Quote:


Yeah.........I think it's safe for you to start your job search again, preferably in another profession.

Best of luck.

Kona

Quote:


Now that's funny!    I've been called a lot of things on these boards, but a "scum sucking polygrapher" is a first.   

For your information, I'm not a polygrapher.  In fact, I believe that the polygraph should be abolished from the pre-employment hiring process, since it has no validity. 

As for you friend "Broke Down," he tells us that the examiner said: "you flunked," and then proceeds to ask us for comments.  What did you expect me to say?  He got caught in a lie, and I told him that it would probably be safe to continue his job search elsewhere (in another profession).  Do you honestly think he'll have much luck applying for another police officer job?  Don't you think that his documented lying will be the proverbial "turd in a punch bowl" for any further law enforcement job endeavors?  I await your enlightened reply.



Kona 

there are 2 types of posters on this board typically. people who are pissed that they got busted, and people who are pissed because they are innocent.

those of us who are innocent do not suffer long the whining of people who are just mad about being "tricked into the truth" or whatever you want to call it.

for every person out there that lies and admits something post-test, and then complains about it, it ruins the credibility of those of us who complain because we were wronged.

there is no more serious offense than lack of candor when applying for law enforcement. that is my opinion from my experience and the opinion of my FBI app co-ordinator as well. Don't tell one lie then moan that they dont believe you that the lying is over.

Bill Crider wrote on May 27^th, 2004 at 4:51am:



Yeah, I don't get it. Why would someone spend so much time pointing the finger and drawing attention to people who got caught by the box and decided to complain on this website about it? It's as if you're trying to make a statment about how the efficient the procedure actually is. It sounds like you're more of an advocate of the polygraph than you let on to be. Hmmmmmm.......

Bill Crider wrote on May 27^th, 2004 at 6:09am:


Bravo!  Pillpopper hits the nail on the head.  

Fish and Bullplop, do you now see the difference between a person that has been denied the job because of a false positive (pillpopper), and a guy that lied on his background package, and then during the post-interrogation interview got caught in his own bullshit lie (Broke Down)?    

I have the greatest empathy for a person that told the truth during the exam, and was found either deceptive or inconclusive by this pseudo-science.  That's what this website is all about; protecting honest people from a false positive result.  On the other hand, I have absolutely no empathy for a guy that lied on his background package and then gets caught in that lie during a polygraph interview..... especially when the polygrapher gets the examinee to openly admit it post test.  It tells me that the examinee has no integrity.  

Bullplop, if you don't think that candor, honesty, and integrity are the most important things when filling out a background investigation package, you are sorely mistaken.  Having committed a felony such as murder or rape is an automatic disqualifier, while I think they may let you slide on the overdue library books.  I was told by my Background Investigator that smoking pot, stealing a candy bar, etc...were things that were normal and NOT disqualifying, as long as we told the truth about it.  It was beaten into our heads that if we LIED about anything in our background info, we would be shown the door.  No second chances.  So evidently, candor, honesty, and integrity are extremely important to police agencies.  

Anything else?

Kona

Kona wrote on May 27^th, 2004 at 10:35am:



So, getting high off illegal narcotics and thievery are normal behaviors that most every occasionally has engaged in, but lying about these behaviors is unacceptable?

Let's review that again:

Smoking dope = A-okay!

Shoplifting = A-okay!

Lying about smoking dope or shoplifting = Unacceptable


The insanity of this guy's logic intrigues me.

Kona wrote on May 27^th, 2004 at 9:22pm:



I love how you place all those specifiers on everything so nothing is ambiguous (just the opposite of what control questions do in a polygraph exam) like "experimenting", "in college", "candybar" and "when you were a kid". 

But when revealed indiscretions don't meet the polygraphers litmus test for "things many applicants have done" (whatever the hell THAT is supposed to mean) then the chart-gazer gets all that leeway to either minimalize or exaggerate the crime as he or she sees fit. 

And heaven forbid someone to be ashamed of what he or she has done in the past, or have fear that past transgression will be held against them, such that they do what "many humans have done" and lie about it ... oh no, anyone who lies has no integrity. 

"Experiment" with all the "pot" you like, dear applicant, as long as you're in "college". 

But remember, at some point that polygrapher gets to decide that it went beyond "experimentation". And now, you're just a dope smoking drug addict who probably can't wait to get out of his office so you can go puff on some more weed.

Let's look at the logic again folks:

Lying = no integrity

Anyone reading this ever tell a lie? Well guess what ... you're not a morally sound individual ... imagine that ...