Torpedo wrote on Jan 9
th, 2003 at 6:57pm:
Hello BT, so I am "whining" to George?. Well, at least we have established one thing....I am glad to see that you folks (well, at least Bech Trees) looks up to George as "Daddy"
![Grin Grin](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/grin.gif)
. More reason for "Daddy" to instill manners in his children.
Unfortunately, sir, you are hardly in a position to be complaining about others in this regard. Like so many of the polygrapher visitors we've had to this site post-NAS-report, virtually your entire "contribution" thus far has been ad hominem in nature (please see
Stephan's Guide to the Logical Fallacies -- Attacking the Person if you have trouble understanding what you are doing wrong).
Quote:On a more academic note, you offer to DA that he should believe you over anything the pro-polygraph community says because of the "research", yet you cannot and have not provided anything other than "war stories".
This is simply false -- both advice on this site and
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are well-referenced vis-a-vis academic studies and research. They are hardly based on anecdotes alone.
Quote:You will no doubt make mention of the NAS study, but you should keep in mind that wasn't "research" in the true sense of the term.
Another false statement. Reading and reviewing studies done by others is most definitely "research" (a general term for "inquiry") -- and despite your implications, it is certainly valid, as well.
According to you, it seems, one has no room to speak with authority on a subject unless one has actually carried out a certain type of research. This is a very odd notion.
Quote:It was a literature review and the reporting of a position that they have taken.
Had this been all NAS had done (had they not done first-person interviews, etc. as well), it still would have been as valid as any other study. You're grasping at straws, Torpedo.
Quote:When you take a position and then you atttempt to support it by attacking any opposing view. It seems to me that that is ad hominem, at least in nature. That is precisely what you have done.
It is clear that you don't understand to what
argumentum ad hominem refers. Please see my link, above.
Quote:With respect to the comments offered by Annoymous. I think (and this is MY opinion) it is shameful for you and your friends to encourage apparently otherwise unknowledge people (especially those who would have been NDI anyway) to engage in countermeasures.
Given well-known and researched false-positive rates, I must disagree with this strongly.
Quote:In light of the advice you and others have provided and the threats of law suits that are thrown about, I would find it incredibly interesting to see what you and those of your calling would do should a person who adopted your advice, performed countermeasures, ackowledged such use (notwithstanding if they can be detected or not) and did not get the job they sought, or the security clearance they desired because of this and their misguided belief that they would just be helping themselves.
If someone were to use countermeasures and admit it, he or she would not be adopting the advice given here. Have you actually read
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (which you disparage with such authority)?
Skeptic