Torpedo...

So do tell, are you quite fininshed stomping your little feeties?  Balling up your little fisties adds to the drama for you, doesn't it?

Done any research on AD/HD yet?  No, I didn't think so.  From all the misinformation you spew it is so very obvious that you  have never researched this topic.  The line of thinking you try to pass off as intelligent information is actually thinking that went out in the 70's.  Yes, you are 30 years behind in research.  Not that *truth* matters to you, just stomping those little feeties while sticking your thumbs in your ears and blowing raspberries at everyone.  Oh yes, such maturity.

In reality all you are doing is redirecting the thread away from Batman and trying to focus it on me instead.  Isn't going to work, my friend.  You are still an asshole and your little polygraph friends leave little to be desired as well.  I am more convinced than ever just from reading you, confused, and batman that polygraphs are nothing but horseshit.  Manipulative, inaccurate, attempts at intimidation.  If you weren't such a twit you would see that you guys are proving the points of the antipolygraphers here.  You are just too stupid to see it.

Now go ahead, let's see another of your temper tantrums.  You do them so well.  Com'on... let's see it.  You can do it.  Let's see a good one this time.  Perhaps you'll hold your breath until you faint this time?  That would be amusing.

And confused, yes darl'en you are still confused.  I'm not addressing your post point by point because you have made it quite clear in spite of the folks that have attempted time and time again to explain that you just don't get it.  But that's because you are confused.  Huh... kinda like Batman.

When batboy gets in too deep, you show up.  Kewl.

All you polygraphers are so stuck on slams and insults you never answer any questions and my question *still* stands.  Since you all apparently missed the (several) posts I referred to it, I'll remind you once again.

If I were to give you all polygraphs, would you pass?

Confused,

Although I note you are quite willing to continue in meaningless low level banter and name calling with Michelle, I wonder if you might care to comment on what I consider what I believe to be a serious and substantive reply to you recently.  Regards, 

That post (which includes a portion of your previous post):

Quote:

What is it exactly you want me to publicly critisize?  I would need more information.

If you are asking me if I would point out publicly something I thought to be wrong? Yes I would and have.

Tell me what profession you are in?  I am sure someone could find something bad about it.  Maybe an anti-site might be started regarding the many wrongs done by your profession to humanity.

I do now and have always tried to be as professional and ethical and I can.  Everyone who comes to me for a test gets my best effort and I expect that from all examiners.  I am not perfect and never will be but I try.  I am the one who has to live with what I do.  I sleep pretty well.

confused? no

According to you, all Polygraphs are unsubstantiated.  Obviously I disagree.  Do examiners make bad calls? Yes.  Do doctors mis-diagnose? Yes.  Do lawyers blow cases and get their clients sent to prison?  Yes.  Do pharmacy techs ever give out the wrong Rx?  Yes.  Do Police officers ever arrest the wrong people?  Yes.  Everybody,especially polygraph examiners are evil when they make a mistake and therefore you can't trust them.

By the way, you didn't say what your profession is.  Could it be that it is a very unreliable profession and all of its practicioners are evil?

What makes you think we in the profession don't address what we feel is wrong?  When was the last time you were on tv or in the paper saying " the other people in my profession are incompetent and my profession needs to be cleaned up"?

Ok, if I miss quoted you I am sorry.  I guess its easy to get confused with everyone trying to bash me and all examiners on this site.  I guess that meets your challenge??   

Please devine unsustantiated as you mean it.

Sorry your profession is immaterial.  My point was that most of the rehtoric spewed here could be applied to alot of professions.  You can't seem to believe or choose not to, that the Polygraph profession does try to correct problems aas best as possible.  We believe in what we do.  You do not.  I can't help that but attacking any examiner who shows up here and treating them like gum from the bottom of your shoe isn't particularly productive.

I voice my opinion if I beleive something is wrong with this profession or with anything else.  Where I do it and how I go about it depends on the situation.  You throw out the baby with the bathwater if you want, me I try to get the "facts" before I decide

Marty,

Acouple of small points.  I don't believe CQT testing came about due to "fear of consequences".  It came about over concern for truthful people.  Do you think that some one lying about crime questions on a test care about any other questions on the test?  It is not that hard to catch a liar on a Polygraph.

I don't know of any Polygraph examiner who feels the test is nearly infallible.  You have to work hard to do a good test. 

If the purpose of a control question is to help truthful people on a test why is that bad?  It neither helps nor hurts liars, so whats the problem.   

Let's talk about drug research.  In trials it used to be common to give a control group placebo's.  If they were told that, would it not defeat the purpose of the placebo?

As far as testing other examiners let me talk about my own Philosophy on taking the test.  If I don't lie I won't respond to the questions and they have no basis to say I did.  I will say further that on examiners I have tested a few showed responses to the relevant questions and I told them that.  All but one told me I was correct.  They said, just as normal people have, that they were embarrassed and didn't want to tell me about something.  When they did tell me and were later tested on that issue they all passsed.  All but one who wouldn't tell me and refused to come back and be tested in the area of concern.  I can't help that it was their choice to withdraw from the process.

I don't know if that helps and I know it didn't make a dent in some of the people here but again I can't help that.

I am not sure exactly what your last sentence meant but I wouldn't argue with the content.

Marty,

Actually Confused is partially right.  The present control question CQT examination was not constructed to deal with "fear of consequences."  That, in fact, is a term that I coined a couple of years ago (on this site) to explain why the present probable lie CQT (several formats) would not be expected to work.  The CQT exam when developed in the early 1960s was initially thought to provide some degree of scientific control  (hence the name) and was a remedy for the problems associated with asking the litany of hot button (relevant question) items associated with the largely now discredited RI test.  It was not until the mid 1990s that more responsible CQT practitioners admitted that there was no scientific control (but unfortunately overlooked their responsibility for providing such) associated with control questions and then began referring to these questions as comparison questions. 

Confused,

You ask what is the problem with trying to help truthful examinees with the use of control questions.  I suppose I should indicate before answering that question that I have never before and do not now question the good intentions of most examiners.  The answer to your question, however, is that it simply does not work and/or cannot be shown to work as you would hope.  In order for CQT practice to work, fundamental theory would require that it would be necessary to show that for every control/relevant question pairing that the affect (emotional content) for the control be greater than for a relevant question for a given truthful examinee which in turn would naturally lead to greater physiological responses (over the various monitored channels of physiology) for control versus relevant questions.  Unfortunately this cannot be demonstrated to be the case with any given examinee.  It is NOT demonstrable that this is the case qualitatively or quantitatively for any given examinee (regardless of what you think you may have accomplished through the setting of control questions) on any given asking for any R/C question pairing (spot) for any given chart on any given day with any given examinee.  In fact, that which I have previously discussed at some length and referred to as “fear of consequences” would lead me to believe that what you would hope to accomplish with innocent examinees is not only not demonstrable, but in many many cases not likely.  Again, I am sorry, but your good intentions will not overcome the weaknesses of the tools in your arsenal.  It is primarily for this reason and the great consequences to innocent examinees that I have been driven (for both academic/validity and ethical  issues/concerns) to information based tests.  I do not believe that polygraphy should be or need be done away with, but I believe it must be and is not currently (with most lie detection formats) practiced as a serious undertaking.

On a note of lesser importance, Marty is quite correct that clinical trials of investigational new drugs will  involve the experimental subjects knowing about the nature of placebos, their possible effects and adverse side effects, etc.  As Marty further indicated neither physicians nor patients in a typical double blind study will be aware of which pharmaceutical preparations that they receive contain active ingredients and which are placebo, but as opposed to the pretest characterization of probable lie control questions in a polygraph examination, there will be absolutely no deceit connected with the discussion involving experimental subjects regarding the nature, identity, and effects of placebos.