Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Constricting your sphincter (Read 50174 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box X
Guest


Constricting your sphincter
Jul 18th, 2002 at 10:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
How do you do this? Do you push or what? Sorry for my ignorance. I just really never thought of how to constrict my SM. I hope that someone gets with me real soon, my interrogation is in 4 days.
  
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: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #1 - Jul 18th, 2002 at 11:07pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Constricting the anal sphincter muscle means tightening it, as one might to avoid the release of intestinal gas or a bowel movement, and not pushing (as one might when constipated, and which involves other muscles).

You might also consider alternatives to the anal sphincter contraction, such as the mental countermeasures or tongue bite that are also described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
  

George W. Maschke
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 X
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #2 - Jul 19th, 2002 at 12:04am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
You've got a great sense of hummer, thanks for clearing that up for me. When I read your reply I about choked on my own saliva. HE HE HE HE HE !!!  Cheesy   Grin  Cheesy   Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Batman (Guest)
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #3 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 1:12am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
This guy must be applying for the position of rocket scientist.

Mr. M, good thing you cleared this up for him or else he may have crapped his pants during the polygraph!  I believe your suggestion regarding the use of "mental" countermeasures may be a bit of a stretch for this one.

Gee, I really hope this genius beats his polygraph and gets hired into a position of trust.   We need more like him at all levels of law enforcement and government service.

By the way "X", what were you "interrogated" for, and how did it go?

Batman
  
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: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #4 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 1:37am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman wrote on Jul 25th, 2002 at 1:12am:
Gee, I really hope this genius beats his polygraph and gets hired into a position of trust.   We need more like him at all levels of law enforcement and government service.


Yes, then he can join the ranks of such federal employees as Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Brian Regan, Ana Montes, Karel F. Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin.... all of whom passed their screening and/or counterintelligence polygraphs.

It's quite funny when you hold yourself up as part of the solution, batman, when in reality you're part of the problem.
  

"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 Batman (Guest)
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #5 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 1:48am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ah Beech Trees, my old advisary.  Just what is the problem that I am a part of? 

Do you not agree that "X" may be somewhat short of a full load of bricks?  I think this is a fair assumption to make, and God knows, you always seem willing to make assumptions.

Wouldn't you too like to see him making decisions regarding national security, especially since he doesn't know whether to push or pinch.

Also, I wasn't aware that Ames "passed" his polygraph examination, or that Hanssen ever took one.  Please share.

Batman
  
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: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #6 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 6:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman wrote on Jul 25th, 2002 at 1:48am:
Ah Beech Trees, my old advisary.  Just what is the problem that I am a part of?


That would be the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy, BM. Surprised you didn't know that.

Quote:
Do you not agree that "X" may be somewhat short of a full load of bricks?  I think this is a fair assumption to make, and God knows, you always seem willing to make assumptions.


Please feel free to point out any erroneous assumptions you feel I have made.

Quote:
Wouldn't you too like to see him making decisions regarding national security, especially since he doesn't know whether to push or pinch.


I'm not certain bowel control is a prerequisite for federal employment, so I can't really comment on that, BM.

Quote:
Also, I wasn't aware that Ames "passed" his polygraph examination, or that Hanssen ever took one.  Please share.


I guess you haven't found the time to read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector yet, as you said you would be doing some time ago in a posting to George.

Since beginning his betrayal in 1985, Ames had passed two CIA polygraph “tests” during which he falsely denied having committed espionage, first on 2 May 1986 and again on 12 and 16 April 1991. In 1988–1989, while Ames was betraying his country, the CIA’s Office of Security—which had by that time realized that there was a mole in CIA’s ranks—wasted a year focusing its attention on an innocent employee who “had difficulty generally getting through routine polygraph examinations over the course of his CIA employment.” (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1994)The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, page 26

A casual perusal of the facts leads me to believe I was in error-- apparently Hanssen was never polygraphed, even though Freeh had ordered counterintelligence polygraphs for employees in Hanssens league some 7 years prior to his arrest.
  

"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 Batman (Guest)
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #7 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 3:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
My Dear Beach Trees,

Why so eager to attack?  Given the nature of some of your postings one might come to the conclusion you too are one of those no good polygraph interrogators.

As for me pointing out any "erroneous assumptions" you may have made, how about that being one of them.  I never said you made any "erroneous assumptions", I simply said you seem willing to make assumptions.  So I'm assuming you assumed I meant erroneous assumptions, which is in fact an erroneous assumption on your part.

Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy?  Again, an erroneous assumption on your part.

Re: "Bowel conrol being a prerequisite for federal employment", I just figured it was, since so many who post on this site seem so concerned about using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph, which on ocassion is a prerequisite for federal employment.  So I guess, by proxy, bowel control may be a prerequisite in the minds of some.

As for Ames: Do a little more "casual perusal of the facts" and you may find he did not in fact "pass" his exam in '91.  Given your misstatement of this fact and the phantom Hanssen polygraph you so freely mentioned, I have to question your accuracy on other topics.  Maybe you're no more accurate than what you claim the polygraph to be, a toss of a coin.

I have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced.  I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site.

Batman 

  
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: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #8 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 4:36pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman,

You say in part (in reply to beech trees):

Quote:
...I have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced.  I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site...


Your overall pleasure or displeasure (not really in doubt) and general impressions with The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are not as relevant or useful as any specific criticisms/commentary that you might offer.  I am quite sure that the authors would greatly appreciate any intellectually-honest critical review you might provide.
« Last Edit: Jul 25th, 2002 at 4:57pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Batman (Guest)
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #9 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 7:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew,

I did not say I was either pleased or displeased with the Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  I simply said I was not as impressed with it as others seem to be.  Even that statement leaves the door open that I may have been somewhat impressed with it, just not as much as others.

Must you and Beech Trees read something negative into every post that does not, on the surface, agree with your particular point of view?  Must the individuals who post on this site totaly capitulate to the anti-polygraph viewpoint, or grovel at the feet of the authors of the Lie Behind the Lie Detector before they are free from attack by the likes of you, and Beech Trees?  Must they check their sense of humor at the door before they can enter?

Come on a Drew, stop wearing you pants so high and tight and lighten up just a bit.  In the big scheme of things, this issue about polygraph is small potatoes to the great, great majority of people.  It's not even a blip on their radar screens.

I have also read The Catcher in the Rye as well as Romeo and Juliet.  My overall "general impressions" of those particular writings may not be relevant either, however any "specific criticisms/commentary" I may offer on those would probably be as readily accepted in litirary circles as anything I would offer on the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be here.  In other words Drew, trying to offer any criticism of that document on this site would be like spitting into the wind or tugging on Superman's cape; and Batman would never waste his time tugging on Superman's cape. 

Over to you Mr. Trees.

Batman
  
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: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #10 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 7:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman wrote on Jul 25th, 2002 at 3:54pm:
Why so eager to attack?


How am I attacking?

Quote:
Given the nature of some of your postings one might come to the conclusion you too are one of those no good polygraph interrogators.


A peculiar conclusion.

Quote:
As for me pointing out any "erroneous assumptions" you may have made, how about that being one of them.  I never said you made any "erroneous assumptions", I simply said you seem willing to make assumptions.


I had hoped it would be understood one would not need to point out correct assumptions, as those would not require further discussion/elucidation, thus I specified 'erroneous assumptions' for the purposes of further debate.

Quote:
Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy?  Again, an erroneous assumption on your part.


I see.

Quote:
As for Ames: Do a little more "casual perusal of the facts" and you may find he did not in fact "pass" his exam in '91.


OK, I'll look for that. Would you mind quoting a source for that fact?

Quote:
Given your misstatement of this fact and the phantom Hanssen polygraph you so freely mentioned, I have to question your accuracy on other topics.  Maybe you're no more accurate than what you claim the polygraph to be, a toss of a coin.


I don't believe I'm in error with regard to Aldrich Ames. Revisionist 'post polygraph computer analysis' notwithstanding, Ames passed all of his polygraphs. With regard to Hanssen, yes, I made an error. It's hard to keep the list of spies and raconteurs who have been given a pass by polygraphers whilst they damage government security with impunity straight sometimes. I'm comfortable with the assertion that the overwhelming majority of hard facts I post here is correct-- again feel free to bring up any facts you feel are in dispute.

Quote:
I have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced.  I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site.


Thanks for sharing. In my opinion, lapsing into specious word games is a waste of valuable time.
  

"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 Batman (Guest)
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #11 - Jul 25th, 2002 at 11:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Geese Beech Tree, conversing with you guys is like being the odd man out in a WWF tag team match.  First you get in the ring and take a few shots, then slap the old tag on the Drewmeister so he can come in and throw a few punches, then he gives you the wink and a nod, and slam, bam, thank you sam, you're back in the ring.  Wow, you guys are so good one might think you're all the same person, or possibly all connected at the hip.

Anyway, do I really need to tell you when you're attacking?  My God man, just look in the mirror, when your teeth are bared, you're attacking.  When anyone gets on this site and questions certain motives, or someones credentials, or tries to defend the use of polygraph in any way, you're attacking.  When you're typing on the keyboard, you're attacking.   I would consider you to be Mr. M's alter ego.  He comes in with the sugar, and you slide around the back door with the rabbit punches.

The "conclusion" about you possibly being a polygraph interrogator, that was a joke my man.  There is no way anyone would mistake you for being in that particular field.  (On your next post I expect you to comment about how proud you are not to be in that field or something to that effect.  Don't let me down.)

Interesting how you make an erroneous assumption and when called on it you state it was only done to "further debate."  How magnanimous of you.

As for Mr. Ames, sorry, can't disclose my sources.  I know that's not fair, however I do believe there has been some public documentation of the fact his last polygraph was not NDI as originally reported by the media when his stuff hit the fan.  I also believe this non-NDI conclusion was reached at exam time (not several years later with the development of polygraph algorythms), but ignored by the "system" due to his lofty position within the agency.  Possibly not as much weight was put on the polygraph results as should have been.

And lastly, I'm comfortable that you're comfortable.  Now if we could just get the Drewmeister to loosen up those tight drawers of his maybe he would be comfortable too.

Batman
  
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: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #12 - Jul 26th, 2002 at 12:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman,

Because there exists a paucity of logic on your side when it comes to polygraph screening discussions, if I were in your shoes, I would make an effort to struggle with humor too.  That having been said, I usually leave a discussion of my drawers (boxers or briefs you ask?) to the ladies of my life.  Perhaps you might care to return to polygraph screening.

With regard to your input into the LBTLD, I can assure you that the authors of this sight would love to have any shred of useful input and correction offered by polygraphers...if for no other reason than to demonstrate that they were open to it.  Unfortunately none (or very little) has been forthcoming.  I challenge you to redouble your efforts, read or re-read, offer your commentary, and try to prove me wrong on this issue by showing anything that was rejected out of hand...  Cheers,

Drew Richardson
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Batman (Guest)
Guest


Re: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #13 - Jul 26th, 2002 at 2:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
No Drew my man, I don't care to return to polygraph screening, it bores me, and frankly, I don't think it's worth a tinkers damn. 

However I would like to continue on the topic of the ladies in your life, since you felt compelled to mention them. We'll start with a simple question, why did you feel compelled to mention the "ladies in your life"?  I find that to be an interesting twist.  Also, I talk pants and you hear drawers, boxers, or briefs.  Very interesting indeed.  We could probably spend days working our way through this "thread". 

As for inputs from polygraphers regarding the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I guess you'll just have to find a polygrapher to give you those.  Me, I'm just taking it all in, enjoying the interface with the malcontents.

Regarding one little polygraph issue though, where you still with the FBI when the Ames case broke?  What is your take on whether or not he "passed" his '91 polygraph as Beech Trees contends?  Or was he possibly Inconclusive or maybe even DI?

Beech Trees, I do believe the tag has been made, your in the ring now!

Batman
  
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: Constricting your sphincter
Reply #14 - Jul 26th, 2002 at 5:15am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman,

As I recall the Ames case broke in 1993; yes I was doing polygraph research for the Bureau in 1991, but did not and have not seen the Ames charts.  My guess about that is that a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking has gone on since that time, conveniently reading who knows what into those charts.  My suggestion many years ago, was to take the Ames charts, the charts of the 100 exams before and the 100 exams following the Ames exam, remove all identifying marks and have a group of examiners who had never seen any of the charts pick the spy out of the 201 sets of charts.  As best I can tell my suggestion was never followed up on...

I'm glad to know we share the same opinion of polygraph screening.  At some point I wish you and others who have expressed similar opinions would publicly join those of us who have already so condemned this form of testing.  I believe only then can we make some serious progress with specific issue testing and some of the interview issues you have raised.

Cheers and have a pleasant weekend.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Constricting your sphincter

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