Obviously you have left out things that would create a cost.  Most obviously would have to be man hours(hey if no one is paid to sit there n' use it, then nothing happens).  Second would be the machine itself and then mantanince.  There is also the fact that it has to be set up in a room, there have to be chairs, a desk etc. for the examineer and examee to sit in.  All of those things cost money, hence it would make sence for a Cost-Benefits Analysis to be done.

Also you made several strange comments:
"Anyone who might suggest that it just might possibly have some drawbacks and that, maybe, those should be discussed frankly obviously isn't thinking for him- or herself.  Anyone who says anything bad about the polygraph is just listening blindly to the "anti" crowd and needs to be re-educated such that their opinions are in line with ours.  Only people who agree with us are thinking for themselves."

How is it that only people that agree with you are thinking for themselves?  If everyone agreed with you then only you would be thinking for yourself, if you even were.  You are thinking for yourself by thinking it works, I am thinking for myself by thinking it doesn't.

charlie9 wrote on May 15^th, 2007 at 1:37pm:


You should probably go back and reread the post. I think you're missing its satirical nature...

As did I... I completly missed it, eh teach me to read things alot closer I guess.

The post is a parody, as is my other contribution to these boards. I am glad that the satirical nature of my writing has been appreciated.  

To explain, these are precisely the types of answers I get when I ask probing questions about polygraphy.  Specifically, I've been told--several times-- that I am "not thinking for myself" but am "listening too much to the anti crowd" when I have asked questions that imply doubt in the party line.

And now I'm curious; palerider, is your screen name an allusion to Revelation 6:8?

I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

It is the horse that is pale, not the rider.  It seems to me that you're calling yourself Death.  Please correct me of any error I have committed.

In any event, can you actually respond to my points, or are you unwilling to do more than attempt to belittle them? Perhaps you could answer some of the following questions:

1. Do you encourage people who will be taking a polygraph exam to look into all facts of the matter if they have questions about it?  If not, why not?
2. In general (in matters not related to polygraphy), do you encourage people to look into all facts concerning a case wherein they must make a decision?  If so, why?
3. Does the accuracy of a polygraph exam suffer if the subject knows how the exam really works?  Assume that countermeasures are not attempted.  If knowledge of how it really works is irrelevant to accuracy, why attempt to deceive the subject?
4. Does your faith in someone suffer if you know that he or she is trying to deceive you?  Don't you at least wonder why they are trying to trick you?
5. If the accuracy suffers if the subjects knows how the exam works, then doesn't that mean that the polygraph is biased against people who are curious and who do research on subjects of interest to them?  And isn't curiosity and a desire to think for one's self a virtue to be promoted, not a vice to be discriminated against? (you may wish to read my other postbefore responding to this)

Forgive the haste with which I have composed the questions; if I was certain that you'd make a good faith effort to answer them I'd have dedicated more time for the project.  Also, this discussion, if it gets going, will be much less interesting if you assume that you know my answers to all of the above questions or the reasons that I think these questions are pertinent.  And, of course, turnabout is fair play; if you'd like to query me I'd not respond with honesty, not parody.

And Charlie, your apology isn't necessary, no offense was generated.  You may note that I am fond of 1984 and of George Orwell in general.  I would highly recommend his non-fiction essay "Politics and the English Language."  My favorite portion thereof is the following:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. ... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. ... Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: 


While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. 

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. 

I look forward to an interesting exchange on the ideas raised so far in this thread.  All are welcome to reply!