And by the way, Breeze, I'm sorry you feel my insistence on holding you responsible for your own words constitutes "hysterical" behavior.  You'll pardon me if I disagree, as well as if I determine for myself what "my role" (if one can be defined) is in these discussions.

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 8:30pm:


Breeze,
You'll note that no one has claimed the above -- someone's background may indeed have a bearing on what they espouse.  You have simply failed to show how George's background has anything to do with his arguments here.  That's called argumentum ad hominem.

For your reading enjoyment, here is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

     The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
     argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
     person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
     Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
     gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
     attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

     There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
     (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
     the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
     (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
     assertion the author points to the relationship between the
     person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
     (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
     person notes that a person does not practise what he
     preaches.

Examples:

     (i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
     following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
     (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
     taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
     hominem circumstantial)
     (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
     are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
     circumstantial)
     (iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
     more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

     Identify the attack and show that the character or
     circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
     or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:

Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80


George didn't come up with the idea that the polygraph is flawed and easily beaten, nor is he remotely alone in his claim that he was wrongly tagged as deceptive.  Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences said just this in their recent report.  Thus, 
your assertion that his character in any way influences his message is completely bogus and ad hominem on its face.


And since you said people here claim background never has anything to do with the positions they espouse, let me add the following:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Straw Man
Definition:

     The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
     usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

     (i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
     wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
     Canada.
     (ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
     the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
     should realize that there are more important things than
     convenience.

Proof:

     Show that the opposition's argument has been
     misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
     argument. Describe the stronger argument.

References

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 9:06pm:


Sigh.  did you bother to read anything from what I posted, Breeze?

Anything at all?

Really, I was trying to make things as easy for you as I could...rather than post links, I even brought the relevant information here to you for your perusal.   

Obviously, it was my mistake to assume you are interested in honest debate regarding the polygraph.  Others have evidently picked up on this; I must be a slow learner.

Skeptic

Anon.
I believe I have recently said I would minimize involvement. 
Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?  How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site? some here need this for validation, some say its relaxing, others say they just like to argue.
Nothing any of you say affects me in the least, and Im sure I wont be on the calendar when it gets published.
Skeptic....nice dodge.  No one noticed, really.
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:


To my knowledge, I have never made an ad hominem attack on these boards in lieu of a reasoned counterpoint to an argument in which I am engaged. If you would care to point out where I have done so, I'd be happy to reconsider that position. When the debate breaks down (as it inevitably does when you or one of your ilk becomes frustrated that the smoke-and-mirrors crap that you're taught to say in polygraph school results in howls of laughter from our side), I usually try to refrain at least for a little while from wallowing in the gratuitous insults.... however...

Pinhead replies beget fullbore retorts. I don't back down from the debate and I certainly don't back down when the bullying starts from your side.

Wow Breeze...another amazingly short week since we last were subjected to inane commentary from you.  Perhaps in the next week (???) you might care to peruse the NAS panel report.  It might suggest something meaningful for you to bring to our attention...  With regard to your stated intended behavior regarding frequency of message board posts and your credibility deriving from actual practice, I personally could care less.  It is not your credibility with regular contributors to this site that is at stake for you though but with those not aligned and whom you might care to influence and who might consider the apparent (or lack thereof) stability of your thoughts and intentions…

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 19^th, 2002 at 10:05pm:


I find your posts quite lucrative.

Quote:


To the best of my recollection you have only raised one ethical 'conundrum' here, one of your very first postings questioning the ethics of using countermeasures (and by necessity lying about their use) when applying for federal law enforcement (FBI I think). When thoughtful replies concerning that aspect of polygrapy were posted, you somehow morphed our responses into a discussion about the court-sanctioned technique of lying to suspects, or undercover law enforcement lying during the course of an investigation-- a cognitive leap that still leaves me scratching my head.

Quote:


Indeed, how could you? The fact that your vituperative, non-stop boorish spew reflects badly on your character, your department, and most importantly your intelligence would be of little importance to you since you hold everyone on these boards who does not think exactly the way you do (or indeed, is not similiarly employed and does not have the same political affiliations) in utter contempt. I ask you, given the transparency of your loathing, why should we likewise care what you have to say?