Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Rejection letter (Read 51908 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #90 - Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:37am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
PentaFed,

Your last reply to me contained the following:


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  Wink



I don't have any empathy for the applicant, and I don't see him as a 'victim' at this point for reasons I've already hashed over many times here. I have no idea which of his statements is true and which is just poppycock. He's just a screen name to me. The only thing I do know is what I've read in the docs, and by his own admission. ANd, given those facts, I don't view him as being a posterboy for the elimination of polygraphs.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #91 - Mar 29th, 2006 at 2:22am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #92 - Mar 29th, 2006 at 10:38am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I don't have any empathy for the applicant, and I don't see him as a 'victim' at this point for reasons I've already hashed over many times here. I have no idea which of his statements is true and which is just poppycock. He's just a screen name to me. The only thing I do know is what I've read in the docs, and by his own admission. ANd, given those facts, I don't view him as being a posterboy for the elimination of polygraphs.  


PentaFed,

I will tone down the rhetoric, in return all I ask is that you try and understand why I believe that Onesimus got a raw deal. The question in point is why do you think the polygraph system exists? and the point is if something so flawed is relied on to judge people then anything less than 100% accuracy is wrong. A flawed system is a flawed system. If I delivered systems that were that flawed I would be fired. I just don't accept every tale of woe.  as we have had many on this board that are highly suspect.  I don't disregard your need to defend what you believe to be correct and right.  But I do object to the fact of you branding me and the other antipolygraph supporters as lying, dishonest, and that we have no integrity, as you know very little about me and what I am beyond this medium.  I support my stance because I have been through the false positives and the anguish that comes with it. Empathy is something that comes from understanding. I hope you never have to be subjected to a polygraph and a false positive. But we will be waiting because if you have a clearance you will be sitting on the box, one day. We do allow opinion changes. And this board is open to all opinions. Unlike the  pro polygraph board that tolerates no counter views what so ever.

Regards ...
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wallerstein
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Oct 6th, 2005
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #93 - Mar 29th, 2006 at 6:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I never made any claims that it did. As far as I can see, nobody here claimed it did. So what is the basis of that question? How many eggs does a female salamander lay and what is their relationship to the rotation of earth? When you have something substantive to say, I might respond to you. Until then you;ll be ignored because you dont seem to have any ability to debate.  ???



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. 


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #94 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 1:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Wallerstein wrote on Mar 29th, 2006 at 6:03pm:
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. 





The one thing worse than a dishonest polygrapher is a guy who just invents things and apes other people fact, when he doesn't know what the truth is. You have no clue as to what the questions were going to be. And the letter does NOT say 'as much." By the way, the very last time I responsed to you is when I said I would ignore you until you had something substantive to say. Apparently the only subtance you have is to "lie." It's always good to expose a liar, but it really gets boring arguing with intellectual lightweights like you and antrella who need to stoop to lying, fabricating, and diverting attention to anything you can lay your hands on if it avoids the FACTS in front of you. lol
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box PentaFed
Ex Member


Re: Rejection letter
Reply #95 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 1:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter wrote on Mar 29th, 2006 at 10:38am:
PentaFed,

I will tone down the rhetoric, in return all I ask is that you try and understand why I believe that Onesimus got a raw deal. The question in point is why do you think the polygraph system exists? and the point is if something so flawed is relied on to judge people then anything less than 100% accuracy is wrong. A flawed system is a flawed system. If I delivered systems that were that flawed I would be fired. I just don't accept every tale of woe.  as we have had many on this board that are highly suspect.  I don't disregard your need to defend what you believe to be correct and right.  But I do object to the fact of you branding me and the other antipolygraph supporters as lying, dishonest, and that we have no integrity, as you know very little about me and what I am beyond this medium.  I support my stance because I have been through the false positives and the anguish that comes with it. Empathy is something that comes from understanding. I hope you never have to be subjected to a polygraph and a false positive. But we will be waiting because if you have a clearance you will be sitting on the box, one day. We do allow opinion changes. And this board is open to all opinions. Unlike the  pro polygraph board that tolerates no counter views what so ever.

Regards ...



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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wallerstein
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Oct 6th, 2005
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #96 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 4:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The one thing worse than a dishonest polygrapher is a guy who just invents things and apes other people fact, when he doesn't know what the truth is. You have no clue as to what the questions were going to be. And the letter does NOT say 'as much." By the way, the very last time I responsed to you is when I said I would ignore you until you had something substantive to say. Apparently the only subtance you have is to "lie." It's always good to expose a liar, but it really gets boring arguing with intellectual lightweights like you and antrella who need to stoop to lying, fabricating, and diverting attention to anything you can lay your hands on if it avoids the FACTS in front of you. lol



Now I am a liar Grin.  This is Kafka-esque.   Cry

I wish I could type in simple symbols to make this easier. Undecided Sad Angry ??? Smiley

You made a claim that Onesimus deserved to get rejected because he did not answer questions regarding his personal life.  True or false?

If true*, answer the following:  explain how the questions asked to Onesimus concerned his "personal life." 

*If instead you are now claiming that Onesimus is a liar and is not telling the whole truth then fine.  That makes this whole argument pointless. 

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #97 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 6:00pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #98 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 7:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter/Wallerstein,

I am not sure what PentaFed is suggesting with regard to and to what extremes he would go with his notions of deference to authority and working within a system, but I am glad we have the examples of George Washington and friends who did not act as slaves to either a mindless or tyrannical bureaucracy at the time of the American Revolution and Mark Felt and company who did not at the time of Watergate (as well as the host of other examples of those in between and since who have likewise chosen not to).  His linking of your various defense(s) (whether right, wrong, completely or incompletely substantiated) of Onesimus and your separate but valid opposition to polygraphy does not hold water.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #99 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 8:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #100 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 8:14pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
PentaFed came to this discussion maintaining that "When requesting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself." However, when I brought to his attention Stephen J. MacKellar's letter conceding that Onesimus had in fact been asked inappropriate questions, PentaFed fell back to the argument that, "If [Onesimus] had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints." It seems that this remains the crux of PentaFed's position.

I could agree with PentaFed that if an applicant's number one priority is to get a security clearance and job at any cost, then it is probably in his best interest to answer any question asked, no matter how inappropriate. And polygraphers for such agencies as the CIA and NSA do routinely ask very inappropriate questions. One CIA applicant reports regarding his pre-employment polygraph interrogation:

Quote:
During this series of questions I really lose it. The interrogation focuses on deviant sexual behavior. I'm unsure what he's fishing for and ask him to clarify. He explains deviant sexual behavior as any sex acts other than what is known as the missionary position. That strikes me as ridiculous and I ask him if he's kidding. Of course, he's not. The interrogator wants to know how many sex partners I have had; how many of them are married; if I have ever contracted sexually transmitted diseases, if so, how often, where, when. Have I ever paid for sex, when, where. Have I ever participated in sm., bondage, bestiality. What sort of positions. You name it, he wants to know.


And as noted in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, another CIA applicant was asked, among other things, the following questions:
  • Do you masturbate?
  • What do you think about while masturbating?
  • Have you ever had sex with another man?
  • Have you ever thought about having sex with another man?
  • Why did your wife leave you?
  • Couldn’t you satisfy your wife sexually?
  • Has she or any other woman accused you of being unable
    to satisfy them?
  • Have you ever thought about having sex with your mother?

I think the appropriate response of any freedom-loving American to such questions should be, "Fuck you, asshole!" accompanied with the traditional hand and arm signal.

To those who think such questions are appropriate, or that anyone seeking a security clearance should willingly answer them, I suggest that you consider whether you might not make a happy cog in the machinery of a police state.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #101 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 8:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #102 - Mar 30th, 2006 at 9:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Retcopper,

You write in part:
Quote:
...Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current establishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?...


Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any  tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced.  But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol
« Last Edit: Mar 30th, 2006 at 9:57pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #103 - Mar 31st, 2006 at 1:48am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Retcopper,

You write in part:

Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any  tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced.  But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol


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
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Rejection letter
Reply #104 - Mar 31st, 2006 at 7:43am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Marty,

Good Observations, and there is always 2 sides to everything. But for those that wish to question, a great movie is currently playing here in the US. Its title is:

V for Vendetta

Well worth the time to watch, as it is a warning to tyrannts & associated mindless bureaucrats, that they need to fear the people, not the people fear the government.  And as one who does question, the movie really hits home. Hence the reason we have the right to bear arms. The first thing a police state does is remove arms from the population and suppress freedoms of speech and press. Then isolate those that will not follow mindlessly with the program.

Remember Remember the 5th of November ....

Gunpowder Rebellion  1605 ..


Regards  ....
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 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