Quote:


That, and providing "feel-good" political cover for those tasked with improving security.

Skeptic

Quote:


Actually, IIRC it's even worse:  NAS concluded that the polygraph adds no incremental value to the hiring process.  IOW, there's no reason to use it, and a lot of reasons not to.

Skeptic

Quote:


The inherent dishonesty of polygraph interrogators certainly seems to have been raised often recently. Hooray. Apparently *you* weren't indignant when your polygraph interrogator lied to you in prepping you for your exam-- pardon those of us who are.

Quote:


How is it confusing or obstructing the applicant process to know beforehand that the polygraph as a scientific means of determining truth from falsehood in the screening setting is worthless? Also, why is it acceptable for 'The State' (in this case the polygraph interrogator) to lie to the citizen (in this case the applicant)? Why is it acceptable one way, but not the other? 

Quote:


So? This scenario been mentioned numerous times beforehand in previous discussions on this board. Are the makers of lockpicking manuals and tools to blame for burglaries? Are Chrysler and Ford to blame when a master key is used in a vehicle theft? Is the US Army responsible when one of their manuals is used to construct an explosive device? More dear to your heart The Breeze, are the makers of firearms responsible when someone (other than a defenseless deer) is murdered by gun?

Quote:


Wasn't it you who just recently argued that employment should not be witheld based soley upon polygraph results? Didn't you JUST READ ont his board numerous accounts of exactly that happening? You weren't denied your dream job, breeze-- many others here were. So why don't you show some courtesy and respect when those people show a variety of emotions concerning having their dream destroyed by a worthless screening device? By the way, did you ever stop to think that the reason you passed your polygraphs is because you lied during your control questions? How about that, the breeze lied on his polygraph exam!

Quote:


Yes, about half of them according to recent news reports-- what you would expect according to the NAS report.

Quote:


'Wholey incorrect and self-serving'. Nice. Wrong, but nice. If you would like balance in your polygraph stories, feel free to visit polygraphplace.com.

Quote:


If you visit pro-second amendment websites, all you will read about are infringements on our inalienable right to keep and bear arms, personal accounts of such infringements, news accounts of such infringements, and political work aimed at curtailing such infringments. What do you expect to see at a website titled 'antipolygraph.org'? What would you like to see different here, breeze? You're our token 
osers' contributor. What more do you want?

Quote:


Um, hold the phone here. I thought you were one of those sly pro-polygraph types-- you know, the ones who say it's ok to ruin a person's career as long as the polygraph is not the sole determinant of fact?  Since most of the people posting here with negative stories about their polygraph experience were stopped dead in their tracks by the lying polygraph interrogator, with no recourse and no means of appealing his capricious decision, how can we know those people were or were not 'cut out' for law enforcement? So, your nasty little jibe above there seems to be in conflict with what you espoused previously. You weren't engaging in belittling insults just to make yourself feel more important, were you?

Quote:


I see. So YOUR personal experiences are deemed valid, while OUR personal experiences are not. Let's see, how many polygraphs have you taken over the course of your career? I can't recall if it was 3 or 4, but let's say 4. Now, how many polygraphs are administered in the US yearly? I have no way of knowing that number, but let's say 200,000. You also mentioned your polygraphs spanned the course of your career (as I recall it's coming to a close in the near future) so let's say 15 years. Remember, we can rework these numbers if you'd care to correct me. 15 times 200,000 equals 3,000,000 polygraphs administered. Let's see, your personal polygraph experiences equals an earth-shattering 



Wow, you're REALLY an expert on the subject.

Have a nice day officer,

Polylawman,

In your above quip, you seem to imply that I "smoked pot." This is not the case. I have never smoked pot, nor have I ever used any illegal drug.

While all points of view regarding polygraph matters are welcome here, please do not abuse the anonymity this message board offers by libeling individuals.

Quote:


I'm certain I wrote my previous post faster than you were capable of reading it.

Quote:


Ummmmmmmmmmmm no. I take it that's your version of a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess?

Quote:


Crying: To sob or shed tears because of grief, sorrow, or pain; weep. That's not it... hmmm.... To demand or require immediate action or remedy: grievances crying out for redress. Ah, that's it!

I decline your request. Here's hoping Santa puts a copy of Webster's New Collegiate and Little, Brown's Handbook of English Grammar 'neath "polylawman's" Christmas tree.

Breeze,

I respectfully decline your challenge.  I do not believe in countermeasures.  They only promote the "game" of the polygraph - the testee matching wits with the tester.  I don't believe that there should be any game involved.

Unfortunately, the polygraph is nothing more than a mind game, forcing unknowing subjects into the twisted realm of the "truth."  That's why I don't believe in the polygraph.  If the machine itself can't do the job with an acceptable rate of accuracy, then it needs to go.  A point recently proven by the NAS report . . .

Unfortunately, our government is too stubborn to remove the polygraph (at least for screening, where for incident testing the polygraph makes an excellent intimidation tool).  So in order to ensure passing a session with the poly, countermeasures have become a viable option for determinted individuals.  This is wrong for both the person using the countermeasures and the agency who relies on the test results to be accurate.  It is for these reasons I am against the polygraph, and why I will not participate in your challenge.

On another note, Breeze, have you even thought about how we are suypposed to get through the application process of another agency?  In case you haven't read  my personal statement, my FBI polygraph failure has stonewalled me at Treasury, so Customs, DEA, ATF, and USSS are all out of the question.  I don't think there's an agency out there that would let me get that far in the process.  I would if I could -- anything to clear my name.

Chris

Dear Twoblock...does your name have any connection whatsoever with your probable "sterling" career in the Army.  A few friends have asked me about this site and when I just happened to mention that there was a guy named "twoblock" on line, they said I should ask about your OER?  I am not Army, what could they be talking about?

Guest

"Twoblock" is a mining term. Don't know what your "friend" is talking about. If you want to continue your research, ask a miner in Alaska what it means.