
Offline



Posts: 27
Location: Dallas, TX
Joined: Jun 25th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #161 - Feb 18th, 2005 at 5:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Re: "So, which relevant issues did you lie to, and which countermeasures did you use?  And are you sure you didn't just come up inconclusive on those polys and then squeak by the next time? "

I didn't lie on the relevant Qs.  At no pt did I say I lied. 

I said I used CMs on the control Qs, and the CMs were undetected.  That's the pt of CMs; use them on the control Qs, right?

Failed both polys outright the first time. Went in w/the standard, "I have nothing to hide, so why would I need to research polys?" doctrine.  If you're interested, you can pull up my posting history. 

Had the poly examiners ask me the same relevant Qs as the first times.   

Passed both exams w/no inconclusive or "disception indicated" results this time.  --I do have hardcopies of the results.  Not that they're worth anything; it was just a 'piece of mind' thing.

But, you WOULD think, "there is a chasm to leap from outright passing to outright failing a polygraph. " .... but there wasn't.  Food for thought.  

Even goes to show the relability and consistancy of device... isn't.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #162 - Feb 18th, 2005 at 8:53am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Before I open up a can of whoop-ass on you ( Smiley), what, exactly, do you mean by "It was a peace of mind thing?"
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sluggo
User
**
Offline



Posts: 27
Location: Dallas, TX
Joined: Jun 25th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #163 - Feb 18th, 2005 at 7:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
A few yrs back, I initiated two polys at reputable firms to disprove two 'he said/she said' accusations. I told the truth both times, and failed both polys.  Turned my relation w/my wife upside down.

Since polys are still the industry's way of determining truth, it was just killing me to have poly records showing I lied on accusations, and I felt the need to initiated two more polys to clear my name, if you will.  The failures bothered me so much, that recently I paid $500 to retake the polys.   

Now I have two reports stating 'no deception indicated'  that offset the two that say I showed 'deception'. 

I haven't told my wife of the retakes; wouldn't make any difference now anyway.  It was just for... "piece of mind". 


Yes, I used CMs, but if the truth doesn't work, what can you do?

Pt being, that you thought CMs can be detected.  I went to two seasoned professionals of reputable status, and neither even questioned if there was use of CMs.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box AnalSphincter
Ex Member


Re: Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge
Reply #164 - Feb 19th, 2005 at 2:18am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Very peculiar that you would fail any polygraph that YOU paid to have done.  I have seen the questions used by hired examiners, and they don't often adequately address the relevant issue(s).  Hired polygraphers have a vested interest in PASSING those who hire them, so you obviously weren't getting your money's worth.

Finally, when you paid some more money, you got a hired gun to actually "clear" you, which is what I've seen hired polygraphers do with guilty defendants.  I'm not saying you were guilty of anything; I just find it curious that your hired gun didn't do the job he was paid to do.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 22
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X