Twoblock,

Could you please define the conditions of the following. 

Quote:


If it is for general screening, my answer will stand as it has always.

As for your other questions, I think I have answered all but one through my previous posts here.

Looks like 'ol Batman studied well at the Bill Clinton School of Honesty.

We all know his definition of 'is' now.

J. B.

Good to see you back. As well as I remember your posts, you do debate the issues.

What I meant by polygraphing government officials is: That they should have to be subjected to the same rigorous background check, including polygraphy, as do the prospective hires for the FBI, CIA, etc. Polygraph questions should include those stated in the open letter in the reading room of this site.

The definition of a politician is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". A lot of this back scratching is so deep (defense cantracts, medical, pharmaceutical, etc.) it causes bleeding. The blood is from us taxpayers. I don't believe LE is doing their jobs if they don't go after these highdollar crooks with the same vigor as they do the street crooks. If government corruption could be curtailed, the budget would have a surplus always.

Hey Pecker-Head, you wanna step outside?

Beech, do you hate me because I administer polygraph examinations, or because I don't agree with George, or simply because I don't take all this crap as serious as you?

That's your problem, or more accurately, one of your problems.  You think that everyone who posts here takes this stuff as serious as you do, therefore you swing first, ask questions later.

You say you want to have an intellectual debate about polygraph, however it is evident that nothing will change your point of view, so what's the point in debating.  All you want to do is charge at the fence, so I chose to stand outside the fence and poke you with a stick.   

As for the recent murders in the DC area, well, until you get out on the streets, or sit down in a room with someone the likes of those two, maybe you should simply hold fire!  Looking at things from the safety of your little computer room really does not qualify your to pass judgement.

On a lighter note, you're a jerk!

Batman

Who rattled your cage Septic?

Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations.  Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading.  I was never asked.  Everyone just jumped to that conclusion.  I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it.  However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly.   

Exactly what do you guys want?  In my past posts I have mentioned the weaknesses of polygraph, I have admitted it is not a perfect tool or technique.  It may very well be that any scientific validity attached to it is questionable, but regardless of what you think or want to admit, it works.  In my 18 years of administering polygraph examinations in support of criminal investigations, I have assisted in identifying countless individuals involved in criminal activity, and I have assisted in exonerating an equal if not greater number alleged to have committed criminal acts.  In no instance has polygraph alone been the single factor that either led to a conviction or exonerated someone.  It was simply a tool that assisted in the overall investigation.

That, George is what I mean when I talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Simply because polygraph is either misused or has serious flaws as a "screening tool", you want to chuck it all.  You folks refuse to acknowledge, even in the slightest way, that it does have some merit, some utility.  You label all polygraph examiners as evil doers, all confessions as coerced, and all polygraph successes as the result of "naive" individuals who were too stupid to know better than to confess.

So what is there to debate?  What purpose would it serve to have "intelligent" discussions with you folks?  You are zealots.  You refuse to budge off your positions, even the slightest degree.  You simply want to attack everything and everyone remotely associated with the use of polygraph.  Well, have at it.  As you sit back and scream and yell about the injustice of it all, I'll simply go back into the room, and administer a fair and impartial examination in an attempt to assist an investigation to the best of my ability.  It doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone else.  It doesn't make me a petty tyrant, or a good German soldier simply following orders.  It makes me someone who is doing his job, in as professional a manner as possible.  We are not all asswipes, or shitbags, or fascists.

Batman

PS: I may be a super hero member of the Justice League, but that alone won’t keep me from taking my shots at all my new buddies on this site.  Even good guys have a bit of the butt in them.  Superman has Lex Luther; Batman has the Riddler (maybe George in disguise), and BeechTrees (possibly he’s the Penguin).

Good God, this is exactly what I mean when talking about dealing with zealots. 

Anonymous, are as blind as you are stupid?  Read my last post again.  Here, I'll make it easy for you.  I said, "Yeah, color me guilty, I knowingly and deliberately "misled" you all as to the fact that I administer polygraph examinations.  Contrary to Beech's assertion that I "give the impression that you are not a polygraher when the question was directly asked of you", is also misleading.  I was never asked.  Everyone just jumped to that conclusion.  I never denied it; I simply didn't volunteer or confirm it.  However when I was asked directly by TwoBlock, I answered directly."   

How much clearer can I possibly be?  I used the words knowingly and deliberately, what more do you want?

As for "control" questions, well, just how pissed off do you get at the dentist when he says this will only hurt a little bit?  Even though it hurts like a bitch, he gets the job done!  Am I supposed to feel guilty when I administer an exam with NDI results that helps to exonerate some young kid on a rape allegation, simply because of how I introduced the "control" questions?  Gee, I’ll take that one to the confessional with me so as to clear my path to heaven.

As for credibility, I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder.  My credibility is in good stead with those that count most.

(Yeah, a bunch of low life polygraph examiners!)  Beat you to it bud.

George, are these the folks you really want to align yourself with in your battle against, sorry, I mean for justice?

Batman

PS: Any way you can get that picture of Clinton off this thread?  Every time I scroll through he passes by like a bad dream.

Batman wrote on Nov 17^th, 2002 at 1:46pm:


I swear to God I'm not George. You want I should take a polygraph maybe?