ODIN wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 2:18am:


You seem rather selective in your evidence, Odin.  I'll note that Twoblock also mentioned Louisiana, which does polygraph LE and (from the anecdotal evidence, which seems to be all anyone has come up with thus far) has serious corruption problems.

But if you can't prove your claims, just say so.  Others have already demonstrated more honesty by admitting they can't prove whether or not they lied about their polygraph experiences--and frankly, you should have a far easier time of proving your claims, if you can.  By your own standards, it's time for you to "put up or shut up".

How about it, Odin?  Going to come clean?

Odin,

  what i find is that you want us to believe you, but when asked any kind of question you get hostile in answering us.  should we just take every thing you say without question?   
  you being an examiner puts most of us on the defensive, we need for you to prove to us that polygraphy works as you tout.   
   the majority of posts here are anti-polygraph as you well know.  the majority of posts come from an eye opening view of how the polygraph have, has, or about to ruin a career, even someone's life.   
  so its really your turn to run with the ball, we just look for proof of what you say, not just a one sided emotional view.  its your floor now.

Quote:

 
I agree 110%, but since it appearently serves as a wonderful pre-employment tool for the other states, ploygraph screening should be emplied for every elected official and government worker (especially public school employees).  Quote from TLBTLD: "After all, our national security is at stake"

Quote:


I am currently working in the private sector and in my state, most, if not all, LE agencies use some form of "lie detector."  I know a numerous amout of respectable cops who drink like sailors during a hurricane.  As long as it don't interfere with their jobs or behavior on/off duty, who gives a rats ass? Last time I checked, drinking was legal.   
 
  As for the abuse of power, the only power abusers I see are the polygraphers (not all, but a good many) who are branding honest potential LE officers liars and the background investigators who are too lazy to do REAL investigatory work and want to depend on a BOX to appraise the honesty of applicants..............And after all, who really gives a crap if someone took a hit from a joint 5-10 years ago...............If they want to find out who has done drugs, they can pluck a hair and check it for any drug in the past 7 years.

  As for PO's who are "stoners, " thats the point of Random Drug Testing in the work place.  There are many realistic ways of getting to the truth without use of a pottygraph

  Specify what "Abuse of Power" is.  Is it maliciously activating blue lights to get through a crowded intersection for the purpose of pulling into a 7-11 to get a coke and a can of skoal?  I'VE SEEN THAT, AND MY STATE PLOYGRAPHS!!   
  Is it stopping an attractive law-abiting motorist just to see some titties?  I'VE SEEN THAT OCCUR TOO, AND MY STATE PLOYGRAPHS!!!
  OR, is it when an off-duty officer goes out to a bar, has 20 beers and gets behind the wheel of a car and drives home (or elsewhere) the same day or day before he locks up someone for DWI who has had less than 7 beers, but happens to be a little tipsy???   WOW. THAT HAPPENS IN MY STATE TOO!!!!!....................................AND MY STATE PLOYGRAPHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Odin,

   these threads seems to have answered all the things you don't want to tell us.  in the future, know that what sustains a debate are facts, not just feelings.  you've told us you are fair and good and to trust you, but you haven't given us anything to go by.  trust is to be built, not given.

Skeptic wrote:
Quote:


I agree. Moreover, if the challenge is done with just any polygrapher, and he goes down in flames, the polygraph community will surely attempt to hang its hat on the weak “examiner inexperience” argument. 

For this reason, Drew was very careful in the structure of his challenge. Please note the second to last sentence:
Quote:


Quote:


John Furedy has never conducted a test? Drew Richardson has never conducted a test? David Lykken has never conducted a test? There may be places that you can structure your arguments upon made-up facts. This is not one of them.

You admit that you need to get more experience before taking the challenge—I’d say that it’s safe from that to say that all three of these esteemed individuals have each conducted more polygraph “tests” than you have. 

Quote:


If anyone is guilty of this behavior, it is you. For example, you were called out numerous times to support the statement that you made that cops in states that polygraph are less corrupt than those in states that do not. 

Numerous posters asked you to back that up with some facts. We’re still waiting.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 12:46am:


I haven't called you, in particular, a liar, and you have no evidence, nor even any reason to suspect, that I've lied to you or anyone on this board.

I did say I felt you weren't being honest, however, when you said you were here with an open mind, then proceeded to attack those around your for disagreeing with you and make irrelevant, insulting comments.  I also noted that in my experience, polygraphers don't tend to be honest.

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me accurately.

Quote:


I also haven't made any claims to you regarding my polygraph experiences, and am very willing to bet (based upon your statements) that you haven't bothered to go back and read what I've written about them in prior posts.

Quote:


So now you're inventing stuff about me out of whole cloth (now I allegedly failed a polygraph, according to you) and yet you say I'm a liar?

I've never claimed, to you or anyone else, that I've ever "failed" a polygraph.

Quote:


I have a personal dislike of polygraphers thanks to my experiences with them.  My main sentiment, though, is that I dislike illogic and dishonesty, and that's basically all I've seen from polygraphers--with a very few notable exceptions.

Quote:


You've said this several times, and yet you keep posting.  Are you waiting for people to beg you to stay?

Here's an idea: quit attacking others, quit reacting to disagreement like you've been insulted, and debate people honestly.

Skeptic wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 3:27am:


You have no intent to debate honestly yourself. I can only think of two persons who have taken an honest debate.

Your dislike is more like hate my little friend, and no I can care less now if people want me to stay or go. 

I can't believe that most of you wouldn't even advocate polygraphing child molesters (with a few exceptions).
That made me sick. That is also when I relized there is no logic amoung the ones who defending the rights of people that attack children.

I am willing to bet you would not feel that way if some one the diddled your children was going on probation.

By the way, the convicted sex offender does have the choice when he sings the probation terms agreement at conviction. 

Polygraph 
Sex Offender Treatment
Register
Stay away from all children

or 

Go to Prison

see there are two options. what do you call two options?

AH a choice.

Pre employment

take the poly and phych

or

get a job some where else

or find another vocation.

wow three choices


persons charged with a crime

take the test with a police examiner (bad idea to do first)

Take the test with a private examiner (good idea)

take a test with both private examiner / police examiner in that order. (Exelent Idea if you pass the first test, and may very well save your hide)

Fight the case based on the facts. The Cops and the DA will make sure to have the cards stacked against you there.

wow
1
2
3
4
choices AH AH AH

Bottom line some have said there is no chioce in taking a polygraph.

I have laid out the choices. Debate that one has no choices. I will enjoy your response

OK you never failed a poly, so you say, something I'll just have to take you on your word I guess, as your word is all I have. So take your "dislike" and stop projecting it on me. 

You are one of the people in here that set me on a war path, and I bet that is what you wanted all along.

You say debate fair, OK tell me what you think is fair debate so I can play by your rules that you live by.

Better yet don't, you'll only change them once I make a point you will have to agree with.

I don't see anyone step up to the plate with the chalenge for antipolygraph.org and its rights.

guess the counter mesures don't work good emough to risk it all.

I see alot of excuses and double talk. I see alot of stone walling, I see alot of misdirection.

I have intended on responding to each well intended question, and have responded some. Others I can't get to because i am forced to respond to verbal masterbation like yours. (take it how you want)

I am amazed how one sided everything is in here.

I have answered questions.

I have even agreed to a few of your views.

I have been Far more open minded then most in here. I have been warned when I came in here that it was going to be like this, both in public forum and private message by someone I know.

I was hoping these warnings would be wrong, they weren't. OK, well now I am responding to what I am given. Clearly you can't handle it, because I bet no one ever told some of you that you were as closed minded as I did and prove it.

Go/stay, I can do either or. The only begging I will hear some day is "Please don't take my web site". Because it is my mission now to not only make polygraph commonly admissable, but to take that chalenge and take this web site. If I don't I will give up my license and by then I will be bigger than Backster or Reid. That is my Goal.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30am:


LOL.  Good luck to you, Odin.