Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Passed the mandatory maintanance exam (Read 25928 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #15 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 5:58am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Torpedo wrote on Feb 28th, 2003 at 4:55am:
. . . provides a modicom (ooh look a three syllable word) of protection  . . .

. . . Your diatribe (oops, another one of those 25 cent words) might make . . .


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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Torpedo
Senior User
***
Offline


AKA Geen Lantern

Posts: 86
Joined: Jan 9th, 2003
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #16 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 7:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
C'mon Chris....he went on the warpath over what I think was a fairly cogent argument.  Despite what he said, it did NOT sound lke the Beech Trees of old...and seeing how he has taken a fair number of pretty mean shots at me (and the Justice League)...I thought I would have a little fun wth him.  But fair is fair....I get my tail chewed out by you...and when he calls me a "butt-cheek checker", he gets off without so much as a word from you.  Must be "army justice"
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #17 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 7:43am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Verbatim....you really, really confuse me (No, Michelle, aka Thunder Thighs,  I am NOT "Confused")


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

Quote:
My friend, the test works, you may believe what you want.  It matters not to me.


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:
The second part of this post should be addressed to George (and Gino) as purveyors of this site.  This is the very situation that many of the polygraphers have been talking about.  Aren't you proud of yourself?  This is not a typical example, because of the nature of the offense, the apparent lack of continuing illegal behavior (assuming he is truthful about that).  He acknowledges using your information in TLBTLD to help him pass the test.  Can you honestly sleep well at night knowing that, bottom line you are training "bad" people to "beat the test".


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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #18 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 8:15am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Torpedo wrote on Feb 28th, 2003 at 7:02am:
C'mon Chris....he went on the warpath over what I think was a fairly cogent argument.  Despite what he said, it did NOT sound lke the Beech Trees of old...and seeing how he has taken a fair number of pretty mean shots at me (and the Justice League)...I thought I would have a little fun wth him.  But fair is fair....I get my tail chewed out by you...and when he calls me a "butt-cheek checker", he gets off without so much as a word from you.  Must be "army justice"


Torpedo,

Every person deserves the right to defend themselves.  You did make personal attacks on BT before he made his comments to you.  

Unfortuantely, there aren't many on this site who think you are capable of making  a "fairly cogent argument."  I try my best to read your posts and see what you are trying to convey, but sifting through the playground potshots, personal attacks, poor grammar, and ass kissing of Batman is a tedious job.  I really think yo would be better served if you left the schoolhouse slander to the teenagers.  Getting a kick out of calling someone Thunder Thighs??  Please . . . .

What I find funny is that you ask me for a definition of justice.  Honestly, after what has happened to me, I don't know what justice is anymore.  And you should know better than to ask me about justice, since you all constantly label me as "jaded."  

Chris
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Seeker
Very Senior User
****
Offline


"There are only two sins:
 The first is to interfere
with the growth of another
human being, and the
second is to interfere
with one's own growth."
 Anonymous

Posts: 128
Location: Roanoke, VA
Joined: Oct 19th, 2002
Gender: Female
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #19 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 9:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #20 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 9:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I believe 18 in the eyes of the law makes you legal.  I think the 15 y/o's parents might agree with me on that.  What if it were your daughter or what if she were 14, 13?  Where is the line to be drawn?    


Shadow,
In many states, it's "16", not "18".

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #21 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 5:18pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Torpedo wrote on Feb 28th, 2003 at 7:02am:
C'mon Chris....he went on the warpath over what I think was a fairly cogent argument.


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:
Despite what he said, it did NOT sound lke the Beech Trees of old


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:
But fair is fair....I get my tail chewed out by you...and when he calls me a "butt-cheek checker", he gets off without so much as a word from you.  Must be "army justice"


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:
One other point (while I have you in a semi-lucid state) Aren't you the guy that said you were NOT antipolygrapher....that you were "only" anti-polygraph?  Your diatribe (oops, another one of those 25 cent words) might make one think otherwise.


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.
« Last Edit: Feb 28th, 2003 at 6:10pm by beech trees »  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Boston Blackie
Guest


Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #22 - Feb 28th, 2003 at 9:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Seeker wrote on Feb 28th, 2003 at 9:40am:
Time for a mother of three children to chime in.

I do not always agree with you.  This time you are right on the money. Your children are lucky to have you. God Bless!
I agree with 95% ofyour post especially the last paragraph.
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.
Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The Shadow
User
**
Offline


Who knows what evil lurks
in the hearts of men?
 The Shadow knows

Posts: 29
Joined: Feb 27th, 2003
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #23 - Mar 1st, 2003 at 2:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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:
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.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #24 - Mar 1st, 2003 at 3:26am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Quote:
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:



Shadow,
I agree.

Skeptic
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Torpedo
Senior User
***
Offline


AKA Geen Lantern

Posts: 86
Joined: Jan 9th, 2003
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #25 - Mar 3rd, 2003 at 6:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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. Wink Wink Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #26 - Mar 3rd, 2003 at 8:51pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Torpedo wrote on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 6:37pm:
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. Wink Wink Grin


Torpedo,

Again, you provide no intellect in your posts, and again you favor the ad hominem attack.  

No one respects you when you do this, and it is only funny to your schoolhouse mentality.

If you want your posts to get some respect, add some content.  I know it is a novel concept for you.  You might want to check out posts of The_Breeze to see how it is done.  Even Batman adds content to an argument (although these instances are very infrequent).  

Why don't you start by telling all of us how you stand on all issues regarding the polygraph.  For example, I'll start:

Pre-emplyment screening -- I'm against it
Security screening -- I'm against it
Event specific testing -- I'm for it
Use of Countermeasures -- I'm against it

Now, Torpedo, if you did the same, we could discuss some of these issues.  

Or if you want to play the playground rank out game, well , then no one will respect or listen to you, and you will continue to tarnish the name "polygrapher."

Chris
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Torpedo
Senior User
***
Offline


AKA Geen Lantern

Posts: 86
Joined: Jan 9th, 2003
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #27 - Mar 3rd, 2003 at 11:17pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box anonymouse
Guest


Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #28 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 12:01am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Just wondering torpedo, what was the screen name under which you used to post?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Torpedo
Senior User
***
Offline


AKA Geen Lantern

Posts: 86
Joined: Jan 9th, 2003
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #29 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 12:42am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Passed the mandatory maintanance exam

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
                       
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