Poll
Poll Question:



« Created by: canadian pharcharmy online on: Apr 17th, 2016 at 4:51pm »
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma (Read 82124 times)
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #15 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 2:52pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Eric Johnson writes:

Quote:
I have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam.


I am not at all pleased to have been defamed by Dr. Rovner in his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma and am concerned by the indication he gave in his pre-test that he repeats the same falsehoods about me to all his examinees.

Quote:
Furthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to suggest that it's okay for anyone to falsely claim (as Lou Rovner did) that I sent him/her a computer virus (a federal crime), and that such defamation is not actionable?

Quote:
Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are...


AntiPolygraph.org has compelling reason to believe that you are well aware that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudebakerHawk postings (whose authorship he has prudently not denied).


Considering that to determine the precise origin of malware is very expensive and tricky business, the charges are difficult to both proveAND disprove------like food poisoning, there are vastly expensive  ways to investigate, but in most cases, a poll will verify to a degree the damage if any. Companies such as Hormel who were accused of distributing food born illness in some of their canned goods immediatly issues a warning and a hotline (poll)----as this is what real concerned people do. Incidentally, I still buy Hormel products.

I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced. If you think otherwise, what be your sources mate?
  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #16 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 3:08pm
Print Post  
Eric Johnson writes:

Quote:
Considering that to determine the precise origin of malware is very expensive and tricky business, the charges are difficult to both proveAND disprove------like food poisoning, there are vastly expensive  ways to investigate, but in most cases, a poll will verify to a degree the damage if any. Companies such as Hormel who were accused of distributing food born illness in some of their canned goods immediatly issues a warning and a hotline (poll)----as this is what real concerned people do. Incidentally, I still buy Hormel products.


An anonymous Internet poll is no way to dispel rumors.

Quote:
I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced. If you think otherwise, what be your sources mate?


But just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #17 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 3:17pm
Print Post  
Quote:
But just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.


I did not pretend anything. I remarked that at the time, I was not aware of Studebaker's identity. I assume that since you identified Ray and Donna and myself---that you probably got the others correct also. But I was never convinced by the identities of either Hunter or Studebaker Hawk---until days or even hours before the outing I had strong suspicions---I still do not know who Hunter, Nonombre or LieBaby is, and any suspicions are just that. You are being paranoid. My statement regarding Lou was merely judiscious and reflective of my desire to not trust your "sources"wholeheartedly. No one gets everything right.

Quote:
Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are;


  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #18 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 3:33pm
Print Post  
Eric Johnson,

The plain language of your post of 6:48 AM this morning indicates that you were purporting at the time of writing not to know that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudbakerHawk posts:

Quote:
...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...


Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #19 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 3:38pm
Print Post  
You're pissing your own shoe and crying "flood." My intentions were to state that I take your word that Lou was 'Hawk---and not Hunter, Nonombre, Liebaby---other posters for whom I do not have confirmed knowledge of their identities. I haven't lost credibility, you seem to be losing your temper.
  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #20 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 3:54pm
Print Post  
Eric Johnson,

At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:

Quote:
...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...


Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:

Quote:
I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....


So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...

Wink
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #21 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 4:02pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Eric Johnson,

At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:

Quote:
...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...


Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:

Quote:
I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....


So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...

Wink


Why the obfuscation? I have always known the ID of Ray and Donna based on their writing styles, reference to Kubrick Film--- initially. I was never 100% certain if Lou was posting---as 'Hawk only had 5 posts. No conspiracy, no pissing on shoes. If I knew (had known) that Lou was 'Hawk, I would say so, but I do not have a close professional nor personal relationship with Lou---and knowledge of his posting is now after the fact. I am convinced he was Hawk, but not at the time. I made no such secrecy of my ID as hundreds of examiners knew that I was posting as Paradiddle from a different forum. No conspiracy, just literary past-present tense troubles.
« Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2007 at 5:25pm by EJohnson »  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #22 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 4:08pm
Print Post  
Eric Johnson,

I'll let you have the last word on this matter and let readers draw their own conclusions.

Further posts to this message thread should address the topic of Lou Rovner's polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
raymond.nelson
User
**
Offline


If you win the rat race,
you're still a rat.

Posts: 46
Joined: Oct 22nd, 2007
Re: Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma
Reply #23 - Oct 29th, 2007 at 7:28pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Eric Johnson,

At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:

Quote:
...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...


Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:

Quote:
I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....


So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...

Wink


Huh?

Ludo who? He's a fictional character in a novel last I knew.

Incidentally,

I heard that's not really Lou in the video, but a Hollywood stunt man.

Word on the street is that Lou's agent warned him that the test could be dangerous, and they used a stand-in.


(sorry George, for posting off topic, I couldn't resist it.)


r

  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo