Torpedo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2003 at 4:55am:


Torpedo,

Get yourself some Immodium AD.  Your apparent case of diarrhea is making you go through your "big word of the day" toilet paper WAY too fast.

Thought I'd throw this post in the ring, since you are more into attacking the man (BT, Michelle, etc.) than actually providing any intellectual discussion.

Chris

Quote:


Wow -- talk about a juvenile comment.  You guys really amaze me sometimes.

Quote:


I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "the test works".  The National Academy of Sciences seems to have concluded that even when the "test" "works", it doesn't work very well.  Perhaps you'd care to address the scientific evidence on the issue?

Quote:


Given the scientific evidence that indicates how unreliable polygraphs are, can you honestly sleep well at night knowing that, bottom line your "test" finds innocent people deceptive and averts suspicion from the guilty? It is dependence upon your snake oil that enables the guilty to go free, not the actions of whistleblowers who call attention to the flaws in the system.

Skeptic

Time for a mother of three children to chime in. 

I have a son, 13, and two girls, ages 7 and 3.  If any person just minutes into turning 18 or older has sex with any of then, I will do everything in my power to have them prosecuted.  I would fight long and hard against the polygraph being used in ANY shape or form in any probation.  I know the weakness of the polygraph, and I would hire an attorney just to be certain that this coin toss was not allowed to blindly pretent to be an effective and true control over an offender.

If one of my children have sex with someone under the age of 18 once they turn 18, they deserve the exact same treatment.  I find it irrelevant if the younger child is having sex already with kids their own ages.  I cannot and will not lay blame or shame at the feet of the younger one, for to do so would be to hold our laws and social controls in contempt.   

It has been suggested that a 19 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl is nothing more than bad judgement.  It has also been said that high school kids are having sex -- most often with other classmates -- and that this is justification for not being so harsh on a 19 year old for having sex with a girl this young.  Well, this is what society has deemed to be rational and the norm.  Society has said that at some point you must be held accountable and responsible for your activities. For sex, it is at age 18.  For alcohol, it is 21.  No one grows up in this society and is not fully aware of the consequences of breaking these laws.  Therefore, I see no rationalization in any arguement to the contrary.

Bottom line here, it is not up to the children under the legal age of consent (it varies from state to state) to stop from engaging in sexual activity with anyone over the age of 18, but the responsibility of the person over the age of 18 to not give in to or be lured by sexual activity with one under that age.

Torpedo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2003 at 7:02am:


A fairly cogent argument? No wonder our legal system is in such a shambles-- it is partially comprised of individuals who feel that 'Guest's argument was 'fairly cogent'. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Quote:


Please, Torpid-o, you see the pitiful material I have to work with.... perhaps if one of you somehow rise to the level of discourse we used to enjoy here you will once again see that which you so desperately miss.

Quote:


Rather ironic, this last statement. Men and women contribute detailed accounts of how their personal and professional lives are totally destroyed through the systematic abuse by the polygraph, and they are labeled 'whiners' by polygraphers. Yet look at the girlish, high-pitched mewling above and tell me the author of same is not one of the biggest whiners to walk the Earth.

Quote:


You apparently were distracted by a shiny object before you read that portion of my post that stated:

Where despicable acts by the individual polygraphers who post here merit attention, they are duly noted, commented upon, and generally pointed out by myself or others.

Skeptic,

I was only using 18 as a reference point, ie: vote, be drafted (if there was a draft (and if you are a male)) etc...  I did not intend to infer/imply that 18 y/o was the law of the land.

I do believe Seeker was dead on target with her last post:
Quote:

Hmmm. Beech Trees, you are a treasure trove to any number of psycho-analyists.  Many of us took note of your attack on me about "working with 6th grade girls"...and then a subsequent comment about "girlish high pitched mewling"...is one left with the premise that you might very well be obsessed with young girls...whew!...I hope not...you are way to valuable on this site.

Steincj....for your information, I have attempted many, many times to engage in a discussion with various people on this board....in many cases to no avail. Even to the point of changing the names under which I posted and trying another tact in the event those who responded were "poisoned" to my comments. The vast majority of the anti-polygraph community are so narrow minded and mired in their position that they absolutely will not engage in any meaningful discussion.  You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them.  When people call us "pigs" and "butt cheek checkers" and "cowards" among other childish ad hominem attacks, you have got to expect a response in kind. True enough, my responses may add little to the discussion, but I will not sit back and have people like him attack me with no response forthcoming.  Just because you write in favor of him, does not mean he is right...anymore than I am right. I just do not have a champion as he apparently does in you.  But if you choose to admonish one...then admonish all.

And for the record:

Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed.  We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board.  When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.

Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said

Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here.  Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.

Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it.  I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures.  I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it.  I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.

I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind.  That's okay, I can deal with that.  But to "teach" people what to do to defeat polygraph is foolish...IMHO.   

I know that I have opened the door and the responses I will get from this will just exasperate me even more.  I know I cannot win any of you over.  I don;t care if I can or not.  When your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.

There are numerous people who write on this board whose knowledge of polygraph is derived from movies and television.  In most cases, in case you did not know this, professional polygraphers, bristle at some of the things we see on television.  Polygraphers cannot control who or what appears in these media.  If an examiner does something untoward and is a member of an association, that association does take action in that regard.  If a state  has a licensing provision and this type of behavior is prohibited then that organization takes care of the offending person.  Unfortunately, there are too many states that do not have licensing laws.  Most of the professional organizations have lobbied hard for universal licensing, but some states just won't accept that premise.  In my opinion, I harbor serious doubts that when a federal examiner is accused of some transgression, it is true.  They are under far too much scrutiny and most simply would not risk their careers to do some of the things of which they have been accused.

Okay, there is some discussion points fromme.  Despite what some have said I have stated some cogent points.  Like I said, they will not be accepted.  I know this...and it matters not to me.  I know that when I give an examination, it is the very best that I can provide based on the training that I have received.  I can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing.  I work hard top protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.

Annoymouse:  I prefer not to divulge that information if it is all the same to you.  I do not mean to sound discourteous, but I doubt that now has any bearing whatsoever on anything I might write or say now or in the future.