Quote:


Torpedo, to even a casual reader, it's painfully evident you're taking the words of others out of context, misrepresenting others' responses to you and completely ignoring numerous points.  In fact, it's so bad you're pretty much carrying on a conversation with yourself.

Just thought I'd give you a "heads-up"...

Skeptic

Quote:

Not exactly the readers. I think it was pretty clear that I was challenging polygraphers to set something like this up if they feel that it would be so damaging to us. If you look up “shill” in Webster's revised unabridged Dictionary, you will learn that it means: One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. I’m pretty confident that I got my point across considering that fact that all of the other posters besides you understood what I proposed. 
Quote:


Torpedo, you’re being deceptive! If we were in the same room, I would request that you wheel your chair into the corner and pull mine up knee-to-knee with you. You are straight-out manufacturing statements to support your weak argument.  
Quote:
We make it abundantly clear in our writing that the only way one can be caught using countermeasures is to admit it (have you actually read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?) Furthermore, we caution that such admissions are not to be made under any circumstances. 

It’s nothing more than elementary logic. Our advice is to never admit to employing countermeasures. An individual admits to employing the ‘measures. Therefore, it can be deduced that said individual is not following our advice.
Quote:

Since your hypothetical suit revolves around a plaintiff that has been caught using countermeasures, this fact is going to have to be established. Because those who admit to using countermeasures are going to have a pretty tough time advancing the argument that they were following our advice, the detection of the countermeasures will have to be established by the polygrapher. Considering the courts’ deep-rooted skepticism of polygraphy, this is going to be a tough thing to prove. The “this chart shows countermeasures—polygraphers universally agree” argument isn’t going to get very far.
Quote:

Sure, there are lawyers that take cases on principle. There are also lawyers bring frivolous actions knowing that they have a high profit potential. They are comfortable with rolling the dice on court sanctions and possible disbarment. I’m just not sure that there are all that many attorneys looking to bring frivolous actions with no profit potential like the one you describe above.

Still, I have hope. The costs would pale in comparison to the value of the nationwide publicity that your proposed lawsuit would get us.