Quote:Well TwoBlock:
The nameless one has been rather silent of late. Perhaps you are correct. However, it was I who first engaged new member Stan_Smith after reading a few of his postings.
What do you think Lethe, 1904 and EosJupiter? I'd hoped Stan_Smith was NJ LE. Could TwoBlock be correct? Has anyone ping traced nonombre? Can someone ping Stan_Smith? I don't have McAfee trace on any of my computers anymore, just this Symantec stuff. Yet, a ping trace won't necessarily reveal true location but just that of the proxy server (if used) and that can be disguised by rotation.
The actual identity of Stan_Smith is not important though. He is just another anonymous irritant as we strive towards our mutual goal.
Speaking of goals, lets all lay off palerider. He uses all legal means, no matter how faulty they might be, to accomplish a necessary end to the best of his ability. I think palerider might be one of the very few users who really understand the limitations of polygraph testing.
Sisyphus never rolled a boulder as treacherous as a polygraph. Polygraphy could have never satisfied Tantalus if he hungered for truth and would have comprised a tormentors’ jest crueler than that devised by the Gods. As Graves, Ovid and Wordsworth accounted, the Danaides were eternally tormented with the task of drawing water from a well using a leaky bucket. A sieve cannot contain concepts such as the truth. I really wish we had a functional truth/falsehood detector for palerider to use. Methinks we could all appreciate that as the palerider strives to accomplish his worthy goal.
Lloyd Ploense
Lloyd,
I don't think palerider understands the limitations of polygraph testing. He said in no uncertain terms that "We don't put our children's safety at the hands of a test that is ANYTHING less than 100%." Furthermore it seems to me that he made some low key attacks on your character: "My job is especially difficult when people such as yourself have a really bad experience with some shlub, or maybe by virtue of you ignoring his likely questions about your former mental health." Palerider clearly believes that false positives don't occur, and if they do occur, it was YOUR fault, not the polygraphs. YOU didn't disclose your PSTD, therefore you have no one but yourself to blame. I disagree. The situation was forseeable by a reasonable person, and the LE knew, or ought to have known that the polygraph would fail, especially in this case. The term for this is negligence.
I address this to you rather than palerider because you have let your fear of child molesters cloud your judgement. That, and palerider is beyond convincing. If we should use any, and all means available to hunt down and monitor sex offenders, why not torture? Torture makes people talk, and it's not like sex offenders have rights, they are evil after all. What about capital punishment, let's just kill em all, and wash our hands of the whole mess. The issue isn't about what sex offenders deserve, or how much of threat they are to our children: all criminals are "evil." Saying that sex offenders are evil monsters lurking amongst us with "a level of deception not seen in the general population" is fear mongering, and certainly doesn't prove that polygraphs will be any more reliable than it was with employee screening.
You shouldn't accept polygraphs just because your afraid, and I have one word for anyone who would say otherwise: evil. The more serious the situation is, the more important it is that decisions are made only a reliable information. Palerider is no hero protecting society with "3 hours to get to the truth." This isn't 24, and he's not Jack Bauer. Please don't listen to that drama queen on a power trip.