Breeze,

You wrote:

Quote:


Many in your camp miscalculated what the NAS polygraph panel was to conclude and report.  It appears that you are one of the flag bearers for those who are likely to miscalculate the impact and long-term ramifications of that report.

Hey Breeze,

Last year I got an eleven point, non-typical, 165 #er field dressed. Haven't had time to go this year YET. Maybe this week. Have you topped that this year? 

BTW, I called him in with a modified polygraph machine that imitates a "doe in heat" call. Just couldn't resist that one, could I?

Two block
Nice start, then you lapse into propaganda!
I shot a 4x4 mule deer in November. You seem to be using eastern count on blacktails, at least I thought you said you were from Alaska. Since I hunt way in, I can never weigh, so yours could be bigger-but mine was heavy enough to require a few trips out with the quarters.
Did you get that Doe in heat call from beech trees?

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 10^th, 2002 at 12:09am:


It is a source of ongoing frustration for me that you seem to dismiss any and all anti-polygraph sentiment as being anecdotal and personal in origin.  I originally came to this site having never taken a polygraph (but having a psychological education that informed me of the polygraph's flaws).  I considered the evidence, read what studies and reviews I could, and came to the conclusion that the device doesn't do what its purported to do.

Even now (after voluntarily ending my candidacy for the NSA position I was trying for), I have no idea whether I truly "passed" or "failed" my polygraphs.  I do know that they were among the more unpleasant experiences of my life (despite answering all questions truthfully), but for all I know I would have gotten the job for which I applied.  I voluntarily withdrew my application in part because of the extremely negative experience I had, one which I was unexcited about repeating every five years or so. However, my criticism of the polygraph remains that it is demonstrably inadequate (by scientific, not anecdotal standards) for the tasks to which it is routinely put.  That criticism would remain the same regardless of how my polygraphs had gone.

As an aside, I would like to mention that I am sorry you find my comments to you so content-free and derisive.  I tend to value truthfulness very highly, and feel you have been rather dishonest with several comments you've made, relying on the quantity of words in your posts to deflect criticism rather than correcting or withdrawing your words.  It is this dishonesty with which I have a problem, much more than any position (pro-or otherwise) you have on the polygraph.

Breeze, I've argued politics online extensively for more than six years.  I've seen pretty much all of it: well-formed arguments, dishonesty, ideologues, out-and-out lies, etc.  I know bullshit when I see it, and few things bother me more.

I respect your position on the polygraph, even though I disagree with it and your stated rationales for holding that position.  It's a number of your ad hominem statements that I have found reprehensible.

Skeptic

Breeze writes in part:

Quote:


If the antipolygraph crusade is such a "waste of time," then why are you wasting so much of your time here? Seems like you're terribly afraid it just might succeed. 

Dear Breeze,

I may be entering this discussion late, but I think my point applies.

You say that "many applicants lie."  That may be true, but I didn't.    My story is the truth, and if you haven't already, I suggest you read it.   

You may want to lale me as an angry "LE wannabe."  Do so if you wish, but beforewarned - my father spent 27 years in LE.  I know the system.

As far as the pro-polygraph, anti-polygraph debate, believe it or not, I am split.  There is a time and a place to use the polygraph.  It is a powerful interrogation tool, but should only be used to interrogate.  It will help bring out a confession where there is something to confess.  Many times my pather put a suspect on the poly, and many times he got a confession.  Although, in NY, the preferred method for getting confessions was the phonebook, window, and unloaded weapon.  But the polygraph proved and continues to prove itself a useful interrogation tool when there is reason to interrogate.

I disagree with the use of the polygraph as a pre-employment screening device.  Polygraphers are trained to use the machine to intimidate and bully confessions out of suspects.  Why then does the Bureau treat applicants (who have proven themselves enough to recieve conditional employment) like suspects?

The polygraph is used in pre-employment screening to gather discriminating information that would not be listed on the application and may not be uncovered in a background investigation.  And in some cases, the polygrapher gathers that information, pats himself on the back for not letting low-life scum linto the Bureau.  But these methods force a polygrapher, in order to be successful, to find faults with every applicant.  Why then have an application process?   

In my case, the polygrapher was going on supposition and erroneous information given to him by another agent.  And I failed because of it.  I never lied, and I never made any "admissions" regarding the national security issues for which I was deemed deceptive.  But when it was all over, the polygrapher still pats himself on the back.

And now I'm the low-life scum. 


Chris

Mark
Sorry it took me awhile to respond to your well written post, I am indulging myself with staying logged on to this site as I look up from more meaningfull work!
I have a couple of degrees, and am not usually confused, but I am not sure what you mean when calling me a cultural relativist. My personal politics aside, I am saying that there are well researched, opposite studies to support both views.  I have read much of each and see good points.  So, when there is no universal truth, one has to choose dont they- if they wish to be effective and not merely theoretical? I have chosen based on my observations and experience, which I believe is greater than many who post here.
So, my anecdotal observations of a rapist for example being called DI, confessing and closing a case are stronger than reading here how an applicant was not given due consideration.  I think some who post here are truthfull, but many others are selfish blamers that lack maturity, and want to blame an object for lack of success.  Many undoubtably would not of been hired even with an acceptable polygraph.  Of course to limit my hate mail, this is only my opinion.
But lets change the subject if you will.  You said that you were acused during a screening exam.  A couple things trouble me;
1) Does any agent with similiar results trigger an identical use of resources? If not, why you?
2) You mentioned you took almost every test known to man, surely the investigation became specific at that point.  If it was specific, what were the results of your numerous additional polygraphs? And if you will say, what was the issue?