Orolan

Your ignorance knows no bounds.  CIA, DIA, and NSA are not federal law enforcement agencies.  They would be considered intelligence agencies.  However, I'm sure they would all be interested if their employees are child molesters.  Although I'm not a customs agent, I would bet the kitchen sink they've ran a few murder investigations.  Your knowledge of law enforcement concerns me.  I thought I was corresponding with people that had at least a basic understanding.  I'm going to have to discount anything you've said previously based on your ignorance.  Which basically means I'm giving you a free ride on your bone head comments.

SEX

Even old time examiner's lose their confidence.  Just changes with time.  No different than an insurance guy who no longer can cut the mustard.

Saidme,
Pretty much the response I expected from you. You're full of sh_t and you know it. There is NO Federal law enforcement agency that as a matter of day-to-day operations investigates EVERY type of crime you claim to have polygraphed and obtained confessions on. As I said, the FBI is the only one that even remotely might have a hand in all of them. But you say you don't work for the FBI, so we'll forget that one.
You choose not to answer because there is no such agency, and you know it. The alternative would be that you are lying about your alleged accomplishments.
So back up what you say. Name the agency, or admit that you're a liar.
You can give me all the "free rides" you want on my so-called bonehead comments. I really don't care. But don't expect me to reciprocate and give you a free ride on your unsubstantiated claims.

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 3:50pm:


Saidme's right regarding the above agencies, Orolan -- though I would imagine that might have been what you were driving at in the first place.

Of course, it's always possible he's merely exaggerating his own hand in "landing [name a criminal] in jail".  As usual, most of what he says must be taken for the anonymous, uncorroborated boast it is.

Quote:


And I'd be surprised if they didn't turn such matters over to the appropriate law enforcement people in virtually all cases, since murder investigations really aren't their bailiwick.

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 2:21am:


Since you won't back up most of your assertions of "facts", they are (pretty much by definition) "uncorroborated".  And claiming to be able to do what no one has demonstrated the ability to do (namely, detect countermeasures reliably) is, again by definition, a "boast".

Quote:


It seems to me, Saidme, that (given your passion for crime-fighting and your ability to carry on extended confrontations without allowing yourself to be baited) your skills as an interrogator are wasted on the polygraph.  Just my humble opinion, though.

Quote:


I forget nothing, Saidme.  All evidence says the polygraph doesn't do the job it is purported to do -- namely, discern truthfulness from falsehood with sufficent reliability to warrant faith in the device.  That's why I oppose it, not because my life has been ruined (or indeed, significantly impacted) by the polygraph.

I'm the first to admit I didn't enjoy my pre-employment polygraph sessions, but to the best of my knowledge, I "passed" them.  Not that being bitter about having one's career ruined by a bogus instrument is necessarily a bad thing, though.

Perhaps, in all of your time polygraphing suspects, you've forgotten how important a little compassion for your fellow man can be...

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 2:52am:


Saidme,
If you re-read my statement, I think you'll find I said it didn't ruin my career.  I was referring to those for whom the polygraph was arguably a career-ender.

The NSA doesn't approach polygraphs as determining "truth" or "falsehood".  Rather, they use it as an interrogation prop for gaining confessions.  Thus, I went through three polygraph interrogations.  From contact with other NSA job-seekers, I believe this is not unusual for their process.   

I voluntarily withdrew my candidacy for a variety of reasons, but given the length of time after my last polygraph with no "rejection" notice, and given the "please apply again with us in the future" letter I received after withdrawing, I have every reason to believe I passed.

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 3:41am:


Thank you.  But now you've made me curious.  Why would you assume the results were inconclusive after the third poly?

Per NSA polygraph regs, they would have needed Director of Security approval for a fourth, but it stands to reason they would have scheduled a fourth poly (or issued a rejection letter) inside of two months.

Skeptic