damn i just posted this article too...

i was gona see what u guys think about it.... 

It seems like even a small flexing shows???

So how long have you been a polygrapher Mr. Anal? Don't you think that is quite ironic that you are asking him to be honest with his polygrapher when in turn the polygrapher is lying to him?

Quote:


Assuming that is the case, is there anything wrong with that?  As a polygraphster can you honestly say that false positives do not happen?  Those that are victimised by your imperfect machine can be devastated.  They can miss out on a dream job for which they are otherwise highly qualified; they can jeapordize their current job, or be stigmatised with false accusations.

Ones concern for his fellow man is perhaps what motivates thsoe who speak out and expose this dangerous fraud.   

Or would you rather those who are victim of polygraph fraud simply lick their wounds and go away silently, so polygrahsters can continue to abuse others?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!  Thank you for the laugh, Jeffrey!  Not all polygraphsters are bad, you know.

I can't know for sure what their motivation is for keeping this silly site going, but the most logical explanation would be that they probably deservedly failed a polygraph exam and continue to lie to themselves AND others by perpetuating their psychobabble.

Whenever you see someone attacking what many people believe is a good thing, while claiming to dedicate themselves to helping their fellow men, you still have to ask yourself what he or she is getting out of it.  Attention, perhaps?  That would be more likely.  As for me, I'm posting on here mostly for my own amusement.  Georgie and Co. know I'll become bored with them after awhile.  I mean, an intelligent person can only tolerate a bunch of bitchers, whiners, moaners and worriers for so long before he or she moves on to more interesting pursuits.  Right now, I'm having fun ridiculing the ridiculous.  

seascapes wrote on Feb 11^th, 2005 at 5:08pm:

That certainly added intelligent dialog to this conversation...

anythingformoney wrote on Feb 12^th, 2005 at 2:43am:


Well Anal, you really should get out more.  Stop gazing at polygraph charts and pick up a dictionary.   

Here, let me help--
Here's one for the suffix of -ster
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ster
I think it goes well with polygraph-ster.  As in prankster, gangster, etc

And here's one for metrics-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metrics ;
see the definition where it says "a standard of measurement".

I know I said earlier I didn't want to get drawn in on a childish discussion.  Now that I've defined the meaning of polygraphster for you, would you care to offer a substantive reply?

Note to audience -- my suspicion is that AnalSphincter is pro-polygraph, and quite possibly a polygrahper/ster himself.   

Take everything you see in an internet forum with a pound of salt (not just a grain).  But judge the poster by the quality of his posts.

Oh, what the hell--cutting and pasting is easy, Jeffery, so pardon my laziness.  Here's the post to very senior user Gino Scalabrini.  I hope it clears up some of your faulty information:

OK, Gino.  Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once.  We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage.     
 
In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit.  The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80%  on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception.  Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53). 
 
Pretty darned good, huh, Gino?  It gets better, so read on: 
 
In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%.  It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors.  (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.)  In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts).   However, because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners.  The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation.  What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners.  In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%.  The studies used by the Committee are as follows: 
 
Horvath, F.S. (1977)  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136. 
 
Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988)  A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61. 
 
Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection.  Nature, 308, 449-450. 
 
Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988)  A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040.  Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah. 
 
Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238. 
 
Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application.  The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324. 
 
So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino? 
 
(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!) 
 
 
Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read.  This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about.  The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world.  Take your best shot, Gino.  I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby! 
 
Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be?  He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life.  He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.