Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) countermeasure frequency (Read 12171 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1young11
Guest


countermeasure frequency
May 21st, 2003 at 5:42pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I've read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and understand how the machine works, but something I missed, or was not covered is how often, and with what kind of intensity do I elicit a response to control questions?

Do I give a response of the same intensity to the same question every time its asked, or should I vary the responses? 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box BSDetector
Guest


Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #1 - May 21st, 2003 at 6:15pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I can't wait for the BS that will now come from all the "experts".  George,  the BS'er IN CHIEF, why don't you start?  And then Beech Trees, the sallow bitter 'I passed using countermeasures but I'm still mad' (Why?  Is it because you still didn't get the job?), followed closely by Orolan the moron who just has to put in his two cents worth.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #2 - May 21st, 2003 at 7:12pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I can't wait for the BS that will now come from all the "experts".  George,  the BS'er IN CHIEF, why don't you start?  And then Beech Trees, the sallow bitter 'I passed using countermeasures but I'm still mad' (Why?  Is it because you still didn't get the job?), followed closely by Orolan the moron who just has to put in his two cents worth.


Uh oh-- look out Batman! It looks as if you have stiff competition for the Polygrapher Best Professional Conduct of The Year Award! Go get it, bs!
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box suethem
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 196
Joined: Apr 29th, 2003
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #3 - May 21st, 2003 at 7:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
BSDetector,

the experts include:

The National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Drew Richarson (FBI crime lab)

Doug Williams retired polygrapher

Marshall Frank retired detective Miami PD

District Attorney Adrienne Lynch

Are they all wrong?

Have they all conspired against you?

You consistantly attack George.  If this site only showed his opinon, I would question it too.  But what we see here is a variety of LE and scientific people detailing why the polygraph is flawed and a danger.

Batman, no_sugar_coating and you can rag on George all you want.  The fact that polygraph schools are concerned about countermeasures seems to back up the points made on this site regarding their effectiveness.

When I approach any subject I look at the variety of sources, the scope of the arguement and substance of opinon.  It is not lost on me that the pro-polygraph crowd is often rude and defensive.

I have yet to hear any pro-polygraph person address the National Academy of Sciences findings with any real substance.  Nobody from the pro-polygraph crowd seems to want to take Dr. Drew's countermeasures challenge.  This hurts you as well.


If you consider yourself an expert than address the National Academy of Sciences report here!!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #4 - May 21st, 2003 at 9:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
BSD,
Is it possible for you to post some relevant and intelligent content, or is that beyond your scope of abilities? However rude and crude he may be sometimes, at least Batman will debate an issue intelligently and rationally. My input may only be worth two cents, but right now yours is worthless.
Suethem, I wouldn't exactly include Adrienne Lynch as an anti-poly expert. As I said in my post of her comments, I think she would be pro-poly if the results had been different. She will support whichever side suits her needs at the time.
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Batman
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Joined: Jan 12th, 2003
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #5 - May 21st, 2003 at 9:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Suethem,

FBI, CIA, NCIS, USA/CID, USA/MI, USMC, AFOSI, DIA, NSA, NRO, DEA, US Customs, Secret Service, DSS, Treasury Dept, the US Government, almost all state police departments, and almost every major municipal police department, to name a few, all believe the polygraph works and endorse it's utilization.

Now they may all be wrong, and they may all be involved in some sort of conspiracy to violate the rights of the individual polygraph examinee, but just as impressive a list, with as many highly intelligent and fair-minded individuals as you mentioned.

Batman
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box suethem
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 196
Joined: Apr 29th, 2003
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #6 - May 22nd, 2003 at 9:04am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman,

I am aware that many LE agencies use the polygraph to get confessions from applicants- That is not what I am disputing.

What I am questioning is the scientific validity of polygraph examinations and testing.  You still did not answer my question about the National Academy of Sciences! 

Are they Wrong Yes or No?

If countermeasures don't exist then why do polygraphers threaten applicants by saying that they can detect them?

Haven't there been spies who have beaten the FBI poly?
 
Didn't some folks from Cuba snow the Defense Dept. poly program?

On the main page here there is a former CIA polygrapher who calls polygrapher a SWAG (scientific Wild Ass Guess).  A past CIA director also states that the belief in the polygraph is insane!

Doesn't the US military train some of it personnel to beat polygraphs in case they are captured?- train them to use countermeasures?

I believe that the DEA no longer makes "passing the poly" a condition of employment (or so they say because they got sued!).

I believe in countermeasures- I have friends that have used them to beat the poly- Now they work in some of the agencies you listed. 

If they really didn't work it would be in your best interest not to say anything at all.  That way all the liars, and people that use countermeasures to ensure good results, would fail, and nothing but the best, most truthfull would remain.

Here is the polygraph standard:

Lie when we want you to (control Question) and your a good citizen!!!

You guys like confessions- Ashcroft admitted that there is at least a 15% false postive rate on the polygraph- I bet that makes him feel better.

Why don't you admit that its just a prop-  I'll bet you'll feel better than you have in years.  You might even take your tights off and get out of the cave!!


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6046
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #7 - May 22nd, 2003 at 9:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I've read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and understand how the machine works, but something I missed, or was not covered is how often, and with what kind of intensity do I elicit a response to control questions?

Do I give a response of the same intensity to the same question every time its asked, or should I vary the responses?  


1young11,

The reason we provide no suggestions on whether to use the same amount of effort, or to use the same technique(s), in augmenting responses  to "control" questions is that we don't have documentation or theoretical grounds for making any such suggestions.

It seems that some polygraphers may expect to see "habituation" and a gradual lessening of the magnitude of physiological responses over the course of a polygraph examination. This was suggested in the article by London & Krapohl cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Thus, one might suppose that it might to be beneficial to countermeasure more strongly early in the examination and less strongly later.

However, a polygrapher's expectation of such habituation during the time frame of a polygraph examination seems to be simply more conjecture from the polygraph community. If one countermeasures with less effort later in the course of a polygraph examination, there is an associated risk that reactions to the corresponding relevant questions might be stronger than those to the "control" questions, leading to a "deception indicated" outcome.

Note also that the pneumo channel is the only one for which the relative intensity of reactions can be directly controlled. By contrast, mental countermeasures (or tongue biting or anal sphincter contraction) applied with roughly equal effort might produce reactions of differing magnitudes.

Hence, we make no suggestion with regard to whether to vary the intensity of effort in augmenting reactions to "control" questions.

BS Detector,

Precisely what have I said or written regarding polygraph countermeasures that you believe to be "BS?"

In the message thread Countermeasures you characterized my remarks on countermeasures as "a pile of bullshit." When I asked you to tell me precisely what I have said or written that you consider to be "a pile of bullshit," you did not reply.

You seem to be just another irate polygrapher, miffed that the tricks of your trade are being openly aired...and that you are powerless to stop it. Kiss
  

George W. Maschke
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"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Batman
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Joined: Jan 12th, 2003
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #8 - May 22nd, 2003 at 9:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George,

You have stated in the past that the purpose of this site is not to aid individuals involved in criminal activity by giving them information on how to beat the polygraph; not an exact quote, but a fairly accurate depiction.

Do you know anything at all about '1young11'?  Is he just some innocent job applicant afraid of taking a polygraph, or is he someone who is involved in serious criminal activity who is trying to avoid prosecution?  Do you have any idea at all?

This isn't the first time you've given fairly specific "countermeasures advice" to a 'poster'.  Do you have any idea as to what circumstances they are facing that require them to undergo a polygraph?

I know you have also stated, again not an exact quote, that for the greater good, it is acceptable that a few bad apples get away.  I suppose some could live with that, but are you now giveing specific aid to those bad apples?  Do you care if you are?

Batman
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box The_Breeze
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 31st, 2002
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #9 - May 22nd, 2003 at 10:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Beech Trees
Thanks on Williams behalf for the endorsement.  I have read his material and even corresponded with him.  Heres my view.
His material is badly dated and in some cases just flat wrong
He is a fraud that has nothing like the experience he claims, and is in fact seeking revenge and financial opportunity
He also is in my view very violatile and unstable.

The fact that you would use him to reinforce your position (you do know he has contempt for the players here) says alot about your ability to jump to conclusions and put forth half baked proposition as factual knowledge. He is a fraud, find another source.

Ill tell you what, as an self acknowledged master of sophisticated countermeasures, take some of the time you would normally devote to irritating people on this site and apply for a LE job from a respectable agency close to you.  Pick one that polygraphs before a background so you can maintain the appearance of dignity.  Employ your tradecraft after notifying the readers here of the target, the name of the polygrapher, and the agency.  Post your results and preferably the charts.  Do that and ill be impressed.
Or better yet, since you have already done it several times, provide details that can be checked.
If you are serious about your cause, then take it serious.  Hell, even Martin Sheen gets symbolically arrested on a yearly basis in August.
Not willing to put your own examples on the line? talk some weak willed person into it for you and document same.  Nothing in this would violate any law that I know of.
Its just hard for those of us that can think for ourselves that you are here out of indignation, having toyed with your examiners, now just want to make things right in the world.  Since you wont talk about your job, I will just put you in the BS file with your friends.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6046
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #10 - May 22nd, 2003 at 10:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman,

I have no idea for what purpose 1young11 is interested in polygraph countermeasures, just as I have no idea for what purpose any particular person who downloads The Lie Behind the Lie Detector does so. But I see no reason to assume bad intent. The question 1young11 raised is of general interest, and I see no problem in candidly discussing it.

With regard to your ridiculous suggestion that the fact that various federal agencies rely on polygraphy somehow rebuts the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, one should recall the following words from Dr. Richardson's 1997 Senate testimony (explaining why the FBI and other agencies continue to rely on this quackery):

Quote:
I think the aforementioned problems with polygraph continue to exist within the Bureau and elsewhere for the following reasons:

1. Polygraph research (direction, funding, and evaluation), training, and operational review is controlled by those who practice polygraphy and depend upon it for a living. This is tantamount to having the government's cancer research efforts controlled by the tobacco industry. Independent scientific experts must be (and have not been) consulted to obtain an objective view of polygraphy.

2. Within the Bureau, polygraph examiners who have little or no understanding of the scientific principles underlying their practice, report to mid-level managers who are largely ignorant of polygraph matters. These in turn report to executives, who have real problems for which they seek needed solutions (e.g., the need to protect national security from the danger of espionage, and the need to hire employees with appropriate backgrounds). These executives are left unable to evaluate that polygraph is not a viable solution and do not comprehend that ignorance and mis-information are built into their own command structure.

3. The fact that the human physiology is marvelously wonderful and complex, that polygraph methods have been able to accurately record this physiology for most of this century and beyond, and the fact that computerized acquisition and evaluation of this data is now available, in no way compensates for the vast shortcomings of polygraph applications and questioning formats. State of the art technology utilized on faulty applications amounts to nothing more than garbage in, garbage out.
  

George W. Maschke
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"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1young11
Guest


Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #11 - May 23rd, 2003 at 5:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Just for the record, not that it matters, I am a volunteer firefighter who has worked his ass of this past year to get my EMT license, and firefighterII certification.  I have made it in the top 4 places on the hiring list of the department that I have wanted to get on for 4 years.  I am not going to allow a false + from a polygraph to keep me from realizing my dreams of being a career firefighter.  And I want to thank George for having this site, and for providing DOCUMENTED information about polygraphs.  As opposed to some of the posters in this forum who instead of bringing intelligent info, only seem capable of leveling accusations, and insults.  Why don't these cowardly people grow a pair, and bring real info to have an intelligent debate about this topic, or they can continue to look like asses and bring no intelligent thought out arguement, and just keep up with their childish insults.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box suethem
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 196
Joined: Apr 29th, 2003
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #12 - May 24th, 2003 at 1:03am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
1young11,

You have to understand that polygraphers have a cult mentality.  They are the oracle of what is true and just- only they can say who is good/bad.

Like any two cent tyrant, the power goes to their head and clouds their judgement- so don't take it personally.

Batman probably picked up on the frequency of your posting  and judged it as a deceptive one.  (They can read the frequencies of your mind you know.)

Your firefighting/emt work is something that has real value to the community.  You help save people!!  Use what you read here to help you pass the 'test' and never look back.

If you ever get a rescue call to a cave, take your time. You can always say that traffic was a public safety issue, and you had to drive slowly.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Batman
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 115
Joined: Jan 12th, 2003
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #13 - May 24th, 2003 at 8:56am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Suethem,

You are a feisty little bugger aren't you?

First, only a fool would argue that polygraph is a perfect tool, and that it can't be beat.  The same would have to be said for anyone who argues that countermeasures can be detected 100% of the time.  I have stated on numerous occasions that polygraph is not perfect, and that it's use as a pre-employment screening tool is questionable; however in the law enforcement arena, on specific issue testing, it is a viable tool which has been proven to be accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused.

I have also stated that it is my belief that the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis, as it is not something that is administered within a 'controlled' enviornment, and the primary variable, the examinee, is always different.

My opinions and beliefs on this subject are based on 19 plus years of continuous experience as a polygraph examiner within the law enforcement community, and 25 years of total experience within that same community.  During this period of time I have witnessed, and been a direct part of, some tremendous success stories involving the use of polygraph.  I have also witnessed some, but far fewer, failures.  The great majority of the time, those failures were brought about by human error on the part of the polygraph examiner or investigators.  The success stories were a combined effort of good, solid investigative work coupled with the proper utilization and employment of the polygraph technique as an investigative tool.

I have no objection with anyone who posts anti-polygraph sentiments on this, or any other site.  What I object to is the willingness of some to first, want to dispose of the use of polygraph in any capacity, based simply on their ignorance of it's full capabilities, and their vendetta due to a supposed bad experience.  Second, the blatant willingness to provide anyone, regardless of their situation, information as to how to "beat" the polygraph, and then hiding behind some blanket ideology that even though this may render assistance to some full blown criminals, that is a small price to pay in the war against polygraph. And third, the fact that most of the anti-polygraph posters on this site are zealots, who refuse to acknowledge in any way what-so-ever, that polygraph does in fact have utility.  Attempting to enter into any type of logical debate with them is equal to beating my head against a brick wall. 

You'll note that I said my head, not your head.  If we were to use your head, then we could most likely crumble that wall with one single blow!

George,

I never cease to be amazed at how you always blow off each and every 'pro-polygraph' comment with some quote by Mr. Richardson, or others.  What Mr. Richardson states, before the Senate, is his opinion.  Some of it I actually agree with, however it still remains his opinion as an individual.  His statements before the Senate do nothing to diminish the fact that polygraph is a viable investigative tool, utilized by almost every local, state, and federal agency with an investigative charter, many of which have individual employees of extremely high intelligence, and adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct.  To be asked by someone (I can't recall which goofball it was) to provide the names of these individuals is more ridiculous than my "suggestion that the fact that various federal agencies rely on polygraphy somehow rebuts the findings of the National Academy of Sciences".

Batman
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6046
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: countermeasure frequency
Reply #14 - May 24th, 2003 at 9:38am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Batman,

You write:

Quote:
...however in the law enforcement arena, on specific issue testing, it is a viable tool which has been proven to be accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused.


CQT polygraphy may well be "viable" in the sense that it can have utility as an interrogational prop with individuals who don't understand that the "test" is a fraud. But it has not been "proven accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused." As the National Academy of Sciences concluded in its recent polygraph report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy, that is, its ability to add diagnostic value to that which can be achieved without it (e.g., interrogating a suspect without the use of a polygraph, or with a mock-up device that the subject is led to believe is a polygraph).

Quote:
I have also stated that it is my belief that the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis, as it is not something that is administered within a 'controlled' enviornment, and the primary variable, the examinee, is always different.


The same could be said of tea leaf, tarot card, astrological chart, and palm readings, all of which, like polygraphy, have no scientific basis whatsoever.

You mention your experience of seeing more polygraph successes than failures. David T. Lykken provides relevant commentary in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector  (2nd ed., pp. 70-71):

Quote:

How Polygraph-Induced Confessions Mislead Polygraphers


It is standard practice for police polygraphers to interrogate a suspect who has failed the lie test. They tell him that the impartial, scientific polygraph has demonstrated his guilt, that no one now will believe his denials, and that his most sensible action at this point would be to confess and try to negotiate the best terms that he can. This is strong stuff, and what the examiner says to the suspect is especially convincing and effective because the examiner genuinely believes it himself. Police experience in the United States suggests that as many as 40% of interrogated suspects do actually confess in this situation. And these confessions provide virtually the only feedback of "ground truth" or criterion data that is ever available to a polygraph examiner.

If a suspect passes the polygraph test, he will not be interrogated because the examiner firmly believes he has been truthful. Suspects who are not interrogated do not confess, of course. This means that the only criterion data that are systematically sought--and occasionally obtained--are confessions by people who have failed the polygraph, confessions that are guaranteed to corroborate the tests that elicited those confessions. The examiner almost never discovers that a suspect he diagnosed as truthful was in fact deceptive, because that bad news is excluded by his dependence on immediate confessions for verification. Moreover, these periodic confessions provide a diet of consistently good news that confirms the examiner's belief that the lie test is nearly infallible. Note that the examiner's client or employer also hears about these same confessions and is also protected from learning about most of the polygrapher's mistakes.

Sometimes a confession can verify, not only the test that produced it, but also a previous test that resulted in a diagnosis of truthful. This can happen when there is more than one suspect in the same crime, so that the confession of one person reveals that the alternative suspect must be innocent. Once again, however, the examiner is usually protected from learning when he has made an error. If the suspect who was tested first is diagnosed as deceptive, then the alternative suspect--who might be the guilty one--is seldom tested at all because the examiner believes that the case was solved by that first failed test. This means that only rarely does a confession prove that someone who has already failed his test is actually innocent.

Therefore, when a confession allows us to evaluate the accuracy of the test given to a person cleared by that confession, then once again the news will almost always be good news; that innocent suspect will be found to have passed his lie test, because if the first suspect had not passed the test, the second person would not have been tested and would not have confessed.[endnote omitted]


You also write:

Quote:
What I object to is the willingness of some to first, want to dispose of the use of polygraph in any capacity, based simply on their ignorance of it's full capabilities, and their vendetta due to a supposed bad experience.


Why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness? Enlighten us. What are these capabilities of polygraphy of which you believe some of us are ignorant?

Quote:
Second, the blatant willingness to provide anyone, regardless of their situation, information as to how to "beat" the polygraph, and then hiding behind some blanket ideology that even though this may render assistance to some full blown criminals, that is a small price to pay in the war against polygraph.


If polygraphy were a valid diagnostic test of truth versus deception, and if it were robust against countermeasures, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Quote:
And third, the fact that most of the anti-polygraph posters on this site are zealots, who refuse to acknowledge in any way what-so-ever, that polygraph does in fact have utility.


This last objection of yours is groundless. No one here is arguing that polygraphy has no utility. It's just that it has no validity.

Quote:
Attempting to enter into any type of logical debate with them is equal to beating my head against a brick wall.


You have shown little patience for logical debate, quickly resorting to the less intellectually demanding tactics of taunts, insults, and vulgarity instead.
  

George W. Maschke
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"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
countermeasure frequency

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
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:
X