Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) WHY LIE? (Read 16186 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Truth
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2nd, 2006
WHY LIE?
Apr 2nd, 2006 at 11:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Isn't a career as a law enforcement officer based on trust, character and integrity?  What kind of a person lies and cheats to get a job?  I can't think of a single law enforcement agency, federal or local, who does not allow historical drug experiemntation, minor thefts, employment indescretions and some character flaws.  They don't want liars and cheats!  DUH! AntiPolygraph says it's okay to be a liar and a cheat and, we'll teach you how to do it.  If I were working as a peace officer and I knew my partner had lied to get his/her job, could I ever really trust that person?  I wouldn't!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Brandon Hall
Ex Member


Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #1 - Apr 3rd, 2006 at 1:30am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Truth,

I can only come to the conclusion that you simply read the site's title and left your message without actully reading any of the content of this web-site.  I challenge you to direct me to any portion of this site where it is stated that a polygraph examinee should lie and cheat.  The opposite has been stated many times over by posters of this forum, including myself.  If it is the counter-measure information you are speaking of, again many times over it has been stated that counter-measures are to aid the truthful examinee in producing a chart which is interpretted by the examiner as truthful.

Another conclusion I can draw from your poorly researched post is that you have never been on the undersirable end of a false positive result.

As is known by many of the poster's on this site, I have endured two polygraph examinations of the pre-employment variety.  One returned DI and the other NDI.  The same exact question which was DI on one was NDI on the other.  To answer the question you may be thinking:  No I did not attempt or consider using CMs for either test.  I did it their (polygraph examiners) way and had a 50/50 outcome.

Also, I didn't lie either time.
  
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: WHY LIE?
Reply #2 - Apr 3rd, 2006 at 5:30am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Truth

What kind of a person lies and cheats to prevent well qualified people from getting a job. Federal polygraphers.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #3 - Apr 3rd, 2006 at 5:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Truth:

You hit the nail on the head. Some people in here will try to SPIN it like they are not teaching people to be dishonest but no matter how they SPIN it you are correct.  This board is full of hypocrisy.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #4 - Apr 3rd, 2006 at 9:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Apr 3rd, 2006 at 5:04pm:
Truth:

You hit the nail on the head. Some people in here will try to SPIN it like they are not teaching people to be dishonest but no matter how they SPIN it you are correct.  This board is full of hypocrisy.

Retcopper,
If you feel this board is full of hypocrisy perhaps you would happier over at PolygraphPlace.com.  Surely the members there, being “Dedicated to Truth”, would never allow such a thing as hypocrisy on their site.  Be careful what you post there, though.  They tend to delete any posts with which they disagree.  Oddly enough, this board, despite being filled with hypocrisy, doesn't delete posts with unpopular viewpoints in them.


Truth,
In essence the purpose of this site is to provide information on the polygraph process.  It is not to assist people in successfully lying about breaking the law.  If the polygraph functioned as it is supposed to, there wouldn’t be any information someone could read on an Internet site in order to defeat the polygraph with a couple minutes of practice. 

Since knowledge of the process hinders the polygraph examiner’s ability to deceive you into believing that the polygraph will detect lies, polygraph examiners dislike this site.

I and many other law enforcement officers on this site have always counseled prospective law enforcement applicants to tell the truth.  No LEO I know wishes to see liars and criminals become cops. 

However…  If I am being subjected to a polygraph exam and I am asked about past drug activity, or drinking and driving, or theft, and I answer with complete honesty and without withholding any information, aren’t I fully complying with the purpose of the test?  If I mentally recite poetry or do long division in my head after each completely truthful answer am I doing something unethical or dishonest?  That is something everyone has to answer for themselves.

Personally, I believe that if I am telling the truth in all my answers and not withholding any information, then I am fulfilling all of my ethical responsibilities to take the test in good faith. 

In my own experience I was subjected to four polygraph exams and I told the complete truth in all of them.  I had never heard of countermeasures at that time and I certainly did not attempt to use any.  My complete honesty resulted in three failures (for three different things) before I passed my fourth one and obtained my current job in law enforcement.

If I am ever forced to take a polygraph again I fully plan on telling the complete truth, and I fully plan on using countermeasures.  Simply telling the truth and hoping for the best only worked for me one out of four times.  There is no evidence that it will work for anyone else at any better rate than that.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous ętes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mr. Mystery
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2006
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #5 - Apr 4th, 2006 at 2:58am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I've passed some polygraphs and failed one.  The funny thing is that I answered the same questions (truthfully) on all of them.

If you can flip through any of my posts and find where I've advised anyone to lie, please let me know.  I'll take corrective action immediately.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Brandon Hall
Ex Member


Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #6 - Apr 4th, 2006 at 8:09am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Apr 3rd, 2006 at 5:04pm:
Truth:

You hit the nail on the head. Some people in here will try to SPIN it like they are not teaching people to be dishonest but no matter how they SPIN it you are correct.  This board is full of hypocrisy.


Retcopper,

I am man enough to admit that many posts ago I suggested that anyone who would be subjected to a polygraph use counter-measures.  That stemmed from my inability to understand why I had "failed" a polygraph examination when I had been truthful.  Just in case you are wondering, no I did not attempt countermeasures and was forthright with the examiner about my research into polygraphy, which was very little at that time.  That "failure" caused me a lot of personal grief and made me question my decision to seek a law enforcement position.

However, through researching polygraphy I came to realize that it was not me that "failed" but the sensitization I was subjected to by the examiner as well as his threatening posture and offensive conduct.

The day came when I was once again scheduled for an exam (another pre-employment).  This examiner was quite different in his mannerisms and approach.  That day I "passed."  Funny thing about it was that he asked the exact relevant question which I had previously been found to be deceptive.

Does this mean that polygraph works as touted?  No.  If it is so easily manipulated by either party, testor or testee, what the hell good is it?

Am I pro-countermeasures?  No.  Why not?  I don't have the equipment, time or knowledge to practice use of countermeasures.  I also have better things to spend my hard earned cash on than a test which has shown to be a coin-toss (referencing my 2 exam experience).

Am I anitpolygraph?  You bet.  After my experience I have good reason.

If you would take the time you may research my posts.  Find one example, just one, where I advised someone to lie.  You will in fact find the opposite.

  8)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box cesium_133
Senior User
***
Offline


Mendacium est dicere "Animum
tuum lego!"

Posts: 92
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Joined: Jan 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #7 - Aug 5th, 2006 at 9:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
You don't have to lie to pass a ploy, er poly (darn typos).  That's our argument in a nutshell.  Polymen want you to believe that their box works?  Okay, fine.  If they say it can detect lies, then what difference does it make if I try to prove the binomial theorem by using Pascal's Triangle during control questions?  Obviously, if you believe the polyman, the machine factors this in, and thus it does not matter.  Right?

Of course not.  Argument thread:

Blowing the whistle on something inherently dishonest is an act of virtue, not vice.  That's what George is doing here.  I would suspect that he would not have a problem with a device or process that could divine the truth 100% of the time.  I wouldn't, as long as it was used in an ethical manner.

The end, no matter how just, never justifies the means.  That's Stalinism.  It is worse to perpetuate a lie and finger an innocent person thereby, even whilst catching ten guilty, than to let the ten guilty go (paraphrasing from Thomas Jefferson there- see, I quote my sources)  Grin

A government that will knowingly lie and use lies and artifices, even in the quest of effecting a "nobler purpose", is a government of lies and deceit, not of laws and ethics.  A lie to a deceitful government or government organ, or agent of said government, is at worst greatly tempered in its wrongness.  At best, it is noble.

Thus, while I still advocate taking the higher ground and not lying, I have no problem with bending the truth short of a lie if faced with a poly...

Have you ever driven drunk?  No, never been caught, so legally, that's the truth, if I need to go that route... or if I have...

No, because I was not actually drunk; I blew .09, was arrested, convicted, and fined, but was still fully in control of my faculties.  I was legally DWI, but factually still perfectly sober and capable of driving.

For the record, I have driven while I was >.08, I think, but have no DWI convictions.  So I suppose I can just read into what the polyman is implying (just as he tries to read me) either way and go with whichever.

So what is the truth?

Given what this government does and is capable of, I don't have much compunction about walking right up to the line without crossing it...
  

Polygraphers escaped from among the evils of Pandora's box, which might have been an old analog polygraph... only God can tell whether you're lying or not, and He will judge you in His own time...
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #8 - Aug 5th, 2006 at 4:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
cesium_133 wrote on Aug 5th, 2006 at 9:41am:
Have you ever driven drunk?  No, never been caught, so legally, that's the truth, if I need to go that route... or if I have...

No, because I was not actually drunk; I blew .09, was arrested, convicted, and fined, but was still fully in control of my faculties.  I was legally DWI, but factually still perfectly sober and capable of driving.

For the record, I have driven while I was >.08, I think, but have no DWI convictions.  So I suppose I can just read into what the polyman is implying (just as he tries to read me) either way and go with whichever.


Cesium,

In my experience, any of the conditions you imply above will cause a consistant and significant reaction on a pre-employment polygraph examination.  However, depending on individual department policy, one or more of these scenerios may or may not be cause for disqualification.  This situation is further complicated by the fact that not every department makes public its policies in this regard.

So now what do you do if identified as deceptive to this question?  You KNOW why you failed.  Do you tell the examiner what the problem is and let him work with you to get you through the process?  Or do you clam up and thereby seal your fate?

Now you can argue all the day that polygraph is so "terrible" and "evil," but what advice do you have for the guy who's <.08 two years ago is probably not disqualifying, But is bothering him enough during a pre-employment polygraph exam to keep him from passing?

Just wondering...

Nonombre Smiley
  
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: 6193
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #9 - Aug 5th, 2006 at 6:53pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nonombre wrote on Aug 5th, 2006 at 4:13pm:
Cesium,

In my experience, any of the conditions you imply above will cause a consistant and significant reaction on a pre-employment polygraph examination.


Nonsense! You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're not conducting double-blind experiments when you conduct polygraph examinations and you are in no position to make such a judgment as you do here.

Quote:
However, depending on individual department policy, one or more of these scenerios may or may not be cause for disqualification.  This situation is further complicated by the fact that not every department makes public its policies in this regard.

So now what do you do if identified as deceptive to this question?  You KNOW why you failed.  Do you tell the examiner what the problem is and let him work with you to get you through the process?  Or do you clam up and thereby seal your fate?

Now you can argue all the day that polygraph is so "terrible" and "evil," but what advice do you have for the guy who's <.08 two years ago is probably not disqualifying, But is bothering him enough during a pre-employment polygraph exam to keep him from passing?

Just wondering...

Nonombre Smiley 


More nonsense. The FBI and other federal agencies use a question about driving under the influence of alcohol as a probable-lie control question! They simplistically assume that everyone who has a driver license and consumes alcoholic beverages has driven while under the influence, or at least has considerable doubt about it. Thus, showing a strong reaction to a question about DUI actually benefits the examinee.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
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 nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #10 - Aug 5th, 2006 at 9:35pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The FBI and other federal agencies use a question about driving under the influence of alcohol as a probable-lie control question! They simplistically assume that everyone who has a driver license and consumes alcoholic beverages has driven while under the influence, or at least has considerable doubt about it. Thus, showing a strong reaction to a question about DUI actually benefits the examinee.


Mr. Maschke,

I don't know what the FBI does, since I have never been associated with the FBI.  I can tell you that DUI is a RELEVANT question on the pre-employment polygraph examination that I administer.  Therefore, the best thing an examinee can do is resolve this issue with me before the test is administered.  Otherwise, he stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing the polygraph examination for my department.

This leads to bring up an issue I have remained fairly quiet about.  In the past several months, I have seen you and others on this site wrongly identify relevants as controls, controls as relevants, irrelevants as relevants, etc, etc, etc.  I can assure you that on several occasions you and the others have in fact advised readers to augment their reactions to RELEVANT QUESTIONS, because YOU, Mr. Maschke did not have a clue what you were talking about...

In summary, PLEASE double check your facts before handing out dime store advice.  You don't know as much as you think you do...
  
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: 6193
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #11 - Aug 5th, 2006 at 11:19pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nonombre wrote on Aug 5th, 2006 at 9:35pm:
I don't know what the FBI does, since I have never been associated with the FBI.


Of course you don't.

Quote:
I can tell you that DUI is a RELEVANT question on the pre-employment polygraph examination that I administer.


You can indeed tell me that, but you and your department remain anonymous, and your assertion thus remains unverifiable. Personally, I find it hard to believe. An applicant's drunk driving record is easily verified by non-polygraphic means. From the perspective of an agency that relies on polygraph screening, it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving.

Quote:
Therefore, the best thing an examinee can do is resolve this issue with me before the test is administered.  Otherwise, he stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing the polygraph examination for my department.


This might be true if polygraphy were a valid method of lie detection, but it isn't.

Quote:
This leads to bring up an issue I have remained fairly quiet about.  In the past several months, I have seen you and others on this site wrongly identify relevants as controls, controls as relevants, irrelevants as relevants, etc, etc, etc.  I can assure you that on several occasions you and the others have in fact advised readers to augment their reactions to RELEVANT QUESTIONS, because YOU, Mr. Maschke did not have a clue what you were talking about...


Examples please.

Quote:
In summary, PLEASE double check your facts before handing out dime store advice.  You don't know as much as you think you do...


I certainly don't claim to have  a monopoly on knowledge. If you think I've written anything that is in error, please explain.
« Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2006 at 8:01am by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
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 nonombre
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 334
Joined: Jun 18th, 2005
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #12 - Aug 6th, 2006 at 3:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Personally, I find it hard to believe. An applicant's drunk driving record is easily verified by non-polygraphic means...it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving."


Mr. Maschke,

Look what you have done.  You definatively announce that a question about DUI on a polygraph exam is a control question (and should therefore be manipulated in some way.)  Yet when challenged, you defend yourself by saying: ..."I find it hard to believe...it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving."

Mr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here.  You risk careers and futures by the "information" you so confidently provide (e.g., the identification of a test question by one type or another).  You then defend your "information" with purely subjective assertions such as ..."I find it hard to believe?"

Where is YOUR "double blind" study, Mr. Maschke?

I will tell you again, my department and many others want to make sure that we don't hire people who like to drive drunk.  DUI (of the "not caught" variety) is a routenely asked relevant question.  However, if you are so sure the question is indeed a control, then feel free to keep identifying it as such.  Myself and other the other police police examiners will continue to clean up your mess.  We have for some time.

Quote:
Examples please.


Sorry sir, you know I am not going to provide you with examples of question types.  However, I will ask you again for the sake of people reading this site and taking for "gospel" the things you say.  PLEASE double check everything.  You have been wrong a lot lately.

Mr. Maschke, whether you care to believe it or not, you have hurt the unsuspecting with your arrogant assertions and the opinions you present as unmitigated fact.  I ask you again to check your sources, look at both sides, and consider all possibilities before you advise the naive to engage in behaviors for which you have to date refused to take responsibility for...

Regards,

Nonombre
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box cesium_133
Senior User
***
Offline


Mendacium est dicere "Animum
tuum lego!"

Posts: 92
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Joined: Jan 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #13 - Aug 6th, 2006 at 10:48am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I can tell you that DUI is a RELEVANT question on the pre-employment polygraph examination that I administer.


Well, sure, you can tell us that.  You can tell us that the sky is green on a clear day and that the moon is made of limburger.  But we're not obliged to believe you.  By the way, what agency do you work for?

Quote:
In the past several months, I have seen you and others on this site wrongly identify relevants as controls, controls as relevants, irrelevants as relevants, etc, etc, etc.  I can assure you that on several occasions you and the others have in fact advised readers to augment their reactions to RELEVANT QUESTIONS...


I want examples, too.  I was one of the ones identifying questions as this type or that.  I have never misidentified an IQ as an RQ or CQ, I know an RQ when I see one, and I state my CQ knowledge as best I can.  I don't think I have missed one.  If so, for the sake of a clearer debate, nonombre, you should be happy (you don't have anything to hide, do you?  Is there anything you would like to clear up?  There must be...  Cheesy ) to enlighten me.  Also, to all who read this, if you have to ask yourself if it's a CQ or RQ, treat it as an RQ.  Please.  Don't spike an RQ.

Quote:
...because YOU, Mr. Maschke did not have a clue what you were talking about...


Sounds like something Gelb would say.  Or perhaps someone in the APA hierarchy.  An ancient way of deflecting the veracity of an argument is to cease honest debate and assail the messenger.  It's called an ad hominem attack.  Presidential candidates, Marc Antony, and polygraphers seem to use this device frequently.  Sorry, I don't accept the maneuver as legitimate debate.  Again, perhaps you can give us some examples?

Quote:
In summary, PLEASE double check your facts before handing out dime store advice.  You don't know as much as you think you do...


I don't think George's facts are in doubt.  I believe him.  I associate myself with his remarks.  It's not dime-store, nonombre.  And he may know more than what he thinks.

I'll tell you this, too: I have taken polys, and I have used CM's, and I have assured my passing through their usage.  I should have passed anyhow, and probably would have, but I slam-dunked passage by using them, copiously and unapologetically.  Now, if your machine can divine my truthfulness, and at such high rates, those last two sentences should mean nothing to you.

Do they matter at all to you, nonombre?  Are you bemused, concerned, angry, or apathetic to what I just said?

Quote:
Mr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here.


Yes.  So if a DWI makes a difference, do a background check.  Do the legwork.  Do the research.  Don't rely on a needle, cursor, and BFB track.  Why in God's name would you -ever- trust a subjective practice over objective reality?  Alice In Wonderland comes to mind.

Quote:
You risk careers and futures by the "information" you so confidently provide (e.g., the identification of a test question by one type or another).  You then defend your "information" with purely subjective assertions such as ..."I find it hard to believe?"


More ad hominem tactics.  Sorry, had to identify it; it's embarrassing how obvious it is.  And I have yet to hear a reason as to why your department would ask an RQ about something you could call up the local PD and find out (or go to NCIC).

Quote:
Where is YOUR "double blind" study, Mr. Maschke?


I find it impossible to believe, myself.  This whole argument I would be laughing at if it were not so serious.  Nonombre, we, I myself, am laying all my points out.  I hold nothing back (truth).

Now, in a polygraphic setting, you want us to tell you everything, bare our souls to you.  It's not too much for this board to ask you to do the same.  Why not come clean, tell me, us, everything about you and the magic box?

Whom, I ask again, do you work for?
What questions did this site, perhaps I myself, misidentify?
What material advice did this site, or I myself, get wrong?

Come on, big fella, clear everything up that you're holding back, share it with us, and by the way we -know- you're holding stuff back  Cheesy  We're here to help you, here to go to bat for you, to work with you, not against you.  We want you to understand our points.  We need you to agree with us.  Grin  Sound familiar?  Sounds and smells like canned sardines gone out of date to me, but...

The difference between my saying that half-comically (I do believe you are misrepresenting yourself, such as your inner beliefs on how well the poly works, and I think you're discussing this in bad faith by not addressing the arguments presented to you) and you saying it "seriously" is that this site is here for honest discussion and full disclosure.  Knowledge is power, and the truth will set all of us free.  So why not dissect every part of the magic box?  Of what are you -really- afraid?  Lost paychecks?

Quote:
Sorry sir, you know I am not going to provide you with examples of question types.


You don't need to, nonombre.  I think George and the rest of us have them committed to memory by now.

Quote:
However, I will ask you again for the sake of people reading this site and taking for "gospel" the things you say.  PLEASE double check everything.  You have been wrong a lot lately.


I have posted my opinions, too, nonombre, and I know that the world can see them.  I consider this issue very important, as I have to deal with the poly when I feel I should not (nor should anyone).  My statements are from my heart, and I stand by all of them as much as if I were the admin here.  Thus, what you say to George, you're saying to me, for he and I seem to agree for the most part.

So I will ask again: what should I double check?  Where have I been wrong?  I don't believe you or your box, big guy; I live in facts and empirical evidence, not statements of "j'accuse!"  I've been wrong?  Then give me chapter and verse and let's rap about it.  What questions?  What statements?  You've made the counterpoint, so it's your job to back it up.  Will you do so?

Quote:
Mr. Maschke, whether you care to believe it or not, you have hurt the unsuspecting with your arrogant assertions and the opinions you present as unmitigated fact.


How has he, Eos, how have I done so?  Again, I want examples.  When I assert to you that Christ is my Saviour, and that I can be redeemed through Him, I will tell you my sources... John 3:16 and Romans 10:9, in the New Testament.  If you want to debate Scripture's reliability or accuracy, using factual argument, that's legitimate.  Stating that I am a kook for being Christian and leaving it there is personal and of no usage probatively.

Did I mention that I debated in high school?  Yep, I did, and you can find that out for yourself (assuming you can find me  8) ) by examining my school records.

Quote:
I ask you again to check your sources, look at both sides, and consider all possibilities before you advise the naive to engage in behaviors for which you have to date refused to take responsibility for...


I myself have looked at both sides, keeping as open a mind as possible.  And I'm just an unsolicited contributor; I haven't made this a personal cause.

Last time, nonombre: what sources do you find fault with, what have I said that is in error?  I take full responsibility for what I say, and I am sure every other serious poster does as well.  What possibilities?  That your machine can finally be shown for what it is?  I don't think getting rid of something that failed to catch Aldrich Ames twice, that is admittedly subjective, and that uses unquantifiable measurements in an attempt to get confessions not by the machine per se but by its secondary or tertiary use (or pretended use) is such a bad idea.

The rest of your statements are ad hominem, as before, and I won't use bandwidth on them...
  

Polygraphers escaped from among the evils of Pandora's box, which might have been an old analog polygraph... only God can tell whether you're lying or not, and He will judge you in His own time...
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: WHY LIE?
Reply #14 - Aug 6th, 2006 at 1:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nonombre wrote on Aug 6th, 2006 at 3:21am:
Mr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here. 

Nonombre,

I have to say, that is an odd thing for you to write, since it implies that George is not treating people’s futures with sufficient gravity.

Very recently you characterized your own behavior for times when an applicant fails his polygraph and you don’t know why as this:  You fail him anyway, despite your own admission that you can’t read minds and don’t have the faintest idea why he is showing a response.  Your justification for such behavior was twofold: even though you have no idea why he is showing a reaction you assume he knows and is attempting to conceal guilty knowledge, and there are other people in line behind him.

That is, in my opinion, a recklessly cavalier attitude to have with people’s lives, which is why I characterized it as unethical, to which you took some exception.  But I see it as you being slavishly devoted to the polygraph regardless of truth or fairness.  When you have no problem disqualifying an applicant even when you have no idea if he is telling the truth or being deceptive, and you justify it by implying (with what must be nothing more than a wild-ass guess, since you’ve already admitted you have no idea why he is showing a response) that he’s probably lying anyway, but even if he isn’t it doesn’t matter because there are more where he came from, that is clearly an example of sacrificing ethics for expediency.

George is trying to help people.  Exactly what are you doing when you disqualify applicants even when you have no idea if they are telling the truth or being deceptive on their polygraph exam?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous ętes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
WHY LIE?

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