Batman wrote on Nov 17^th, 2002 at 1:08am:


A fine example of defending your position. When your platform crumbles around you, resort to violence. Nicely done.

Quote:


Hate you? I don't hate you. If I gave you any thought I might though.

Isn't it sad that a simple dilletante of the travesty of polygraphy takes it more seriously han a self-professed expert, one who actually makes his living in the career of lying to others?

Quote:


Psychoanalysis now? Was it in Week Seven or Week Eight of polygraph school that you earned your degree in psychoanalysis? Perchance you have some inkblots I can look at as well.

I take the debate seriously. In fact I lead a fulfilling life away from this debate, but that doesn't stop me from illustrating the very real harm men like you cause to our society.

Quote:


In fact I have modified my position somewhat since I first started posting here. Both pro-polygraph and anti-polygraph types have convinced me that certain uses of the polygraph are useful for their 'utility', i.e., tricking confessions out of the guilty. It's clear however that said utility is NEVER enough for your type, and you are always seeking to use the charted results of the interrogation in a myriad of abusive ways. Did he pass the polygraph? Seek to exclude or trash the results. Seek to smear the polygrapher himself (remember Gary Condit? Like I've said before, it's so sad when you guys eat one of your own.) Did he fail the polygraph? Seek to include the results. Was the polygraph inconclusive? Seek to characterize it as a failure anyway. Didn't get the results you wanted? Polygraph 'em again. And again. And again. To conclude on this particular topic, I debate when a contrary position is raised by 'your side'-- I do this for the disinterested or vacillating third party who read these discussions. I already know how you or your type will answer. [See your next thought for proof]

Quote:


Yes, you've made it abundantly clear the reasons why you've inserted yourself in these discussions is to ridicule, prevaricate, obfuscate, and generally be a nuisance. That's fine, I suppose that could be considered great fun by a small-minded man so I'll let you have your sport. But don't you find it just a little hypocritical to then take the moral highground and lament that I won't debate you? Perhaps not, as you've shown your relationship to the truth is somewhat tenous anyway. Do you lie to your employers with the same joyous abandon that you lie to your interrogation subjects? How does the 'Dentist Simile' fly with your bosses when they catch you stretching and torturing the truth with them? Or do you only feel comfortable lying to the citizens you're sworn to protect and serve?

B.M., I allow you to believe you're rattling the cage because to do so furthers my agenda-- namely by illustrating that nine times out of ten it's a creep like you sitting across from the test subject. You're the one peering out from between the bars, not I.

Quote:


The old 'walk a mile in my shoes' lament. Isn't it funny that in all these exchanges, you just naturally assumed I have no relationship to law enforcement or the military? Why is that?

Trees,

You must be the biggest sourpuss in your neighborhood.

Do you wanna step outside?  That's a joke son!  You know, like you and me are going at it, and I say, "Hey, you wanna step outside?"  Get it??  I guess not.  What do you do on Halloween, turn your porch light off, or do you sucker the little ones in and pour water on them from the second floor window?  Man, you just need to laugh a little.  You know that 75% of what I post to you is just sarcastic BS.  What makes it so much fun is that you take it all so damn serious.

You asked, "Isn't it funny that in all these exchanges, you just naturally assumed I have no relationship to law enforcement or the military? Why is that?"

Maybe because you come across like a pansy?

As for the debate, pull the blinders off, you'll see more clearly.  I didn't lament that you wouldn't debate, I asked what would be the point?  There would be no chance of changing your stance, even a little bit.  Unlike you, I see no reason to piss into the wind just for the sake of feeling the warm liquid come back at me.  However, you seem to really enjoy the feeling so piss on brother, piss on.

One last little dig at your roots Tree.  How come you always come to the defense of George, but he never comes to your defense?  He just lets you kind of hang out there spinning.  My money says he reads these posts and laughs his ample butt off!

As I cruise through the various threads that you so intently give your input too, I notice a common theme; everyone else thinks you’re a JERK too!


Batman

I think the reason the propoly's won't touch the political question is that they know if politicians are forced to take a polygraph they would abolish it in a heartbeat. Roughly 80% believe they couldn't pass one. Same goes for Judges, AG's and DA's.
We wont touch it because your argument here is not only laughable but contradicts your entire statement. You say that they would abolish it because they couldn't pass one. So by stating this you are admitting that the polygraph works.
Or haven't you thought of that?
DUMMY!!!!!

Quote:


Batman, would you please get out your Bat Pooperscooper? Your boy made another mess.

"polylawman', the above cited quote was written be ME, not your intellectual equal to whom you attributed it.