"the-man,"

I have formally challenged you to prove your accusation of plagiarism. Your initial unwillingness to do so suggests that you made up the accusation. Please put up or shut up.

Now you additionally claim that I have been "proven to be a liar." Please explain this allegation. What have I been proven to have lied about? And where is the proof to which you refer?

Maybe you should listen to your own advice regarding your posts about George and Gino. Although it is common for polygraphers to become confused with what is deception and what is the truth. Your claims that George is a liar hold as much validity that polygraphy is a

Quote:

Or, perhaps I didn’t happen to see your posts within the 6 or so hours that elapsed before you erroneously concluded that I lacked the fortitude to respond to you. Despite what you polygraphers may think, George and I don’t sit at home 24/7 at the screen in front of this Web site. We both have jobs, families, etc. This is a part-time venture, essentially a hobby.

The only lack of guts with regard to AntiPolygraph.org is on the part of the multitude of polygraph examiners who visit this site each day. Nearly 1000 days have passed since former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and polygraph examiner Dr. Drew C. Richardson posted his Challenge to the Polygraph Community with respect to the claimed ability to detect countermeasures. Not a single person has stepped up to the mike in nearly three years. Now that’s what I call cowardice.
Quote:

No. At no time did I ever write such an article. You are mistaken. As a person who makes a career determining truthfulness vs. deception on the basis of polygraph charts, I’m sure you are used to be wrong whether you know it or not.
Quote:

Or, he neglected to dignify your comments with a response.
Quote:

No, we don’t see any sign of plagiarism. So, since you are the one advancing this argument, please enlighten us. As George said, Please point out any passage(s) of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you honestly believe to be plagiarized, along with the unacknowledged source upon which you believe such to be based. Put up, or shut up.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is well-referenced. In the areas where we drew upon the prior work of others, we provided full text citations. 

I’m not exactly sure what the definition is for plagiarism is in the diploma mills that a number of luminaries in the polygraph field appear to have gotten their degrees from. In accredited academic institutions, however, mentioning something that others have written before and properly citing a source is the bedrock of all non-fiction writing. It most certainly is not plagiarism.

So once again, back up your baseless claims or go pound sand.

Maybe you should keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, Your kind of marriage is not yet recognized .........

PS: as Dimas says "see ya in the discarded post"

Quote:


I know it was hard to contain myself, seeing that the exam went EXACTLY how it was stated in TLBTLD. Actually I laughed all the way home. It doesn't stop there I still get a chuckle when I see polygraphers such as "the-man" post on here. I will continue to do my part in helping expose polygraphy for what it is. Sorry this angers you "little-man".

Quote:

Resorting to ad hominem attacks when you are getting crushed on the facts? You couldn't possibly be "I Smell BS" registered under another name, could you?

If you can't hang with the big dogs, perhaps you should get back up on the porch, little angry doggie.

these people face bigger problems than the poly...