Interesting information, JPW. I have previously pointed out that Dr. Richardson is a phony with no practical experience in polygraphy, but this latest information does shed some light on his motivations.

George, you might as well ban me too, since it is apparent that JPW was getting the best of you and the other phonies on this website, and you don't want any serious opposition making you appear foolish. He correctly pointed out that you, Gino Scalabrini and Drew Richardson each lack any practical experience in the field of polygraphy, and that you are not the experts you portray yourselves to be. Call his accurate descriptions of you an attack on characters and motives if you will, but that's just a poor excuse for your own cowardice in facing someone with actual experience and credentials when you have none of your own.

Also, how do you know that JPW, Van Arsdale, and this "Sancho" character are the same guy? Is it your common practice to troll for IP addresses, or what? Does it really make any difference whether someone posts under different names, as long as the two names aren't simultaneously playing off each other for support? You've got Cullen using two names, and I'm sure there are other "anti-" posters who are also using multiple names on this website.

George sure allows a lot of scum to float here on his little pond. Which makes it all the more cowardly and feeble-minded to ban those who actually have some experience in polygraphy. I guess the name of this website does say it all, just as Sergeant has pointed out: AntiPolygraph.org.  Not a place for serious discussion unless you happen to share George's inexperienced, unqualified views.

Your reasoning is faulty, Sergeant. If you were to go to a "pro-" polygraph site, you would still be unqualified to express any firm opinion other than something you got second-hand. I don't really have a problem with someone like you saying that they don't like the polygraph, that they don't think the process was fair to them, or that there are lab studies that support what they feel. What I do oppose is someone like you calling polygraph a "pseudoscience," a "sham" or a "fraud" when you have no experience or training in the subject. It's one thing to point out what recognized experts in the field have to say and to tell others that you agree with those experts. It's quite another thing to act as though George Maschke and other equally unqualified people are experts in the field simply because they have a website.

Were you to go to a "pro-" polygraph website and contually point out that polygraphers might have a vested interest in keeping the polygraph going, in ADDITION to their experience and belief in the process, which is a possible cause for bias, there's nothing wrong with that.  If you kept at it, you'd sure be a boring non-expert, and you might get some polygraphers riled up, but nothing you claimed as fact about the polygraph itself could be taken seriously because you have no foundation to support your claims.  Maybe you would be banned and maybe not. You might be banned simply because you couldn't come up with anything better than the factual statement that polygraphers might be biased in favor of the polygraph because its their job to conduct polygraph exams, and you might be viewed as just taking up space on a subject expressed ad nauseum in your hundreds of posts. Anything more than that would be viewed as an amateur among experts.

Here on this forum, things are quite different, though. Only the polygraphers who occasionally come here because it's an entertaining, well-designed website really have a leg to stand on in making solid claims about polygraphy. Everyone else is, like George, a non-expert due to no practical experience or training in the subject, a polygraph failure with a grudge, or simply a concerned future examinee who mistakenly stumbles on this website because it's the first one that comes up when he/she types the word polygraph in the web browser.

So, when George bans polygraph experts from this website, claiming that they are only here to attack characters and "troll," it is not really justified, but rather "chicken shit."

Reading through these forums, it's people like George that restore my faith in humanity, and people like crybaby that loose my faith in it. 

What a bunch of BS if I ever saw it... all these respected institutions, and many investigations showing just how false this practice is, and just how those sad little shits otherwise known as polygraph examiners employ every dirty trick there is to try to get false positives etc, it is truly sickening. All with greed in mind. As usual with corruption, FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Sorry to double post, but It's just so absurd that Liebabycrybaby thinks you have to go pay to get a piece of paper stating you've been thoroughly brainwashed into believing the B.S. behind "lie detectors" in order to be knowledgeable. As if the knowledge isn't widely available and as if you can't study everything about them INCLUDING Scientific studies in order to form a pointed factual opinion about them. It goes to show how thoroughly brainwashed polygraph examiners are, they literally think it can't be wrong or something. its insane.