Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 1:20pm:



Unfortunately, you appear to have entirely missed the import of Dr R's challenge. It was not a simple 
endeavour as you surreptitiously infer. It was a challenge to the industry. The results of which could
impact seriously and negatively on the p/g industry finally and forever.

It is precisely that hidden danger that the industry cannot afford to face. Thus it remains silent,
whilst you shout out hysterically at the danger. 

LBCB, you are indeed a cry baby. Your lone, insignificant reverse challenge carries no threat and
and thus warrants no relevant response.

But hey, you're still special Sunshine. 

LieBabyCryBaby,

Your question to Dr. Richardson was:

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Dec 13^th, 2006 at 11:33pm:


Dr. Richarson responded:

Quote:


Unsatisfied with that response, you've repeated, with much innuendo, that you and he "both know why" he "failed to respond" to your "simple question." 1904 invited you to "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think / know his answer to be?" You responded:

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Aug 28^th, 2007 at 12:46am:


Now that's an evasive answer! 1904 clearly read what you wrote. Did you read what he wrote?

As for the polygraph community's professed ability to detect polygraph countermeasures, the fact remains that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. To this day, there is not a single journal article or book chapter on how to reliably detect countermeasures. There is no evidence that actually using countermeasures increases the risk that one will be accused of using them, or that not using them lessens that risk. (I myself was falsely accused of using polygraph countermeasures at a time when I didn't even know what they were.)

Earlier this year, in a videotaped polygraph examination conducted for evidentiary purposes, no less a polygraph expert than Dr. Louis I. Rovner, Ph.D. tried to discourage countermeasure use by falsely claiming that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is "bogus," even though he later testified under oath in court that it "is so thorough and complete it's just breathtaking how good and accurate the information is." Rovner further felt the need to slander me personally (among other things, he falsely suggested to his examinee that I am a fugitive from justice) and to falsely tell the examinee that the irrelevant questions were "control" questions (a simplistic ruse that would fool only the most simpleminded of examinees). Dr. Rovner's recent behavior does not bespeak one who is confident of his ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.

If using polygraph countermeasures (which the polygraph community has no demonstrated ability to detect) is a "roll of the dice," submitting to a pseudoscientific polygraph "test" without the protection of countermeasures is a roll of the Russian roulette wheel.

digithead wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2007 at 5:03am:

I noticed this, too.

A test regarding the ability of examiners to detect countermeasures would be, in LBCB's opinion, worthless because real world stress cannot be duplicated in the lab.

So, do they base their belief that the polygraph is accurate on a lack of clinical evidence?  Because their results are consistent with their "gut feelings"?  I would assume it is easy to support any point of view if you disregard any clinical evidence that does not support your opinion, and tout that which does.

There seems to be a dichotomy here.

Quote:


1904, you and others like you will always have the last word on this forum.  You bore me because you have nothing substantial to say.  You can always make big claims--which are unfounded because you have no experience with conducting polygraph exams--and you will never have to back them up because no one is interested in your or Dr. Richardson's "challenge."  The polygraph community has no interest in you personally, and we know that Dr. Richardson hasn't got a leg to stand on either.  What we do have is that we are already comfortably entrenched in the system with no reason to leave and nothing to prove.

It is not a contradiction to admit that the polygraph process is not perfect, either.  But admitting that is far from conceding that the polygraph should be abolished. Most polygraph examinees will continue to pass the polygraph without countermeasures, and the world is not very interested in this forum.  When people post on any forum like this, they tend to develop the naive attitude that the rest of the world actually cares about what they have to say.  It's like a child's egocentric view of the world--the juvenile view that whatever I think and do is the center of the universe, and everything else revolves around me.   Nothing you or I say on this forum will change anything.  That's why, as I've said before, it is kind of sad that George Maschke would waste so much of his time with managing this website.  When he is on his deathbed and thinking about what he did with life, isn't it sad that he will have to accept that he spent so much of his life on this worthless forum? I think so.

I know that Dr. Richardson can not answer my question because he is simply a "poser" who a few misguided people on this forum have put on a pedestal and accepted as an expert.  My question will remain unanswered because he can not answer it, and because he probably feels it is as worthless to attempt an answer as the polygraph community feels it is to respond to his empty "challenge."

Now, go ahead and have the last word, 1904.  You have no experience or expertise to speak of, yet you will undoubtedly continue to pretend.  You're nothing special at all, "sunshine." 

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2007 at 6:05pm:


Indeed, polygraphers are comfortably entrenched within federal, state, and local government agencies. But that doesn't mean they have nothing to prove when it comes to countermeasures. Polygraphers, including yourself, want the public to believe that you have the ability to reliably detect polygraph countermeasures. At least to that extent, you've got something to prove. Don't you agree?

Quote:


Agreed.

Quote:


I don't think anyone posting here suffers from the delusion that this forum is somehow the center of the universe. Polygraphy is an arcane pseudoscience that is of exceedingly little interest whether to the scientific community or to the world community at large.

However, for those whose lives are or have been affected by the pseudoscience of polygraphy, this message board serves as an important forum for open discussion and debate of polygraph issues.

Quote:


Not true. The key thing that's being changed here is public awareness and understanding of polygraphy -- in particular the awareness and understanding of that portion of the population most likely to face polygraph "testing."

Quote:


I shall have considerably fewer regrets about having worked to expose and end a pseudoscientific fraud than I should had I spent my days as a practitioner of the same. Instead of fantasizing about my deathbed regrets, perhaps you should contemplate your own?

Quote:


You purport to know the answer to your "unanswered" question, so why don't you, as 1904 suggested, "spare us the ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think/know his answer to be?"

Quote:


No, George, we have nothing to prove to anyone.  Because we are entrenched in the system, and because polygraph is so widely used and accepted by so many agencies, why would we feel the need to prove anything?  We don't really care what you think, so why should we try to prove anything to you?  You failed your FBI polygraph not by simply failing one relevant question on the test, but by failing all of them.  That's pretty much unheard of in polygraph, and I've never experienced it myself in all the exams I've conducted.  So, you are simply a polygraph failure with no practical experience other than failing a polygraph.  Who needs to prove anything to you?

I have no regrets about being a polygraph "practitioner."  It gets me a paycheck, and it keeps many of the wrong people from getting into law enforcement.  I earn a living this way, which enables me to enjoy many things in life.  Can you say that about your obsession with your forum?

Finally, I never puported to know Dr. Richardson's answer.  He really doesn't have one, so I could only guess what kind of lame attempt he might make.  His ridiculous challenge goes unanswered because it is not worth answering, and my question goes unanswered because he really has no good answer.  It's a no-win situation for him.

LBCB:

Telling the truth and failing all relevant questions is not unheard of in polygraph testing, particularly when the true answer is no.  I’ll not challenge your mind with the simple statistics and psychology behind this Sir.  However, I must point out that when polygraph tests are used in employment screening, a fallacious machine often rejects the applicant outright and the real truth is never determined.