To EOSJupiter
Antrella
Wallerstein

Please lay out your opinion on this case and your reasoning in reaching your opinion. Please do so without engaging in drama, hype, name-calling, diversion from the subject, indictment of ALL polygraphers, indictment of the government. Just simply lay out why you believe that the applcant is CORRECT and why you think the government is WRONG. You can leave out all the posters on this thread, they don't have anything to do with your arguments relative to stating your opinion. I've already, repeatedly, stated my opinion. And it is simple. 1) i don't support use of polygraphs here 2) I don;t believe the original poster to have a credible claim here because he didn't handle the situation the right way. The one sure way to bring closure to this debate is for each of the biggest antagonists to clearly state their opinion. By doing this, the reader is able to view, firsthand, what the opinion holder is all about. I have a feeling mmany of the people who post here will support each and every person who comes along here with a tale of woe, regardless of how they handled it or whetehr they are people of integrity or not.  One way I have of senseing this is in the sheer vigor with which they defend a man whom they know absolutely NOTHING about. This would tend to paint that type of person as someone more interested in driving their agenda, than they are interested in doing what's RIGHT. Nowhere have you seen me vigorously defend the government, the actions of earlier polygrapher, or dishonesty of polygraphers in general. I haven't even supported polygraphs. Yet, you all go above and beyond mrely being critical of polygraphy and bad polygraphers and will go to the ends of the earth to defend all the actions of someone you know nothing about. That speaks volumes.

Quote:



No, I'm not actively working to have it stopped. My plate is full with other activities. However, I do support legitimate people and efforts who are actively working to have it stopped.  Why do you ask?

Quote:



I came upon this website through a link that George posted on a Law Enforcement forum. (A website that appears to be quite open to participation from a variety of individuals and not the organized 'audience' that you seem to have envisioned) This thread was one of the first I read. I commented and then got caught in debate. If you're asking me if railing against polygraphs is my "calling" from the God of my understanding, the answer is a resounding no. While I have been deeply involved in many civic/political efforts involving criminal justice issues, use of polygraphs is not one of them, nor will it probably be for me in the near future. I'm also vehemently opposed to the death penalty, but do not activley work to end it, at this point. However, I would definitley focus on that, before I would on polygraphs. With that said, I don't minimize, but actually applaud the legitimate efforts of legit people in this area. I'm sorry if I don't live up to your or anybody else's standards of what a true polygraph ooponent is supposed to be. But I really don't see how that matters here.  One good aspect of this debate is that is has actually caused my promotion in "rank" from a one-star to a two-star user   

Wallerstein wrote on Mar 28^th, 2006 at 11:10pm:



Of course that's all you're concerned with. You set up a straw-man argument to take attention away from the fact that you have nothing reasonable to offer to the debate. I've answered your question, you just refuse to accept it. That's on you, not on me.  I'm waiting for your answers....

Wallerstein wrote on Mar 28^th, 2006 at 11:22pm:



Read for yourself. Now, did you have anything substantive to offer the debate or did you create another strawman to entertain us with?

Wallerstein wrote on Mar 28^th, 2006 at 11:28pm:


Oh ok. What's hilarious is that the only thing you can offer this discussion is your narrowly constrcuted strawman question that you've posed by someone who has no clue as to which questions were asked, and to someone with the same level of knowledge. Before you can pose a legitimate question, the basis for the question has to be legitimate. You have no idea what questions were to be asked of the man, because he left before he could answer them and they aren't written on any of the docs he's posted. 

I'll let you waddle off and wimper in the corner LOL. Bye now.

PentaFed,

Your last reply to me contained the following:
Quote:
 

Actually it doesn't—that is if you don't care about the size and composition of the audience you address.  You raise some valid considerations, but again, I am afraid they will fall on deaf ears lest you are perceived as truly empathetic toward the victim(s) that read your thoughts and are asked to heed your advice/admonition(s).  I believe an appropriate analogy from the medical field would be a physician who harps on the necessity of sanitation (quite valid, but quite inopportune) when presented with the complications and immediate needs of a knife-stab victim.  Regards...

p.s. Congrats on the promotion