George
Thanks for remembering me. Believe it or not I hav'nt cared to log on for this period since I had work to do, which I found far more serious.  Reading the posts in my absence show me that not much has changed.
I guess I touched a nerve with you when I referenced your testimony before NAS.  I refer to your comments about providing a statement to your FBI inquisitors, explaining what was going through your mind when you failed your polygraph.  When I utilize this after a criminal wants to further explain (relax, I did'nt say you were a criminal) something he neglected to state up front in his initial interview, I call this an admission.  My understanding of this in your case is that it disqualified you.  Would you like to explain what was necessary to commit to paper as an excuse for a reaction, if you were completely candid on your application?  I am having a hard time painting the FBI as the reckless destroyer of qualified applicants as portrayed here.  Maybe your applicant statement could be posted on the site? FOIA put to good use?
You further refused to acknowledge the question line as put to you about "level or error", and dodged the questions/ comparisions about backgrounds being likewise flawed and unstandardized.  I found your testimony evasive.  My comments reflect that.  You can become comfortable with the idea that I do not care for your motives or your method.  To fail a polygraph unnecessarily is regrettable, to help those that would defeat our security process (as flawed as it is) in my view is criminal.  You do this because of hatred of a tool that you believe harmed you.  As a smart guy, you know many processes lack total effectiveness, diagnostic or otherwise- I named a few in an earlier post which you also dodged.  To say "its hard to live down a false positive" as a reason for abolishing polygraph is disingenuous.  Applicants failing unstandardized, flawed background checks holding thier heads high and feeling good about themselves?  Polygraph accorded undue weight? What agency do you work for again, and how would you have any idea of how an administer views these results (other than FBI)?  Sorry George, this is about you.  If you lost your security clearence there was cause.  My wife used to do security clearences for the Govt. (really beech)
And from what she has told me its quite a process not taken lightly, with many safeguards for the employee.

Let me just address all my friends:
Lets not get worked up about my credit rating or lack of one, I was having a back and forth with a person in the business.  I dont think It says anything but that I pay bills on time.  Sorry some felt I was trying to inflate my worth, actually I could care less.  I realize I am not among friends here as someone who does not fear the polygraph.

Star2be00.  What can I make of your comments, except you would not talk like that to me in person.  Heres your first free lesson in Law Enforcement: If you have to look right and left before you do something (or say something) dont do it.  Kicked in the face? Little late for that advice. I hope you will learn to watch your anger if you ever make it to the streets.  If these exchanges get you worked up, how about getting thrown up on? think about it...Hello!

My friend BT, who lacks credentials, but not vigor- you seem to be the resident defender of the spy line so here is a thought for you.  Do you think anything really comes out of the CIA in a completely unsanitized form? Do we have any idea (and would the CIA tell us) of polygraph success, or the deterrant effect that you folks would erode?  When I bring up a spy who was DI, George tells me that based on one account it looked like he became a spy after being wrongly found deceptive on a polygraph!  I thought the CIA polygraphed on hiring, and then every 5 years or so.  Why was a new case officer tested?.  Do you know? I dont -and I dont like to fill in blanks wondering or trying to advance a position. He had FBI sitting on his house because he might become a spy? He was not fired for being a drunk though, I promise you.   
Im pretty much done here, I leave like I began- not really expecting to change minds but looking for info.  Too many observers here are far too willing to take a statement of a frusturated applicant as gospel.  From having worked with applicants, I have found a reluctance on thier part (very natural) to disclose honestly every answer asked for.  Ours has over 200 questions.  So when I say people lie, I can back it up.  Sorry if that offends any of the breathless here, its just life.  Start living yours with objectivity, and you will find the "advice" here hollow and self serving.

The Breeze,

star2be wrote to you, quoting an earlier post of yours:

Quote:


to which you replied:

Quote:
 

On what basis do you say that star2be00 would not talk to you like that in person? Would you physically intimidate him/her?

Regardless of what star2be00 would or would not say to you in person, it appears that you would not make the libelous accusations you have made against me in person, since you even seem to be afraid to state such using your real name.

Whomever:
Fascinating retorts and speculation about my personal courage.  As always, when I am on this site I have the overwhelming feeling of being surrounded by carping wannabees.  What you call cutting and running, I call doing my job, being on travel, even a brief stint in the ER for an accident injury and of course the general feeling that logging on and responding to such a group is so wasteful. (but interesting)
I wont answer tough questions? like the one I put to Beech Tree about his credentials and why does anyone need to respond to someone who has one source and starry eyes?....still waiting. You folks only answer me specifically when it suits you, or have you not noticed?
I dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do.  Plus its none of your business, and certainly does not diminish any point Im trying to make. I could care less what your real names are. Your faithfull share this preference if you will note.  I obviously do not have the time to devote here as you all do as I am gainfully employed- this is not evasion.  Who would oppress the innocent if I logged in all day?
And George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened.  I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
My comments to starwannabee are simple.  He portrayed an  aggressive tone twords me and only you G could turn that into me threatening him! How do you do that with a straight face?
You can see from my responses that I feel it useless to debate specific points with you, which means to you that I am vanquished.(but to me it means im simply bored) My specific points are there: ethics, process failure, backgrounds vs. polygraph, Credentials, GM's clearance issue, error rate evasion, spies and personal integrity.  This site is about retribution not information.  George would of been happily investigating crime scenes in Minot ND had he not failed, which in my world equels hypocrisy. I wonder if he would of became a polygrapher if the FBI asked him to? He knows quite well, (and has never responded to my point about various process failures) that nothing is absolute and we should not expect it from polygraph.  We simply cannot throw out everything that is not 100% or even 90%  without thought. You may as well start www.nocolonscreen.bs. people get harmed sometimes, by all sorts of tests- I wish it did'nt happen.
The overriding selfishness of the posters here speak volumes about where we are as a nation in my opinion. If the polygraph does not work in thier applicant screen, it should be abolished-even if it may catch a murderer next week.  Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning.
I will visit from time to time for reasons that are my own, feel free to spin that anyway you want.  Only the most rabid haters of this electonic gadget can dwell overlong here-

The Breeze,

It is very easy for you to feel comfortable whilst hiding behind a fortified barrier with line-of-sight of your enemy, while the opposition has no tactical intel on your position.  Make sense?  It should, because in my summation, you enjoy anonymity while attacking those who have exposed themselves.  Undoubtedly, you are a municipal officer (maybe state, but I doubt it) who is probably dissatisfied with their current level of authority.  I have unfortunately had to work with municipal officers of your character, and all you guys do is violate prosecutional guidelines and jeopardize operational security, partly due to your inferiority complex and 'big-mouth syndrome.'

If you were ever tasked to one of my operations as a municipal liaison to the Feds, I would have you putting up yellow-tape and fetching coffee.  Why?  Because your verbal demeanor resembles a man of violent and unstable behavior who has something to prove to the world.  Second Lesson in Law Enforcement: The Aforementioned Personality Type Has No Place in ‘Protecting and Serving’ at any Level.   

Third Lesson in Law Enforcement: Never Prosecute Without Concrete, Tangible Evidence.  This is the prime reason that, as a Fed, I currently speak-out against polygraph.  Electronics can never take the place of seasoned intuition and thorough investigation.  This is a lesson that you will learn with continued experience, but unfortunately you have already sentenced several people based on personal bias, which is even more heinous than ‘conjecture and hearsay.’      

Feel privileged that a decorated Fed is giving you advice.   

Good luck with the final chapter of your career.  I hope that you will rapidly mature in a short period of time and make a meaningful contribution to society. 

Sincerely, Rick Thirde

Breeze,
Intentionally or not, in post after post you demonstrate irony in the choice of your screen name.  There's a lot of hot air there, but not a whole lot of substance.


The_Breeze wrote on Sep 6^th, 2002 at 12:19am:


Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to why Beech Trees' credentials have any relevance as to the accuracy of the information he presents or the questions he poses for you?

Quote:


Ironic, then, that you'd be hung up on someone else's credentials (which, thanks to online anonymity, could be falsified at will).  Perhaps, in lieu of answering the question I asked above, you'd care to enlighten us as to why your identity (and thus, credentials) should be irrelevant to the points you make, yet critical to whether others' points and questions are valid?

Quote:


Careful with that backpedalling, Breeze...

You might recall that you made the specific claim that George had been untruthful in his polygraph.  You have failed to back up that claim.  You've been called on it.  The appropriate response, if you cannot back up such an accusation, is to retract the statement and apologize.

(rest of self-serving nonsense snipped for brevity)

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Sep 6^th, 2002 at 12:19am:


Unfortunately, it is no longer speculation The_Breeze. In the time you took simply composing the above paragraph you could have answered the simple yes or no question ten times over. Regardless of your work-related excuses, it is you-- through your own actions, no one else's-- who has dictated the conclusions here, not 'us'.

I did consider trying one last time to engage you in some sort of legitimate debate, however your sentiments above lead me to the inescapable conclusion that you simply will do anything in your power to avoid answering direct questions. And while you are clearly indisposed to reading or heeding advice from me, I will make the observations that, on the internet, it doesn't matter in the slightest how physically imposing a person is, nor how tough they can talk, bluster, bludgeon, intimidate, etc. The mere fact that you incessantly make reference to your badge and mantle of authority as some sort of magic talismans whereby your word should be the final say in *any* matter is evidence enough that you do not deserve the people's trust or respect-- but combine that with your remarkably asinine 'profile' of me, along with the sophmoric dodges, the finger-pointing, and the outright lies about the creator of this website...... I wash my hands of you The_Breeze. God help the men & women who are served by a mid size SW Sheriff's dept.

Rick & Fred,

I confer that nothing should supplant a thorough investigation.  I have listened to several lectures on the topic of pre-employment polygraph.  It is my personal opinion that polygraph was intended to be used as a tool in the pre-employment process to aid background investigators in focusing on segments of the investigation and resolve any unresolved issues that were discovered in the investigation, not as a thaumaturgic tool.  Two of my personal ideas of a properly used pre-employment polygraph are listed below.  I personally believe that the later information based GKT would be preferable, if a polygraph was needed, and could be administered in this type of specific issue setting.  In my opinion, a properly conducted and documented background investigation would leave little (if any) necessity for a polygraph in a pre-employment setting.

CQT

1.  A thorough background investigation is conducted.
2.  The background investigator interviews the applicant and attempts to resolve any issues that arose in the investigation.
3.  If a specific issue cannot be resolved, a CQT polygraph is administered on that specific issue.
4.  Any information obtained from the polygraph is confirmed and, if need be, step 3 is repeated one last time for final resolution.
5.  All the information obtained from the background investigation is then reviewed by a panel to determine weather the applicant should proceed to the next step or be dismissed from the process.

GKT   

1.  A thorough background investigation is conducted.
2.  If a specific issue is discovered in the investigation, a GKT is constructed and administered on that issue.
3.  Any information obtained from the polygraph is confirmed.
4.  All the information obtained from the background investigation is then reviewed by a panel to determine weather the applicant should proceed to the next step or be dismissed from the process.