George,
Quote:The reason I posted frostibud108's here is that it sheds some light on a dark corner of polygraphy. Very few deceptive persons who use countermeasures to pass a polygraph examination publicly say so. Frostibud108's post is a rare exception, and I thought it noteworthy.
Agree it is noteworthy, as I said previously it just struck a cord in me and caused me to re-think public postings.
Quote:At the same time, I thought it was important to note (especially for new visitors to this website) that our motivation in making countermeasure information publicly available is to protect the innocent against the random error associated with an invalid test and not to aid the guilty, even while recognizing that the information provided here may benefit the latter to the extent that polygraph results are relied upon.
Again, I agree with what you are saying and I track with your line of thought; however, as I have said, it caused me to take pause and think.
Quote:
I think your sarcastically delivered comparison of me to a thalidomide manufacturer seeking to avoid liability is inappropriate. Indeed, I find it highly offensive.
We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.
My intent was not to offend; however, the analogy, not the kindest, still stands. I truly feel we all must take responsibility for our actions. By publicly posting information to the WWW on how to beat a polygraph, you are aiding [not intentionally] the more nefarious factions of our society. By saying, "We're not selling a product here. We're engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech about a procedure that the scientific community agrees is invalid.", you cannot erase the fact that criminal elements benefit from your posts. In fact, you almost sound like the defense attorney who plays word games with the law to win for his client. You offer a service on this site for which you cannot control the end use. This use can be for both the common good and for the lesser side of honesty. You must always be aware of that and not hide behind the vile of “greater good” or "First Amendment rights." As stated in my previous post, “Sometimes the greater good means one may need to parse his words before posting public.” To quote Bill O’Reilly, “This is a no spin zone.”
Quote:Now you seem to be suggesting that perhaps I should not have publicly mentioned frostibud108's post because it "provid[es] fuel to the adversaries of this site." I disagree. On the contrary, frostibud108's post vividly illustrates the danger of relying on polygraph results.
Opponents of this site would offer that it shows just how dangerous this site is. Again, two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum using the same issue to support their argument. I would be interested in your take on my comments to your reference to the "Menges post".
"Not a sermon, just a thought"
Darkcobra,
Your comments to George are your opinion, but let us not forget, an American Citizen, living within the country or not, still has the same rights that are afforded all citizens of this nation. Some citizens just chose to exercise those rights from afar. George served his nation in the military and has earned the right to grouse/bitch/and complain just like any other veteran, whether you [or anyone else] agree with him or not. That is what defines us as a nation.