AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

News:

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Share Your Polygraph or CVSA Experience › Thank you TLBTLD

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Add Poll

Send Topic

Thank you TLBTLD (Read 17908 times)

steincj Very Senior User Offline Posts: 103 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #15 - Jan 9^th, 2003 at 9:48pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Fortunately, whether you agree with polygraph or not, it kept you and your stilted logic out of the "pool". I am glad I do not have to sit in a classified briefing with you and wonder if you can be trusted or not.....I am inclined to think not guest, Who are you talking to? Your comments seem to attack me, and your attempt to attack my credibility in keeping classified secrets is pathetic. To have a polygrapher make such accusations based on an error prone machine is bad, to have that information mar a person's career is terrible, and for you to believe all of it on blind faith is laughable. Quote: .....because of your efforts to identify ways to circumvent the system! If you are refering to me as the person who is identifying ways to circumvent the system, you are sadly mistaken. If you know anything about me from this site, you know that am quite strong in my opinions. Never have I endorserd coutermeausres -- I only endorse that an APPLICANT (for a screenig test, not a criminal for a specific incident test) read TLBTLD to understand the polygraph "test." If a person goes in and just tells the truth, like I did, there is a good chance that they can fail. Any bias introduced during a truthful applicant's polygraph can generate the deceptive result. Reading TLBTLD can inform an applicant on how to reduce the random errors. Be a little more specific in your posts, guest, or don't write anything at all .


	IP Logged

stopnik New User Offline Posts: 21 Joined: Jan 8^th, 2002	steincj Reply #16 - Jan 10^th, 2003 at 1:34am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quick comment on your take on “standards.” Yes, standards exist for a reason. But that does not inherently make them correct, valid, reasonable, fair, etc. Standards are often created on the basis of institutional bias. For example, excluding women from FD jobs or even African Americans from many branches of the military (pre-Truman reforms). Many “drug standards” for PD(s), particularly for marijuana, are ridiculous. Why should people respect standards that reflect an antiquated institutional bias? Once again, I draw upon my extensive prior exposure to the FD/PD communities. What is the point of making a candidate minutely detail marijuana use – and then subjecting them to instant judgment based on a machine – when many times they cannot prevent members of their own ranks from legally drinking themselves into oblivion and hiding behind the blue wall of silence? Unfortunately, society now demands that people use countermeasures if they want to combat unfair standards to obtain employment. If standards are so important, I am oh so grateful for the fact that you got screened out of your application process. After all … we cannot compromise on standards!

	"Not one single 9-11 'Hero' ever, ever took a polygraph exam to get their job...what's wrong with this system?"
	IP Logged

Ray Senior User Offline Posts: 78 Joined: Jan 10^th, 2003	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #17 - Jan 10^th, 2003 at 3:32am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	The last line of your post refers to no 9-11 "hero" ever taking a polygraph exam to get their job. You're flat wrong. Check your facts before attempting to exploit such a sad day for your anti-polygraph movement.


	IP Logged

steincj Very Senior User Offline Posts: 103 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: steincj Reply #18 - Jan 10^th, 2003 at 11:00am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	stopnik wrote on Jan 10^th, 2003 at 1:34am: Standards are often created on the basis of institutional bias. For example, excluding women from FD jobs or even African Americans from many branches of the military (pre-Truman reforms). And it was the job of the intitution to change those standards, not the public. Now the public may exert pressure on institutions to change standards, but it is up to the institution to make the change. Quote: Many “drug standards” for PD(s), particularly for marijuana, are ridiculous. Why should people respect standards that reflect an antiquated institutional bias? When you are the head of said institution/agency, you can make the changes you want to the standards. Quote: they cannot prevent members of their own ranks from legally drinking themselves into oblivion and hiding behind the blue wall of silence? Because there is no standard prohibiting alcohol consumption, because alcohol isn't illegal. When you become head of said institution, you can ban alcohol or allow smoking pot, but the institution has to change itself (public pressure helps to do this, of course). Quote: Unfortunately, society now demands that people use countermeasures if they want to combat unfair standards to obtain employment. Now this is where your argument truly goes awry. 1) Society demands nothing of an applicant. An applicant chooses to use countermeasures out of free will. 2) Countermeasures don't combat unfair standards. Countermeasures combat an unfair, biased testing system. The test is supposed to provide an accurate measure to adherance of the standards; however, the test itself is flawed, so countermeasures result. This flaws the entire applicant system, as institutions do not get accurate reads of whether or not their applicants have conformed to their pre-employment standards. 3) If an applicant deems an institution's hiring standards to be "unfair," then the applicant should seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing the applicant to seek employment with the institution, and the institution's standards are non-negotiable. Not even if the standards "seem" unfair. If they are unlawful, then you have a case. Quote: If standards are so important, I am oh so grateful for the fact that you got screened out of your application process. After all … we cannot compromise on standards! I was not screened out because of standards. The standard for the FBI is that you not be a spy. I am not a spy, yet the flawed test has deemed me so. I want an opportunity to clear my name of these false accusations. Also, the FBI standard is that you have to pass an FBI polygraph to get in. I didn't, therefore, I am seeking employment elsewhere (while alos requesting a second polygraph). And yes, we cannot compromise on standards. It makes us weak. Example: airport security. Everyone bitches when the 80 yr old woman with the metal hip gets wanded and strip searched. The day we make exceptions to the security standards is for sweet old grandmothers is the day that terrorists start looking for 80 yr old women to carry bombs onto planes. Hope this clears my view on standards. Chris


	IP Logged

beech trees God Member Offline Posts: 593 Joined: Jun 22^nd, 2001 Gender:	Re: steincj Reply #19 - Jan 10^th, 2003 at 4:42pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: And it was the job of the intitution to change those standards, not the public. Now the public may exert pressure on institutions to change standards, but it is up to the institution to make the change. If the abolishment of polygraphy as a pre-employment screening tool is the goal, then by necessity the public will be the catalyst, not the institution, for change. This must be the case as more and more members of the public (from whom of course the applicant pool is created) become aware of the lie behind the lie detector at some point either completely before their application process begins, during the application process but before the polygraph interrogation, or afterwards (usually this last demographic consists of those who were incorrectly labeled as liars). I have noted healthy numbers of all three demographics on the board. By 'institution', in this case I think we'll agree that it is not the sum total of the employees of said institution, rather it is a select few who make such policy decisions-- and unfortunately these select few are more often than not highly biased against change for a number of subjective, self-serving reasons. Among these include: 1. Basic lust for power and control 2. The commensurate financial and social rewards for remaining in such a position 3. The fear that the change will affect 1 & 2 4. The fear that the change will bring about a discovery that these select few have been duped, leading to their downfall 5. The fear of admitting to themselves they have failed to provide for a rigorous and thorough screening system by their unnatural reliance on the polygraph Coupled with these few examples one can add the constant desperate harping of the polygraphers themselves into the ears of these select few that the polygraph really truly does work, the polygraph really truly is '99.998% accurate', the polygraph really truly has caught spies (but we just can't tell you who), countermeasures DON'T work (but we can't tell you how we catch them), just stick with us, shut up and everything will be fine. Oh and occassionally say things like "we need more research", "nothing is perfect", "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs", etc. Quote: When you are the head of said institution/agency, you can make the changes you want to the standards. If we're talking about the Federal Government, that would be somewhat accurate within a narrow scope. Thomas Sowell once wrote, "The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best." For the reasons I note above (as well as I'm sure many similar) I submit that the head of a Federal Government agency should rarely if ever be the 'who' of who shall decide what is best. Quote: 2) Countermeasures don't combat unfair standards. Countermeasures combat an unfair, biased testing system. I submit that countermeasures do both, and more. Countermeasures render as totally impotent the polygraph examination phase of the screening process. If a standard is 'unfair', say if only applicants who are of Hawaiian parentage will be considered, or only applicants who have a mole on their cheek, or only applicants with a surname that begins with 'J', these are clear and egregious unfair standards that serve no possible purpose. The standard that an applicant pass an unscientific physiologically measured interrogation (in which the truly honest have a high likelyhood of failing, owing to their lack of response to control questions) is, I submit, an unfair standard. Quote: If an applicant deems an institution's hiring standards to be "unfair," then the applicant should seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing the applicant to seek employment with the institution, and the institution's standards are non-negotiable. Not even if the standards "seem" unfair. If they are unlawful, then you have a case. Speaking personally, I would not let an unfair standard set by a select few who have the concerns I noted above dictate my pursuit of happiness. If a standard such as education, prior experience, physical agility, or even age must be met, these are all standards one can meet given the will of the applicant. Quote: And yes, we cannot compromise on standards. It makes us weak. Example: airport security. Everyone bitches when the 80 yr old woman with the metal hip gets wanded and strip searched. The day we make exceptions to the security standards is for sweet old grandmothers is the day that terrorists start looking for 80 yr old women to carry bombs onto planes. Well, here is another kettle of fish entirely. Suffice to say you are sorely mistaken if you think the currect security standards accomplish anything except inconveniencing travelers and flight crews and are bringing about the ruination of the airline industry. Sincerely, Dave
	« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2003 at 5:25pm by beech trees »
	"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
	IP Logged

steincj Very Senior User Offline Posts: 103 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #20 - Jan 10^th, 2003 at 9:55pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: Well, here is another kettle of fish entirely. Suffice to say you are sorely mistaken if you think the currect security standards accomplish anything except inconveniencing travelers and flight crews and are bringing about the ruination of the airline industry. First off, I just want to kill this before it sparks a huge tangent. I used airport security as an example of how compromising set standards can be detrimental. I too think the security in place now is a joke. It will be years before they get that right, and at the expense of the industry itself. Quote: the abolishment of polygraphy as a pre-employment screening tool is the goal, then by necessity the public will be the catalyst, not the institution, for change. I agree, except that the public cannot physically make the change to the institution. That change must be made internally, under intese public pressure. But I think we are basically saying the same thing here. Quote: these select few are more often than not highly biased against change for a number of subjective, self-serving reasons. Totally agree. In my experience, the individuals who were most resistant to any sort of change to a system (for the better) were the ones who skated throught that system and continued to excel, with little to no effort on their part. Quote: Coupled with these few examples one can add the constant desperate harping of the polygraphers themselves into the ears of these select few that the polygraph really truly does work I can hear the polygraphers in their boss's office now -- "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall!" It is the most self serving system I have seen. How does a polygrapher justify his work? By how many suspected spies and druggies he "catches?" Where is the quality control on the false positives he generates to bump up his numbers? No, if you complain about failing a polygraph, your voice isn't even heard. (My letter of appeal to the FBI is still sitting in the Local Division HQ SAC's office -- over 2 months and no action has been taken. Unbelievable.) Quote: Thomas Sowell once wrote, "The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best." For the reasons I note above (as well as I'm sure many similar) I submit that the head of a Federal Government agency should rarely if ever be the 'who' of who shall decide what is best. Great quote. Of course these individuals rarely make decisions without input and suggestions from their staff, as well as precedent set by sister agencies. But unfortunately, for the system to work properly, the agency has to change itself. The people can't cheat the system because they feel it is "unfair." This undermines the authority of the system and in turn, makes the agency weak. (see example of old lady getting strip search). Quote: Countermeasures render as totally impotent the polygraph examination phase of the screening process. Using countermeasures is like a form of vigilanteism -- the people know it is the right thing to do and the system won't do it so damn it, we'll take matters into our own hands. It's wrong. You won't convince me otherwise. I know the system sucks, I know it is flawed. But their wrong doesn't allow me to do another wrong (two wrongs don't make a right?). The best I can do is try my damndest to gain employment within the confines of the system, and if not, apply as much public pressure to the institution so that a change is made, not for me, but for those like me down the road. Quote: these are clear and egregious unfair standards that serve no possible purpose. Your opinion of the standards set is your opinion, and unfortuantely, has no bearing, unless of course the standard is unjust. But unfair (subjective) does not equal unjust (objective). Quote: The standard that an applicant pass an unscientific physiologically measured interrogation (in which the truly honest have a high likelyhood of failing, owing to their lack of response to control questions) is, I submit, an unfair standard. I agree, it is unfair, but not unjust. The EPPA does not cover all agencies, so this remains unfair. Public pressure, of course, can be the catalyst (as you said) to make the change. Quote: Speaking personally, I would not let an unfair standard set by a select few who have the concerns I noted above dictate my pursuit of happiness. If a standard such as education, prior experience, physical agility, or even age must be met, these are all standards one can meet given the will of the applicant. I agree, but I will stop short of taking matters into my own hands. I couldn't live with myself, even though I was right, if I used countermeasures to pass a polygraph. It's a sophisticated form of lying, just like the polygraph "test". Again, I'm not compounding the polygraph problem with a lack of morals in using countermeasures. It's just not for me. Chris


	IP Logged

Skeptic God Member Offline Posts: 549 Joined: Jun 24^th, 2002	Re: steincj Reply #21 - Jan 10^th, 2003 at 11:36pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: I was not screened out because of standards. The standard for the FBI is that you not be a spy. I am not a spy, yet the flawed test has deemed me so. I want an opportunity to clear my name of these false accusations. Also, the FBI standard is that you have to pass an FBI polygraph to get in. I didn't, therefore, I am seeking employment elsewhere (while alos requesting a second polygraph). Chris, You've hit the nail on the head with your second statement. It is, indeed, an FBI "standard" that one must "pass" a polygraph, just as it is evidently a "standard" at other agencies that an applicant not have a negative polygraph report from an outside source. While I may disagree with you somewhat that an agency has the right to set any standard they please and that one has no right to try to circumvent a truly foolish and unfair rule (especially one that ends up not only disqualifying an applicant but also branding him as less-than-desirable to other agencies, and one that causes definite harm to national security), I think your logic is internally consistent. Skeptic


	IP Logged

steincj Very Senior User Offline Posts: 103 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #22 - Jan 11^th, 2003 at 1:44am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Skeptic wrote on Jan 10^th, 2003 at 11:36pm: While I may disagree with you somewhat that an agency has the right to set any standard they please and that one has no right to try to circumvent a truly foolish and unfair rule (especially one that ends up not only disqualifying an applicant but also branding him as less-than-desirable to other agencies, and one that causes definite harm to national security), I think your logic is internally consistent. Thank you, Skeptic, for the vote of confidence reagrding my logic. I am worried that someday, I may just lose it. Like you said, I was disqualified from employment opportunities with the FBI. That hurts. I was deemed deceptive regarding national security issues, and that hurts more. My truthfulness, integrity, and dedication while serving our nation both here and abroad was questioned. That will scar me permanently. Like you said, I was branded as less-than-desireable with other government agencies. That hurts my future, a future in which I desired to uphold the principles of national security, an opportunity I left a job in national defense to pursue. All of this has hurt me deeply. But, no matter what they do to me, they can't make me sacrifice my own morals. My morals tell me using countermeasures is wrong. I won't do it, even if the system I were to use them on is as flawed as the pre-employment polygraph. I have nothing but my morals, dignity, and integrity and no pathetic mind test, wannabe pschologist, or any other reprehensible treatment of me will make me change that. I know who I am, despite what the polygraph says, and I will do nothing to compromise that. And to all of you pro-polygraph posters on this site who deem me "unfit for LE duty," I ask you this: If I am unfit for LE duty, then who is fit? Someone who sacrifices their morals by using countermeasures to pass a polygraph they knew they would fail? The sytem is FLAWED and has to change, yet you all do NOTHING to change it for FEAR of your precious little jobs. Now tell me this, pro-polygraph types, who is the greater threat to national security? Chris


	IP Logged

Anonymous Guest	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #23 - Jan 11^th, 2003 at 2:13am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Chris, Although I don't agree with your take on the issue, I think you are perfectly entitled to choose not to use countermeasures on a polygraph exam. That having been said, since you have already failed one exam while telling the truth and not using countermeasures, I don't think if I were you I would pursue another exam if you plan on doing the same thing again. Einstein is credited with having said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different outcome.


	IP Logged

steincj Very Senior User Offline Posts: 103 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #24 - Jan 11^th, 2003 at 8:24pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: since you have already failed one exam while telling the truth and not using countermeasures, I don't think if I were you I would pursue another exam if you plan on doing the same thing again. Einstein is credited with having said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different outcome. Anonymous, Call me insane if you wish, but I'd rather walk out of the examination with a failure and my morals rather than using countermeausres. The real reason is that during my first exam, a serious bias was introduced to both me and the polygrapher. Needless to say, I failed because of it. I'm hoping that a my truthfulness and no bias in a second poly will get me a passing mark. Chris


	IP Logged

Anonymous Guest	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #25 - Jan 11^th, 2003 at 8:45pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Chris, You write: Quote: ...I'd rather walk out of the examination with a failure and my morals rather than using countermeausres... This is not the choice I suggested was before you. I suggested you consider not taking the exam. You further write: Quote: ...The real reason is that during my first exam, a serious bias was introduced to both me and the polygrapher. Needless to say, I failed because of it. I'm hoping that a my truthfulness and no bias in a second poly will get me a passing mark.... You now face a more serious bias and that stems from already having failed a Bureau polygraph exam on the issues for which you will be tested. In order for you to prevail, a second Bureau examiner will have to say the first was wrong and allowed himself to be unduly influenced by investigative bias (which happened to be wrong). I do not know what the statistics are on Bureau applicants passing second exams having failed an initial one, but I would respectfully suggest that if such a statistic were known, it would not be viewed as an encouragement for you.


	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Online Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6220 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #26 - Jan 11^th, 2003 at 9:05pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Chris, Although I do not believe it is unethical for truthful (with regard to relevant questions) applicants to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, I think your decision to adopt the "complete honesty" approach (among the options discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) is commendable. But in pragmatic terms, in view of your public statement about your polygraph experience, it is also the only viable option to you (apart from refusing the polygraph altogether, as suggested by Anonymous). There can be little doubt but that FBI polygraphers have read your public statement on this website. The polygraph unit at FBI HQ must realize that it made a colossal mistake by accusing you of espionage. It is to be hoped that the FBI will give you the chance to "prove your innocence" with a second polygraph "test." But in view of your adoption of the "complete honesty" approach, the ones who will actually be tested in any second polygraph examination will be the FBI polygraphers themselves. Will they administer you their fraudulent probable-lie "control" question "test," even after you admit (when asked what you know about polygraphy) that you understand "the lie behind the lie detector?" Or will they fall back to a relevant/irrelevant "test," a procedure that is thoroughly discredited, even in the polygraph community itself, and completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever? Will they lie to you and tell you that it's a highly reliable technique? What will they do when you explain that you know that the relevant/irrelevant technique is also a fraud? The FBI's actions (and omissions) in your case will be a watershed test of the FBI's "fidelity, bravery, [and] integrity" (FBI motto).
	« Last Edit: Jan 11^th, 2003 at 9:36pm by George W. Maschke »
	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

stopnik New User Offline Posts: 21 Joined: Jan 8^th, 2002	RAY Reply #27 - Jan 12^th, 2003 at 11:06pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Ray - NYPD FDNY does not require polygraphing. Please tell me how I am wrong?

	"Not one single 9-11 'Hero' ever, ever took a polygraph exam to get their job...what's wrong with this system?"
	IP Logged

stopnik New User Offline Posts: 21 Joined: Jan 8^th, 2002	steincj Reply #28 - Jan 12^th, 2003 at 11:15pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Your argument is very articulate although I do not agree with it. I would sooner flaunt ludicrous standards with countermeasures and get a job -- then get yanked around by narrow thinking instititutional leadership (not the distinction -- leadership, not sum). When I was younger, I was into the holding my head high crap. Now a days, if you want something and you know how to get it -- and there is a way to circumvent dumb rules -- that is how I would go for it. If you are going to poly for other govt. agencies, you know what needs to be done if you want to pass. Whether you do it or not is your choice.

	"Not one single 9-11 'Hero' ever, ever took a polygraph exam to get their job...what's wrong with this system?"
	IP Logged

steincj Very Senior User Offline Posts: 103 Joined: Dec 8^th, 2002 Gender:	Re: Thank you TLBTLD Reply #29 - Jan 13^th, 2003 at 9:18pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Anonymous, Your suggestion to me is that I refuse a second polygraph. There is no way that will happen. I want it, badly. I know I did nothing wrong, and I want the opportunity to prove that. I think the Bureau knows that -- probably the same reason my request for a second polygraph has been idle in my Local SAC's office for over 2 months (and remains idle). George, I think we all know I am doomed to fail an FBI second polygraph. Apart from my hopes of passing the test, I am also curious to see how the FBI will try to fail me agin, whether it be the same espionage, drugs, or countermeausres. Quote: There can be little doubt but that FBI polygraphers have read your public statement on this website. The polygraph unit at FBI HQ must realize that it made a colossal mistake by accusing you of espionage. It is to be hoped that the FBI will give you the chance to "prove your innocence" with a second polygraph "test." I do hope that the FBI polygraph HQ did see my statement. I hope it makes them think how many more honest Americans' lives will be ruined by this wretched procedure. And if the FBI knows it erred on my test, it could be more reason as to why my appeal and retest request is still sitting in someone's inbox. Quote: The FBI's actions (and omissions) in your case will be a watershed test of the FBI's "fidelity, bravery, [and] integrity" (FBI motto). Does this motto apply to FBI polygraphers as well as regular Special Agents? There's got to be some fine print on that seal somewhere . . . And stopnik, Thank you for the compliment regarding my argument. Maybe I am young, which you might mean "naieve," in keeping my head held high. Well, like I said, my morals and my dignity are all I have left -- I won't do anything to compromise them. But I can understand why you feel differently in your pragmatism. It's why they make vanilla and chocolate . . . Chris


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Thank you TLBTLD

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.