Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Just took my first poly... (Read 21931 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #15 - Jul 3rd, 2005 at 5:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Nonombre,
I don’t see how you can compare polygraph examinations to urinalysis.  Even the philosophy of the dissenters is different.  I don’t think there are many people who oppose the polygraph because they believe it to be an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment, yet those are precisely the concerns of most people who oppose various forms of urinalysis.  In my experience, most of the people who oppose polygraphs do so because they have had first-hand experience with the inaccuracy of the “test” process.  The two issues are completely different.  I am not aware of any group that opposes urinalysis because they believe it is inaccurate and renders as many false-positives as it does false-negatives, which are the core problems with the polygraph.  

I would have to agree with George’s sentiments; if you are not concerned about an examinee’s knowledge of the procedure, why are you reluctant to share information on that procedure?  If that is the case, why are so many polygraph examiners openly hostile with regards to this web site?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #16 - Jul 3rd, 2005 at 5:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
If this is true, then please explain how methodologies have changed such that it doesn't matter what the examinee knows. Since it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have any reluctance to explain this changed procedure of which you speak. What is the name of this new methodology, how does it differ from standard CQT methodology, what polygraph schools are teaching it, and where can we find documentation of it?

Also, if, as you say, polygraphers no longer care what examinees know about polygraphy, why do they continue to ask about this during the "pre-test" phase?


George, I'm sorry.  Respectfully, I will not go into any details regarding methods.  The only thing I will say (not to sound "coy"), but it seems to me this whole poly-anti-poly situation has become a bit of a chess game.  For years, polygraph examiners operated effectively in a certain fashion.  Then a group of people, some with legitimate complaints, some definately not, started using the intenet to blindly attack how we do our job.  Worse, they started telling others to do things that the very recipients of the "advice" didn't even know for sure what they were doing, or why (for proof, look at many of the highly confused postings on this site).

Obviously we have since adjusted our methods (would'nt you?).   So as in a game of chess, now that the "anti" group has made a move, the polygraph community has countered with a number of procedural changes (not all, not yet, but that is what continuing education is all about).

As in urinalysis screening, which based on information primarily available on the internet, watches it's examinees more closely now and checks for the presence of certain altering substances, the polygraph community has also shifted and changed procedures.

Therefore, the reason I do not answer your questions outright should be easy to understand.  Would you ask the urinalysis companies to post on a site like this one, which altering substances they look for, or which new illegal drugs they test for that matter?

As for why we inquire in the pre-test interview about knowledge or research into polygraph:  I don't know about other examiners, but I ask the question because if the examinee answers they have researched (especailly if they relate they have visited sites like this one), I will then implore them to please not do anything stupid, for as soon as I see it, the test (and their job application/pre-trial agreement/probation) is over.

Nonombre

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #17 - Jul 3rd, 2005 at 6:31pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Nonombre,
Respectfully, I would have to say that characterizing this issue as a “chess game” is a bit specious, in my opinion.  Perhaps you see it as: “So, there’s a new countermeasure for the polygraph, eh?  Well, I’ll just come up with a method to defeat that and keep on giving examinations.”  Thus, you view it as a contest of “us vs. them.”  Simply dealing with the newest countermeasure is a rather shallow way of dealing with things.  You don’t seem to see the core issue: Why are truthful people investing so much time and effort to speak out against the polygraph?

There is a problem with polygraphy.  The problem existed long before this web site was created.  Instead of pointing to this site as a reason for the current issues with polygraphy, maybe the pro-polygraph community could actually look for the reason so many truthful people are so vehemently against the use of the polygraph.  Are some of the people who claim to have told the truth and still failed actually lying about it?  Probably.  But do you really believe that ALL of them are lying about it?  Start fixing the problem, not the blame.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #18 - Jul 3rd, 2005 at 6:32pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Nonombre,

It seems to me that your unwillingness to provide any details about the allegedly "changed" polygraph methodology of which you speak belies your claim that polygraphers "no longer care what" examinees "think they know."
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #19 - Jul 3rd, 2005 at 9:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2005 at 6:31pm:
...You don’t seem to see the core issue: Why are truthful people investing so much time and effort to speak out against the polygraph?

...maybe the pro-polygraph community could actually look for the reason so many truthful people are so vehemently against the use of the polygraph.  Are some of the people who claim to have told the truth and still failed actually lying about it?  Probably.  But do you really believe that ALL of them are lying about it?  Start fixing the problem, not the blame.


Sergeant,

I do not disagree with you.  I am aware that there are people out there who are undoubtably victims of "false positives."  However, unlike many of the folks who hang out on this site, I do not believe that polygraph is fundlementally flawed.  As I have stated in other strings, I have seen far to many cases where the use of the polygraph has surfaced information which NEVER would have been otherwise developed.  As I have said before, that is what so interested me in becoming an examiner, and even in my short time at this, I have helped to solve several criminal cases that had been left for dead until the polygraph was used.

How do we protect against the false positive?  Especially in screening? (not as significant a problem in criminal testing, I am pretty sure)  Well, I have a few ideas about that too, but I do not know if they would be well received in this forum. 

Nonombre.
      
Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #20 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 4:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Nonombre,
Given your experience, I can understand why you are a fan of the polygraph.  It is a powerful argument to say that cases that were otherwise at a standstill were closed because of information gleaned from a polygraph examination.  If that is the sum of your encounters with the polygraph I can certainly understand why you are a proponent; you are restricting your view of  the issue to a single aspect which makes the polygraph appear positive and useful.

However, I think if you look a little deeper, you will find out that the only reason the polygraph was able to get that information is because the subjects being interrogated believed the polygraph was a “lie detector.”  If you were interrogating someone who grew up believing that crystal balls or tarot cards were able to detect lies, then each of those two methods would have been just as effective as the polygraph.  That effectiveness does not mean that such a method is valid or has any scientific foundation. 

If a police polygraph examiner came to you and said that he’d ditched the polygraph and held something that he’d said was a crystal ball in his hands during the last ten interrogations of suspected child molesters, and all ten of them broke down and admitted to the crime, would that convince you of the effectiveness of holding a glass orb during interrogations?  Would it make sense to start using that glass orb for pre-employment screening?  Is society better off because those ten child molesters have been arrested?  Absolutely, without a doubt, yes it is.  Does the fact that the crystal ball trick worked on these ten morons make it any more valid?  Not in my opinion, it doesn’t.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #21 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 5:39pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 4:45pm:
...I think if you look a little deeper, you will find out that the only reason the polygraph was able to get that information is because the subjects being interrogated believed the polygraph was a “lie detector.”  If you were interrogating someone who grew up believing that crystal balls or tarot cards were able to detect lies, then each of those two methods would have been just as effective as the polygraph.  That effectiveness does not mean that such a method is valid or has any scientific foundation. 




But didn't the NAS study, as critical as it was about polygraph screening, report that polygraph was in fact a valid tool for criminal specific issue testing?  Certainly, that would make polygraph somewhat more accurate than the crystal ball you allude to. 

Additionally, that being the case, don't you feel even a slight tinge of guilt support a site that makes every attempt to teach folks how to "beat" a polygraph examination?

Food for thought.

Nonombre   Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Jeffery
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 174
Joined: Oct 27th, 2004
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #22 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 6:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nonombre wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 5:39pm:
But didn't the NAS study, as critical as it was about polygraph screening, report that polygraph was in fact a valid tool for criminal specific issue testing?  Certainly, that would make polygraph somewhat more accurate than the crystal ball you allude to.  

Additionally, that being the case, don't you feel even a slight tinge of guilt support a site that makes every attempt to teach folks how to "beat" a polygraph examination?

Food for thought.

Nonombre   Undecided


The Polygraph community views "false positives" as acceptable losses for the "overall good" they see polygraphics providing.  Those of us in the false positive category obvioulsy think this is bull shit. 

Do crooks sometimes get away with info learned on this site?  Possibly.  But are innocent people protected by information they learn on this site?  Absolutely. And that is the intent.

Crooks using this information to beat the system are acceptable losses, in my opinion, compared to the damage that polygraphics and the ass hole chart rollers who practice it cause.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #23 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 6:44pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Jeffery wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 6:16pm:
Crooks using this information to beat the system are acceptable losses, in my opinion, compared to the damage that polygraphics and the ass hole chart rollers who practice it cause.


And it John Couey had successfully utilized the countermeasure information provided by this site?  I'm afraid that little Jessica Lunsford would still be rotting in that hole.  But of course, according to you, that is "acceptable losses" isn't it?

Nonombre?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Jeffery
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 174
Joined: Oct 27th, 2004
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #24 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:06pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nonombre wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 6:44pm:
And it John Couey had successfully utilized the countermeasure information provided by this site?  I'm afraid that little Jessica Lunsford would still be rotting in that hole.  But of course, according to you, that is "acceptable losses" isn't it?

Nonombre?


I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics.  That of course would have required more *work*.

The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).

Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works.  See the paradox here?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #25 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Nonombre,
You asked if I felt any guilt about supporting a site which attempts to teach people how to “beat” a polygraph.  I absolutely do not feel any such guilt, and here’s why:

If polygraphy was valid and had some scientific basis, I do not believe it could be defeated by visiting a web site which provides instruction on how to alter one’s breathing pattern.  If polygraphy was a valid method of detecting deception then it wouldn’t matter how an examinee sat, or what he was thinking about, how he breathed, or whether he bit his tongue.  A valid test would not be affected by such uncontrollable variables.

If there was a web site which instructed people under arrest for DUI to do math problems in their head, or bite their tongue, or clench up certain muscles when blowing into the Intoxilyzer, I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with it.  None of those things will affect the chemical analysis of a person’s breath, because the analysis is being conducted in a scientifically valid way.  If thinking about math problems or stepping on a tack concealed in your shoe enabled someone to blow .00 after drinking a liter of vodka, it would cause me to have serious doubts about the validity of the breath test.  It would not, however, make me upset with the person who suggested the math problems or the tack.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #26 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Jeffery wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:06pm:
I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics.  That of course would have required more *work*.

The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).

Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works.  See the paradox here?


Jeffrey,

I guess the potential "honorable and potentially stellar agent" you are referring to is you?  Making a bit of an assumption here, aren't we??? And exactly which "proper investigation" methods are you referring to?  Please lay out the investigative plan you would have utilized (without use of polygraph of course) which makes you so sure you would have solved this case.   

Jeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc).  In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed.  Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.

The problem I still see it, is that the people who live on this site would have been quite comfortable if Mr. Couey had read TLBTLD on line from his jail cell and managed to successfully evade detection by the methods taught by this site (much like the anti-urinalysis sites I have mentioned in my previous posts).  Of course, from what I have read, Mr. Couey has alot of people with similar interests posting to this site.  (and I am not attacking blindly here.  I have read MANY posts from convicted sex offenders on this site.  Birds of a feather?)

And by the way, how dare you unilaterally attack the detectives and agents who busted their asses for days and weeks on that case (long hours, little sleep, driven soley by the dedication they felt to find the piece of human crap who did that to that little girl) by smugly sitting in front of your computer screen and making statements like, "That of course would have required more *work*."

Nonombre.





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #27 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:33pm:
Nonombre,
You asked if I felt any guilt about supporting a site which attempts to teach people how to “beat” a polygraph.  I absolutely do not feel any such guilt, and here’s why:

If polygraphy was valid and had some scientific basis, I do not believe it could be defeated by visiting a web site which provides instruction on how to alter one’s breathing pattern.  If polygraphy was a valid method of detecting deception then it wouldn’t matter how an examinee sat, or what he was thinking about, how he breathed, or whether he bit his tongue.  A valid test would not be affected by such uncontrollable variables.

If there was a web site which instructed people under arrest for DUI to do math problems in their head, or bite their tongue, or clench up certain muscles when blowing into the Intoxilyzer, I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with it.  None of those things will affect the chemical analysis of a person’s breath, because the analysis is being conducted in a scientifically valid way.  If thinking about math problems or stepping on a tack concealed in your shoe enabled someone to blow .00 after drinking a liter of vodka, it would cause me to have serious doubts about the validity of the breath test.  It would not, however, make me upset with the person who suggested the math problems or the tack.



Sergeant,

I respect your response a great deal more than the one I just read from "Jeffrey."  As I said, I am quite new to this field and am trying to be as objective as I can.

I have been told by my more experienced examiner friends that the volume of people employing methods to try and "beat" a polygraph exam has definately increased in recent years (thanks in part to this site, I expect).  I do know that the examiners I know  have caught many (I have seen the charts and their confessions with my own eyes).  However, I guess that a number of people have probably "Beat" the test as well. (and yes, examiners have operationally responded to this threat, even though I am still not going to tell anyone how) 

So Sergeant, what I believe we have here at the moment is a bit of a "Mexican standoff."  The folks on this site say, "Perform countermeasures, they can't catch you."  and the examiners are saying "Those anti-PG guys may be right, or they may be wrong.  However I would not advise trying anything for if and when I do catch you, you can kiss your law enforcment career/probation/pre-trial agreement goodby."

Nonombre


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #28 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:33pm:
Nonombre,
You asked if I felt any guilt about supporting a site which attempts to teach people how to “beat” a polygraph.  I absolutely do not feel any such guilt, and here’s why:

If polygraphy was valid and had some scientific basis, I do not believe it could be defeated by visiting a web site which provides instruction on how to alter one’s breathing pattern.  If polygraphy was a valid method of detecting deception then it wouldn’t matter how an examinee sat, or what he was thinking about, how he breathed, or whether he bit his tongue.  A valid test would not be affected by such uncontrollable variables.

If there was a web site which instructed people under arrest for DUI to do math problems in their head, or bite their tongue, or clench up certain muscles when blowing into the Intoxilyzer, I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with it.  None of those things will affect the chemical analysis of a person’s breath, because the analysis is being conducted in a scientifically valid way.  If thinking about math problems or stepping on a tack concealed in your shoe enabled someone to blow .00 after drinking a liter of vodka, it would cause me to have serious doubts about the validity of the breath test.  It would not, however, make me upset with the person who suggested the math problems or the tack.



Sergeant,

I respect your response a great deal more than the one I just read from "Jeffrey."  As I said, I am quite new to this field and am trying to be as objective as I can.

I have been told by my more experienced examiner friends that the volume of people employing methods to try and "beat" a polygraph exam has definately increased in recent years (thanks in part to this site, I expect).  I do know that the examiners I know  have caught many (I have seen the charts and their confessions with my own eyes).  However, I guess that a number of people have probably "Beat" the test as well. (and yes, examiners have operationally responded to this threat, even though I am still not going to tell anyone how) 

So Sergeant, what I believe we have here at the moment is a bit of a "Mexican standoff."  The folks on this site say, "Perform countermeasures, they can't catch you."  and the examiners are saying "Those anti-PG guys may be right, or they may be wrong.  However I would not advise trying anything for if and when I do catch you, you can kiss your law enforcment career/probation/pre-trial agreement goodby."

Nonombre


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: Just took my first poly...
Reply #29 - Jul 4th, 2005 at 8:05pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Jeffery wrote on Jul 4th, 2005 at 7:06pm:
I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics.  That of course would have required more *work*.

The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).

Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works.  See the paradox here?


Jeffrey,

I guess the potential "honorable and potentially stellar agent" you are referring to is you?  Making a bit of an assumption here, aren't we??? And exactly which "proper investigation" methods are you referring to?  Please lay out the investigative plan you would have utilized (without use of polygraph of course) which makes you so sure you would have solved this case.   

Jeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc).  In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed.  Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.

The problem I still see it, is that the people who live on this site would have been quite comfortable if Mr. Couey had read TLBTLD on line from his jail cell and managed to successfully evade detection by the methods taught by this site (much like the anti-urinalysis sites I have mentioned in my previous posts).  Of course, from what I have read, Mr. Couey has alot of people with similar interests posting to this site.  (and I am not attacking blindly here.  I have read MANY posts from convicted sex offenders on this site.  Birds of a feather?)

And by the way, how dare you unilaterally attack the detectives and agents who busted their asses for days and weeks on that case (long hours, little sleep, driven soley by the dedication they felt to find the piece of human crap who did that to that little girl) by smugly sitting in front of your computer screen and making statements like, "That of course would have required more *work*."

Nonombre.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Just took my first poly...

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X