PentaFed,

The elimination of polygraph (screening) examinations does not require a poster boy or your recognition of one...just the common sense and judgment that you have been calling for.  Regards...

Quote:



I see how you've really been ignoring me.  Keep up the good work, champ.

Since your "responses" to my simple question has yielded now myriad retreats (first, "I already answered that question...see above", then "this is a strawman question" to now "i never made such a claim")  I will try to reconstruct this entire bullshit argument.  Please let me know where i have gone wrong.


On this web site we have a man who was challenged by a polygrapher to answer absurd questions regarding teenage girls because he "admitted" to the polygrapher that he played checkers once online with a 13 year old.  His rejection letter says as much.  The questions posed to him were lewd, sick and absurdly inappropriate.  They were not "yes/no" questions that could simply be deflected by a "yes/no" answer.  Instead, these questions required the applicant to offer guesses about completely inappropriate subjects.  This made applicant uneasy, nervous and disgusted.  He refused to answer.  He got his clearance denied.

Now you have a man who has lost his clearance, yet had the cojones to detail the whole sordid affair online here, complete with copies of the letters he's received.  Yet you pop in and are in disbelief that he could be surprised because he did not "answer questions about his personal life" when asked.

Given that this is the central defense of your argument that applicant was justly rejected (namely, he did not answer questions about his personal life) I have *repeatedly* asked you how the questions that were posed to applicant concern his private life.   

That's it.  Please tell me how these questions concern his private life.   

EosJupiter wrote on Mar 29^th, 2006 at 10:38am:



Any accusations I've made against you Ive been specific and have backed them up with references to what you, yourself, have written. There is no need to try and create the illusion that I've called you dishonest merely becuase you dont support polygraphs. I haven't come here and made blanket attacks on your integrity....and any attempts by you to do that would be pure intellectual dishonesty. You know that's a blatant perversion of reality, and so do most readers. If I questioned your integrity it was in the way you reason. When you say things like using countermeaures to beat the system, that involves a level if dishonesty. You've made other statements that also put youre integirty into question in my opinion. Where those statements were made, I've pointed them out. As for your argument about 'systems' not working. If everyone refused to cooperate with, tried to beat or tried to get around every rule system that doesn't work to my standards, where would that leave the world. Here's the point, nobody will ever be able to have a credible debate with people who are decidely opposed to all or most forms of authority. When you begin your discussion about these issues from your standpoint, it's a non-discussable topic from the start because you basically fundamantelly disagree with doing what most people think is right and that is, use our existing SYSTEMS to correct those that aren't working properly. When the applicants refused to answer any furture questions regarding topics he he didn't want to discuss, he declined his own clearance. Period. Neither you, nor wallterstein know what5 those questions would have been because the guy never got the chance to ask them. The inappriopriate polygrapher was from a PREVIOUS clearnace and you two keep trying to morph them, and the rest of the polygraphers on the planet, into the one bad polygrapher identified in the authentic, but vague, letter.  Now if you want to take issue with the POINTS I have made here they are as written in the sentences above this one. Nothing more has really been said by me opn this topic. It boils down to what I believe is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. I'll compare that position to your posituion of blinddly defending anyone who comes here (even when its clear you know nothing about them) with a tale of woe around their background process. To me, the latter is just plain ridiculous, and doesn nothing to add to the credibility of polygraph opponents. It would seem that you and wallerstein dont have the abilty to make presuasive arguments with adding a whole bunch of hype, drama, and half-truths in your posting to steer attention away from the fact that you will back EVERYTHING about Onesimus's side of the story because you are more interested in advancing your cause against, than you are in worrying about any facts or truths. It's very simple. Never let facts or truth get in the way of a good drama, right?

Wallerstein,

Arguing with PentaFed always comes back to the same bureaucratic dogma, and self righteous BS.  But I guess being a liar and having no integrity then I can do just what I want to then. 

KEY POINTS 

He works for the Government and he's here to help.
The government is always right 
He is always right.


Which point here sounds like the words that would come from an orwellian novel.  ANd just think he never knows who might be traveling next to ...

Question Authority !!!
And the Moral Majority is Neither !!! 

Regards 

Drew:

Sometimes questioning authority just for the hell of it can label  you as a smart ass and/or parasnoid, depending how and why you do it.  If you do it  for no reason then you are going to be resented, which is human nature. Then you have to face the consequences. I may be wrong but my opinion is that if he asnswered the questions and cooperated he may have been cleared.

Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current estabishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?

The following was emailed to me, but I'm not very good at cut and paste. So am typing it.

It started me thinking which is dangerous. Could the polygraph, FIRSTFRUITS, etc., etc., be applied here. The evasiveness of some direct pertinent questions to some government employees, here and in return letters of our elected officials (if any letters are answered) appears so. Only my thoughts, of coarse.

What is a fascist? Henry Wallace, 1944

In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascist have we? How dangerous are they.

Wallace's answer to these questions was published in the Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against Axis powers Germany and Japan. See how you think his statements apply to our society today.

"The really dangerous American fascist", Wallace wrote, is the man who really wants to do in the United States, in an American way, what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to decieve the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power".

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, "they claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the constitution. They demand free interprise, but are spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection".

Quote:


It's worth keeping in mind that the patriots of the Revolutionary war were in fact traitors. They were engaging in armed revolt against their sovereign. Further, while of course we take great pride in the fledgling democracy that came from that revolt, Britain outlawed slavery throughout their empire not long after. Some 3 decades or so before the States did.

Sounds harsh to call our founders traitors. Well, here's another surprise. At one time the word "loyal" had a rather bad odor for a simple reason. Just as the revolutionaries were called patriots (by fellow patriots of course) supporters of the Crown were called loyalists by everyone - hence the negative association.

My favorite personage from those days. A man who believed in good relations with the French. Actually lots of them. Still, he wanted to avoid being well hanged.

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm