Jeffery wrote on Aug 21^st, 2005 at 11:07pm:


And specifically what scientific/academic training have you had that enables you to make such an informed statement?

P.S.  Please slow down or use a dictionary.  I have never heard of a "firefither."

Regards,

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Aug 21^st, 2005 at 11:16pm:
MS in EE.
Quote:

Calling attention to an obvious typo is a poor way to deflect the argument at hand.

Twoblock wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2005 at 12:14am:


Twoblock,

Wow, that stung a little.  Okay, let me try and address your observations.

#1.  Thank you for your comment about me being an "intelligent debator. "  I believe that I try to be such and try to stay at that level.  I do admit that I have let a poster or two get "under my skin" from time to time.  In the future, I will try and stay at an appropriate place.  I'm sure you and others will let me know if I fail in that regard.  As far as "losing debates."  I am afraid that is in the eyes of the beholder.  I do feel I have won more than I have lost.

#2.  Regarding Dr. Richardson's challenge.  I admit that I have not seriously considered it.  In that regard, let me ask you a question.  How do you suppose we introduce the "fear of consequences" so not present in a mock situation?  After all, If I or any other examiner would bet the farm so to speak on the outcome, than Dr. Richardson has to be scared to death he is going to lose something valuable by failing the test.  Let's make it real.  Any suggestions?

#3.  I truly have no idea what the truth is about that.  I know that we keep all charts for seven years in my agency, we then dispose of them in accordance with agency procedures.  I can not speak for the FBI.

$#4.  I ain't "bashing."  At least I don't think I am.  Mostly I tune in to see what's going on.  However, if I see something that really bothers me or that I feel is untrue or unjust, I speak up.  However, I once again admit that sometimes my tone can get caustic and I will double my efforts to be more dispassionate in the future.

Regards,

Nonombre


P.S.  I NEVER post from work.  Look at the times of my postings.  They speak for themselves.  How 'bout you?

nonombre wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2005 at 12:48am:


How about the fear of losing (and losing all bragging rights as one of the foremost anti-polygraphers out there?)?

Of course, then there is the question of what you test him on...  I know!  Let's set up a mock crime test -- the same tests DoD points to to verify the polygraph's reliability!  Surely if it is good enough for the Grand Master's of the Polygraph Clan, it would be good enough for our test here!

polyfool wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2005 at 4:11am:


Okay, okay.  I was out of line regarding the typo. I am truly sorry.

Now regarding your first paragraph.  I would argue that it is unfair to bring to my attention all the follow on training and mentoring police officers, fire fighters, etc have endure to be credible in their chosen professions.  Then, when I respond by pointing out the all the follow on training and mentoring polygraph examiners go through, you immediately fall back on some old tired anti-poly diatribe.  Motivates me to not want to continue the discussion.

You know fairness in debate goes both ways.  I would suggest that part of the reason other examiners have walked away from posting on this site is a feeling that no matter what, the people who reside around here refuse to accept any part of an opposite point of view.  It's like they stick their fingers in the ears and sing "la, la, la."

Food for thought.

And one more point if I may.  If you were to analyze all my posts, you would discover that virtually each time I was ever less than objective, respectful, or dispassionate, it was in direct response to someone who (with no provocation) was less than objective, respectful, or dispassionate in a posting directed at me.  Not every single time, I admit, but the vast majority of times.

Now, as I have indicated in a previous post, from this point forward, I shall double my efforts to remain above all that.  All I ask is that others have the same respect towards me and the others who post here with differing points of view.

Regards 

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2005 at 5:29am:

No worries mate; I no I no how to spil. [sic]

Quote:

True, the training program (apprenticeship period for federal prolygraphers), the so-called QA review process and continuing education requirements are items present in many professions.  It still does not change the fact that the science behind polygraphics is non-existent, and to claim that field as a science is disingenious.   

This thread is about polygraphics NOT being a true science, and illustrates the fact that the prerequisites for becoming a polygrapher are A: not that hard to meet and B: not what one would expect of a true scientific career path and C: less time required than somebody entering barber college.

No, regarding the other issue you raise: I can only speak from my own experience and that compels me to believe that polygraph is nothing more than chance -- but the level of damage it can cause is significant.

I do enjoy your posts, and though I don't think we'll ever agree on the issue of polygraphics, I can concede that we'd probably be good friends if we laid this issue aside.

Quote:
 

An internship on how to use scare tactics to convince the examinee that my quack machine is actually working. Are you sure it isn't and acting course?


Quote:


Hmmm...How to BS someone Chapter 2. 


Quote:
? 

Ok lets watch this guy...make sure he knows how to be 110% full of shytte!

Okay everybody, let's cut Nonombre some slack. Sounds like he needs a break. 

Nonombre: Posters on this site sometimes get a little upset, but you should understand that polygraph screening is a very emotionally charged issue, especially for those whose lives have been forever changed by its practice. It's difficult for you to understand because you are sitting on the other side of the fence and can't possibly imagine what it's like to have your integrity wrongly questioned by a sleazy, lying, crooked polygraph examiner. I can tell you firsthand, it can be downright ugly. No one has the right to do that to people. A job application process shouldn't be unethical and so  unprofessional. Private industry would never be able to get away with such behavior. I honestly would never have imagined this kind of thing was going on unless I'd been through it myself.         

Your point about the number of required classroom hours for polygraph examiners, cops, firefighers, EMT's is noted. However, you admitted yourself  that George's statement about it taking longer to become a barber in CA is in fact, true and therefore, you must admit that he's not being a little dishonest here.   

Anyway, moving on... I know you've said that polygraphs should not be the sole determining factor in employment, but is it used that way by your employer? Instead of using polygraphs for screening, why not use background investigations to bluff job candidates into admitting to things that they withold during the application process? It seems like it that would be just as useful since polygraphs are used for the same purpose.