Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Rejection letter (Read 51905 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box NSAreject
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 91
Location: Maryland
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #15 - Mar 14th, 2006 at 8:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Another letter full of bullshit...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #16 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 3:27am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
This was a rejection based on LACK OF CANDOR. An applicant for a National Security position who refuses to be candid and completely forthcoming with his answers, doesn't deserve a clearance. That, in itself, is an integrity issue that would send a red flag. You're the only guy I've ever met who goes into a security interview, essentially pleads the 5th Amendment, and then expects a clearance. haha.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Onesimus
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 110
Joined: May 10th, 2003
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #17 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 9:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
This was a rejection based on LACK OF CANDOR. An applicant for a National Security position who refuses to be candid and completely forthcoming with his answers, doesn't deserve a clearance. That, in itself, is an integrity issue that would send a red flag. You're the only guy I've ever met who goes into a security interview, essentially pleads the 5th Amendment, and then expects a clearance. haha.


I didn't plead the the 5th.  I am not guilty of anything.  You are correct that this an integrity issue.  I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box detector1012000
User
**
Offline



Posts: 31
Joined: Feb 14th, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #18 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 11:08am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Onesimus,

I'm not sure I would want someone in the NSA with anything of a sexual nature that is so sensitive the subject could not candidly talk about it, in a position where blackmail is a habit.  I don't consider that sexual harrasment, many may.  Just one individuals opinion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #19 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 2:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Onesimus wrote on Mar 25th, 2006 at 9:07am:
I didn't plead the the 5th.  I am not guilty of anything.  You are correct that this an integrity issue.  I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.


You did, essentially, plead the fifth because you were not CANDID and UPFRONT with the information requested. As I said, whether you are guilty of anything here is not the issue. The issue is your lack of candor and your lack of willingness to talke about the issues. WHen requeting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself.  That lack of willingness is,all by itself, an indication that a person's chracter may be flawed. I'll say it again. It's not that you are guilty of whatever behavior you're refusing to discuss, it's your unwillingness to discuss it that is the concern. If you are at such a point in your life where you feel that further discussion of any topic in your life is just not worth it to you, then you basically have denied your own clearance. If I go to a job intereview and refuse to discuss my work history, I'm not getting the job, period. That's my choice in that case, not the empoyer's. Just from what I've read on this forum, I can see that you do seem to have a constitutional inability to own what is yours without blaming it on something else. Perhaps its not an inability, just a strong unwillingness, I don't know. Either way, I'd say that is probably related to your troubles with the clearance rather than whatever it is that you refuse to discuss. The author of this wesbite has a worthy cause in his arguments against the reliablity of polygraphs. Unlike him, you have a political cause against being forced to discuss aspects of your private life when requesting a highly top secret clearance. Your cause is just plain bullshit and will go nowhere because you're working against the government being able to use basic indicators of integrity, namely honesty and candor. This forum is not an apporpriate host of your arguments. I agree with a previous poster when he said you make a mockery of this website.
« Last Edit: Mar 25th, 2006 at 2:53pm by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 357
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #20 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 5:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Onesimus wrote on Mar 25th, 2006 at 9:07am:
I didn't plead the the 5th. †I am not guilty of anything. †You are correct that this an integrity issue. †I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.


Not guilty of anything? †How about a lack of good judgment. †A 27 year-old man playing checkers online with a 13 year-old girl. †Talk about a red flag!! †There's more to this story than what you've let on. †Thank God you were denied.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box antrella
User
**
Offline



Posts: 40
Joined: Mar 3rd, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #21 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 9:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 25th, 2006 at 5:38pm:
Not guilty of anything?  How about a lack of good judgment.  A 27 year-old man playing checkers online with a 13 year-old girl.  Talk about a red flag!!  There's more to this story than what you've let on.  Thank God you were denied.


What are you folks on? Playing checkers online with a young girl is a red flag? Good lord, that says much more about you than it does about Onesimus. What we're seeing here is projection - you're projecting your fears and self-suspicions on someone else.

I don't play online checkers, but when I was younger (around 14), I played online chess frequently, as I had participated in and won several junior league chess competitions. I played guys and girls ranging in age from 13 - 70! Is every adult I played with suddenly a pedophile or pederast? How callous of you to assume so!

As for the legal jargon you're throwing around, it's clear none of you know what you're talking about. One does not "plead the fifth" in a bloody employment application.

The relevant language is no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - I assure you no court has or will ever construe this to apply to an pre-employment context. In other words, leaving stuff out of your application, or simply refusing to discuss a matter may open you up to employment bars or some statutory penalty - but the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with it.

Finally, Onesimus' case, I suspect, is much more complicated than we - possibly he - knows. All we have are a few alarming letters (one actually conceding (!) misconduct on the part of the examiner!) and the story. Attacking Onesimus like vultures is really unjustified and unhelpful. Do not be so quick to judge.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mr. Mystery
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #22 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 10:45pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 25th, 2006 at 5:38pm:
Not guilty of anything? †How about a lack of good judgment. †A 27 year-old man playing checkers online with a 13 year-old girl. †Talk about a red flag!! †There's more to this story than what you've let on. †Thank God you were denied.


I've read through quite a bit on this website but this is a bit much.

God help anyone anyone who does community service work with at risk children, and then comes in for a polygraph.  Fortunately the only volunteer work Iíve ever done was with the elderly.  I guess Iím safe.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 357
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #23 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 2:18am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
A bit much?  Go ask that 13 year-old girl's father if HE thinks it's a bit much.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box antrella
User
**
Offline



Posts: 40
Joined: Mar 3rd, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #24 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 2:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 26th, 2006 at 2:18am:
A bit much?  Go ask that 13 year-old girl's father if HE thinks it's a bit much.


Responding with pointless one-liners that appeal to emotion rather than logic (i.e., by addressing the points I made) seems typical of your posts.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #25 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:12am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The issue has NOTHING to do with playing online checkers with a 13 year old. NOTHING......Nada........zilch. My last post explained what the issue is. It's quite simple. Even a simple-mind can understand it. Get it? Probably not, because the last several posters seem stuick on talking about online checkers.....dont ask me why. As for Antrella:   Antrella didn't make any 'points' at all....antrella attempted to divert the issue by making an implication that the applicant was refused a clearance because he played online checkers with a 13 year old. Sorry, Andrella, that's not why. He was denied because he flatly refused to discuss details of his life with security investigators. When you do this, you don't get a clearance. Period. The blame goes back to THAT behavior on the part of the applicant, because the applicant made the conscious decision to refuse to cooperate.  Let's see if you can stay on point.  And as a sidenote, I don't believe that playing online checkers with a 13 year old has any negative connotations. If that's all there is to that story. But when you refuse to discuss it, you leave the mind wondering. When you apply for a clearance, you consent to investigation of all aspects of your life....refusing to discuss details means you are not entitled to the priviledge of gaining access to classified national security information. So if you want to talk about logic, use logic and dont feed into drama. Oh and I never said he ACTUALLY plead the 5th. I said what he did ESSENTIALLY amounted to it. Again, see if you can stay on point. I know its difficult for you, but do try. You don't seem to understand how access to national security information works. It's not like filling out any old 'employment application' (in fact, this discussion is not about an employment application, it's about a top secret SCI clearance, so please try to follow along) It's agreement to a complete and detailed investigation of your life. You don't have to consent to it, but the government doesn't have to grant you access to the information. And when you sit there and tell investigators that "you're not going to discuss" certain aspects that they want to discuss, guess what antrella? You ain't gettin the clearance. Why? Lack of candor.....which is clearly spelled out in the policy. See, if you knew anything about the policy, you'd know this. But instead you come here and show your ignorance and try to give us lectures on the 5th amendment....which has nothinhg to do with this at all, other than when I used it as an ANALOGY. PS: You need a JD and a law license to teach law. Please stick to whatever it is you are trained to do, because no legal mind would ever make the stupid arguments you've made relative to this thread.
« Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2006 at 4:32am by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 357
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #26 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
antrella wrote on Mar 26th, 2006 at 2:29am:
Responding with pointless one-liners that appeal to emotion rather than logic (i.e., by addressing the points I made) seems typical of your posts.


And drivel seems typical of yours.  Onesimus calls it playing checkers;  LE calls it trolling for naive underage girls.  That's why he refused to discuss it.  How gullible you are.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mr. Mystery
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #27 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The issue has NOTHING to do with playing online checkers with a 13 year old. NOTHING......Nada........zilch. My last post explained what the issue is. It's quite simple. Even a simple-mind can understand it. Get it? Probably not, because the last several posters seem stuick on talking about online checkers.....dont ask me why. Antrella didn't make any 'points' at all....antrella attempted to divert the issue from lack of candor, to making an implication that the applicant was refused a clearance because he played online checkers with a 13 year old. Sorry, Andrella, that's not why. He was denied because he flatly refused to discuss details of his life with security investigators. When you do this, you don't get a clearance. Period. The blame goes back to THAT behavior on the part of the applicant, because the applicant made the concious decision to refuse to cooperate. †Let's see if you can stay on point. †And as a sidenote, I don't believe that playing online checkers with a 13 year old has any negative connotations. If that's all there is to that story. But when you refuse to discuss it, you leave the mind wondering. When you apply for a clearance, you consent to investigation of all aspects of your life....refusing to discuss details means are not entitled to the priviledge of gaining access to classified national security information. So if you want to talk about logic, use logic and dont feed into drama. Oh and I never said he ACTUALLY plead the 5th. I said what he did ESSENTIALLY amounted to it. Again, see if you can stay on point. I know its difficult for you, but do try. You don't seem to understand how access to national security information works. It's not like filling out any old 'employment application' (in fact, this discussion is not about an employment application, it's about a top secret SCI clearance, so please try to follow along) It's agreement to a complete and detailed investigation of your life. You don't have to consent to it, but the government doesn't have to grant you access to the information. And when you sit there and tell investigators that "you're not going to discuss" certain aspects that they want to discuss, guess what antrella? You ain't gettin the clearance. Why? Lack of candor.....which is clearly spelled out in the policy. See, if you knew anything about the policy, you'd know this. But instead you come here and show your ignorance and try to give us lectures on the 5th amendment....which has nothinhg to do with this at all, other than when I used it as an ANALOGY. PS: You need a JD and a law license to teach law. Please stick to whatever it is you are trained to do, because no legal mind would ever make the stupid arguments you've made relative to this thread. †


Well, at least Antrella knows what a paragraph is. †On a serious note, Pentafed or Quickfix can you offer a guess on how accurate you feel screening polygraphs are?
« Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2006 at 4:45am by Mr. Mystery »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #28 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:57am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Well, at least Antrella knows what a paragraph is.  On a serious note, Pentafed or Quickfix can you offer a geuss on how accurate you feel screening polygraphs are?



First of all, people who take cheap shots about grammar, typing, paragraph formatting etc. on an internet message board are rarely, if ever, worthy of debating. But here is my answer: You can review one of my recent posts on this thread to find the ONLY comments I've made here relative to polygraphing. My reference actually supported the author of this site in his efforts against polygraphing. The points I made were not limited to polygraphs. Refusing to be candid with questions posed during a security investigation, whether they are made while being polygraped or not, is behavior that will end your clearance AND is behvaior that may be indicatative of integrity issues. If you'd like to debate me on the actual points I've made, please refer to those points verbatim and stick to the issue. If you care to make anymore comments about my typing or formatting of my online text, just carry on with your miserable self and seek some counseling or soemthing, because I don't have the time to be the sounding board for your obvious frustrations with life. I type quickly and carefree on internet bulletin boards. If you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't read posts unless they are edited for typo's and perfectly formatted to the desires of your anal-retentive personality. (But first, you better review your own posting for SPELLING )  If you don't know how the government security process works and are ignorant to the policies and procedures around them, like antrella, go school yourself and then come back to talk. You claim to be "serious" but all you do is take one quick cheap shot and then pose one quick rhetorical question. If you have an argument or point to make, make it! That's when you'll be taken seriously. 8)
« Last Edit: Mar 26th, 2006 at 4:42am by »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mr. Mystery
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2006
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #29 - Mar 26th, 2006 at 4:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mea Culpa. †It was difficult to follow your post in the manner you presented it. I do agree with you on the lack of cooperation issue regarding Onesimus. †

In all sincerity I did read through your old posts before posting my statement.  I had to read through it again before I found the references to supporting Mr. Maschke. †It really wasn't clear to a casual observer.

Ever since Retcopper on another thread posted his thoughts on screening polygraphs, I've been curious on what supporters of polygraphs feel about its utility and accuracy. †Since I now know how you feel about screening polygraphs this question really isn't directed to you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Rejection letter

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