Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Calling out LieBabyCryBaby (Read 34539 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #15 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 3:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25th, 2007 at 2:00pm:
On knowledge of procedure, please site a peer reviewed study that suggests that mere knowledge of the CQT negates successful determinations.


I am aware of no studies from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the effect of examinee knowledge of CQT procedure on polygraph results in the field. The few existing laboratory studies in this regard have weaknesses in design that make generalization to field conditions problematic.

Quote:
Do you plan on indefinitely ignoring the relatively recent Honts study regarding such "TLBTLD education" affects on accuracy?


I haven't ignored it at all. The citation for  the study to which you refer is: Honts, Charles R. and Wendy R. Alloway. "Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test," Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320. You'll see I mentioned it, and cited the abstract, in the message thread, Critique of Louis I. Rovner's Polygraph Examination and Testimony in Ohio v. Sharma. As I mentioned there, this study has serious methodological shortcomings that will be addressed in detail at a future point.

Quote:
I certainly won't ignore NAS---the good and the bad. By virtue of your static and inflexible hatred for polygraph, you demonstrate the very same stubborness which some examiners who think they are gods demonstrate. How about some give and take? Your stated philosophies on polygraph remind me of GW Bush's absolutism policy on "evil." You are either with us or against morality. This thinking is commonly known as arrested development.


If polygraphers could demonstrate that the polygraph can actually detect deception, and that it is robust against countermeasures, this website would not exist. I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but the polygraph community has yet to provide it.


Thanks for the speedy reply. But could you please site the methodological weakness in the study which you refer? I get the impression that you hold a PHD in a research bolstered science----contrary to your (personal webpage)assertion that you hold a PHD in Near Eastern Studies. I do not have a PHD in a research field, so please enlighten me as to the stated weakness.
Since it is you who hold here in this realm that polygraph does not have a robust mechanism for thwarting countermeasures, isn't it fair for me to ask that you prove such a contention? Your site here is similar to a UFO site which constantly challenges authorities to prove UFO's DO NOT EXIST---rather than simply proving that they do exist. All your site has proven is what we already know about polygraph art----it isn't perfect, but it is remarkable.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
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: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #16 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 3:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25th, 2007 at 3:04pm:
Thanks for the speedy reply. But could you please site the methodological weakness in the study which you refer? I get the impression that you hold a PHD in a research bolstered science----contrary to your (personal webpage)assertion that you hold a PHD in Near Eastern Studies. I do not have a PHD in a research field, so please enlighten me as to the stated weakness.


As I stated earlier, a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway will be forthcoming. You'll have to be patient.

Quote:
Since it is you who hold here in this realm that polygraph does not have a robust mechanism for thwarting countermeasures, isn't it fair for me to ask that you prove such a contention? Your site here is similar to a UFO site which constantly challenges authorities to prove UFO's DO NOT EXIST---rather than simply proving that they do exist. All your site has proven is what we already know about polygraph art----it isn't perfect, but it is remarkable.


What I'm arguing is that the polygraph community has provided no evidence that polygraphic lie detection is robust against countermeasures. In particular, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. We're not asking polygraphers to prove a negative. Rather, we insist that they prove that which they claim to be able to do, including most importantly: 1) lie detection (or detection of deception, or truth verification, or whatever euphemism you may prefer) and 2) countermeasure detection.
  

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 Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #17 - Sep 25th, 2007 at 4:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25th, 2007 at 3:04pm:
Thanks for the speedy reply. But could you please site the methodological weakness in the study which you refer? I get the impression that you hold a PHD in a research bolstered science----contrary to your (personal webpage)assertion that you hold a PHD in Near Eastern Studies. I do not have a PHD in a research field, so please enlighten me as to the stated weakness.


As I stated earlier, a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway will be forthcoming. You'll have to be patient.

Quote:
Since it is you who hold here in this realm that polygraph does not have a robust mechanism for thwarting countermeasures, isn't it fair for me to ask that you prove such a contention? Your site here is similar to a UFO site which constantly challenges authorities to prove UFO's DO NOT EXIST---rather than simply proving that they do exist. All your site has proven is what we already know about polygraph art----it isn't perfect, but it is remarkable.


What I'm arguing is that the polygraph community has provided no evidence that polygraphic lie detection is robust against countermeasures. In particular, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. We're not asking polygraphers to prove a negative. Rather, we insist that they prove that which they claim to be able to do, including most importantly: 1) lie detection (or detection of deception, or truth verification, or whatever euphemism you may prefer) and 2) countermeasure detection.




If you are referring to Mr. Drew Richardson's challenge, I would like you to weigh Mr. Richardson's credibility as a result of the declaration I posted just a half hour ago. Since your challenge is predicated on Mr. Richardson's challenge, and Mr. Richardson's expertise is now in question, perhaps we should wait to hear from Drew. If the allegations prove true, than perhaps antipolygraph should find a another "expert" who claims to have changed from pro to anti polygraph. Where did you dig up Drew anyway?

Chow, Paradiddle
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
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: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #18 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 5:24am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle,

No, I was not referring specifically to Dr. Richardson's unanswered polygraph countermeasure challenge when I mentioned that we are not calling on the polygraph community to prove any negative (as you wrongly asserted), but rather to prove its claimed ability to detect 1) lies and 2) countermeasures.

Polygraph techniques have not been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. And no polygrapher has ever demonstrated an ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, nor are there any articles or book chapters in the polygraph literature that even purport to explain how to do so.

Perhaps you would care to answer the question Lethe raised in starting this discussion thread:

Quote:
do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

An examinee who knows how a probable lie control question test works is, all else being equal, less likely to produce accurate results when tested than an identical examinee who is ignorant of how the test works.


Ciao.
  

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 Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #19 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 12:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
A fair Question George. I will not speak on behalf of the polygraph Community on this, but I will speak for myself.

There are two global (big picture) types of tests that I administer---and as of the last 4 years, they are fast becoming diffused (joined) into one test. They are the following;

1. The test given to an examinee that is unlikely to understand the CQT method.
2. The test given to informed or probably informed examinees.

Both tests work quite well, but I will concede that I have been treating many examinees if not most as "informed" examinee's in that the Controls are very hot, and the construct of the test is nearly a mirror of the R&I test. I will not reveal any specifics, but TLBTLD doesn't reflect the kinds of modalities that tests are being administered in this day and age. Simply put, polygraph tests these days are beginning to be administered in similar fashion as they are on when we test fellow polygraph examiners----a modality that your manual doesn't really "remedy." The modality that your manual explains is (for me) reserved for illiterate hermits.


The answer to your question is "no"----I have adjusted my methods to reflect the emerging challenges and widespread CQT education.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #20 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 10:21pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24th, 2007 at 6:43pm:
I see the repeated error (presupposition) on this site that an individual must lie (or be lying)on control questions in order for the CQT to be successful. Enough with this fable already. A subject need only have a greater orienting response to controls via nebulous doubts, uncertainty or any other striking response. You anti-folk know far less about polygraph then you boast. It's a little embarrassing to see some good intelects be so wrong so often.


Why would I have a significant response if I'm told to say "no" when asked if I've ever said a lie to anyone?  I know that I have.  The examiner knows that I have.  We both know that everybody has and that they are only playing make believe when they claim that anyone who has ever told even a single lie would probably sell out both his country and his own mother for a dime and thus wouldn't be hired. 

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 12:26pm:
There are two global (big picture) types of tests that I administer---and as of the last 4 years, they are fast becoming diffused (joined) into one test. They are the following;

1. The test given to an examinee that is unlikely to understand the CQT method.
2. The test given to informed or probably informed examinees.

Both tests work quite well, but I will concede that I have been treating many examinees if not most as "informed" examinee's in that the Controls are very hot, and the construct of the test is nearly a mirror of the R&I test. I will not reveal any specifics, but TLBTLD doesn't reflect the kinds of modalities that tests are being administered in this day and age. Simply put, polygraph tests these days are beginning to be administered in similar fashion as they are on when we test fellow polygraph examiners----a modality that your manual doesn't really "remedy." The modality that your manual explains is (for me) reserved for illiterate hermits.


Why won't you reveal any specifics?  If the tests are so great, you should tell us about them so that we may have the confidence that you do in the process.  I can see no reason for not sharing information about these new and improved techniques unless it is that doing so would lessen their accuracy.  This proves my main point: knowledge of how the exam works lessens it's accuracy.  Thanks for helping me demonstrate that!
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #21 - Sep 26th, 2007 at 10:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe, I answered your question unambiguously. Now you want nuances and details. I would be happy to refer you to a polygraph school so that you can answer your own questions. Anyone who is willing to answer your questions deserves at the very least a free bottomless cup of coffee, but more fittingly, an instructors fee.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #22 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 1:45am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 10:47pm:
Lethe, I answered your question unambiguously. Now you want nuances and details. I would be happy to refer you to a polygraph school so that you can answer your own questions. Anyone who is willing to answer your questions deserves at the very least a free bottomless cup of coffee, but more fittingly, an instructors fee.


One of my basic claims is that having knowledge about how a particular exam works makes it less likely that you will produce accurate results if subjected to that type of test.  You seem to agree with this--to a point.  You appear to be saying that this is true only of certain types of exams and that you simply use a different type of exam to overcome this defect.  However, I think the new and improved test is subject to the same fault: if the subject knew how it really worked, it wouldn't work very well either.  Do you deny this?  If you do deny it, why not tell us how the exam works so that we will be less ignorant? 

So, either tell us how these great tests work or tell us why you can't tell us how they work.  I think that's a fair question.  If you need to be paid to answer it, why are you trolling around here?
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #23 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 1:45am:
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 26th, 2007 at 10:47pm:
Lethe, I answered your question unambiguously. Now you want nuances and details. I would be happy to refer you to a polygraph school so that you can answer your own questions. Anyone who is willing to answer your questions deserves at the very least a free bottomless cup of coffee, but more fittingly, an instructors fee.


One of my basic claims is that having knowledge about how a particular exam works makes it less likely that you will produce accurate results if subjected to that type of test.  You seem to agree with this--to a point.  You appear to be saying that this is true only of certain types of exams and that you simply use a different type of exam to overcome this defect.  However, I think the new and improved test is subject to the same fault: if the subject knew how it really worked, it wouldn't work very well either.  Do you deny this?  If you do deny it, why not tell us how the exam works so that we will be less ignorant?  

So, either tell us how these great tests work or tell us why you can't tell us how they work.  I think that's a fair question.  If you need to be paid to answer it, why are you trolling around here?




Your basic "claims" and what you "think" is a "fair question" is all----hold on---let me take another bong hit....cough cough.........gasp.....really wild man. What do you do for a living? What exactly sort of shit do you give as to the micro-nuances of how educated examinees are tested? Are you in a fantasy world, or do you have a job in an industry that is NOT eager to dislose every little secret to success? I answered the question. You are asking me a question that you know in the fanboy forensic world isn't a modality that you need to know about----UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXAMINER.  Come up with your own 11 herbs and spices there colonal, get off the bong, and turn off those A&E crime shows.

Lethe, pardon my sardonism, but you have to understand that I test many sex offenders. I don't care to give even one single herb nor spice to any of those Offenders. Don't you have kids man?
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #24 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:54am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:07am:
Your basic "claims" and what you "think" is a "fair question" is all----hold on---let me take another bong hit....cough cough.........gasp.....really wild man. What do you do for a living? What exactly sort of shit do you give as to the micro-nuances of how educated examinees are tested? Are you in a fantasy world, or do you have a job in an industry that is NOT eager to dislose every little secret to success? I answered the question. You are asking me a question that you know in the fanboy forensic world isn't a modality that you need to know about----UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXAMINER.  Come up with your own 11 herbs and spices there colonal, get off the bong, and turn off those A&E crime shows.

Lethe, pardon my sardonism, but you have to understand that I test many sex offenders. I don't care to give even one single herb nor spice to any of those Offenders. Don't you have kids man?


If having knowledge of the exam decreases its accuracy then, insofar as preserving the accuracy of the exam is important, that knowledge should be preserved from dissemination.  So, does knowledge of even the other types of polygraph lessen their accuracy?  Is there any sort of polygraph exam where the accuracy cannot be diminished by the subject having certain knowledge of the exam?

If telling us how the exam would work would help bad people then, sure, don't tell us.  But do tell us that giving out that information would help bad people so that we can understand your position.  Acting secretive and almighty is lots of fun (what kid didn't get a kick out of starting a secret and exclusive club, however short-lived?) but it's bad policy when you need the public to trust you so that you can protect society from bad people.

So, would me having knowledge of how the exam works lessen it's accuracy vis-a-vis myself?
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #25 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:22am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Lethe asked yet again despite being answered; "So, would me having knowledge of how the exam works lessen it's accuracy vis-a-vis myself?"


no....as my hyper-vigilant style would assume that if you or your sister or your mama has a pc, than I'll err on the side of caution-----caution that is based on anecdotal theory that knowledge poses a risk if not treated and proceeded with caution----which such fear is not empirically justifiable. Why be cautious, I dunno----I guess I want to stretch the very limits of construct validity---get the most accurate results possible----this is serious stuff and I never forget that this work is perilous if I am not sharp and sensetive to the examinee's persona. Regarding CQT and TLBTLD knowlege, the recent Honts/Alloway study is encouraging-----are you treating that study as the "lone gunman against JFK" of conclusions---in that your G W.Bushesque "gut" feeling is "telling you" that you are right and scientific method is wrong? Not once in all of your posts that I have read have you even once so much as flirted with "science." You know Lethe....television doesn't make sense either, but it works regardless of whether your instinct tells you it is impossible or unlikely.

Does your gut feeling also tell you that Adam and Eve road dinosaurs to church? lol
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #26 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 4:09am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
If telling us how the exam works won't impact the accuracy thereof, then why not just tell us how it works and enhance our knowledge?  Why all the secrecy and insults?  Why are you trying to tie me to George W. Bush and to young Earthers?  If this exam is so good, tell us how it works so that we'll know it's really good.  Otherwise, your refusal to disclose information which you claim to have no reason for concealing is quite puzzling indeed. 

Since you sure as hell aren't going to answer my questions, your next insult?
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #27 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 4:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle, here is the basic conversation we're having, though I don't think you'll be honest enough to either (1) admit it or (2) correct the record.

    ME: Isn't it true that knowing how a polygraph exam works can negatively impact the results?

    YOU: No, that is not true.  What an examinee knows about the exam can't possibly impact the results.

    ME: Well, then, why do polygraphers go to so much trouble to trick examinees?

    YOU: Oh, well, there are two types of polygraph exams. One type doesn't work very well if the subjects knows how it works, the other is uneffected by a subject's knowledge; it is the later type that we now chiefly use.

    ME: Oh, that's good news.  How does this other type of exam work?

    YOU: Do you want all of our wives to be raped and our children sodomized?! How dare you ask that!

    ME: What?  What are you talking about?

    YOU: I can't tell you how those other exams work.

    ME: Why not?  Doing so can't impact the accuracy, you said so yourself.

    YOU: I've changed my mind; telling you could imperil their accuracy after all.


So, those other exams which you say are so great, does knowledge of how they work negatively impact their accuracy or not? 

If not, then the only reason you're left with for not telling us about them is that "we don't need to know."  That is a claim of such profound asininity that I hesitate to answer it.  First of all, it is arrogant of you to presume that you know what I need to know, since you haven't the slightest idea who I am or what my circumstances are.  Second, if you eliminated from your head everything that you didn't absolutely need to know in order to eat, sleep, work, and procreate, your mind would be an impoverished and desolate place.  I rather seriously doubt you follow your own advice and avoid learning anything that you don't "need to know."  There are other points that could be made, but I think this deals decisively with your pathetic attempt at evasion.  If that is the sort of thing they teach in polygraph school, I'll save my money and be glad that I got a proper education, thanks.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #28 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 2:01pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe wrote on Sep 27th, 2007 at 4:28am:
Paradiddle, here is the basic conversation we're having, though I don't think you'll be honest enough to either (1) admit it or (2) correct the record.

    ME: Isn't it true that knowing how a polygraph exam works can negatively impact the results?

    YOU: No, that is not true.  What an examinee knows about the exam can't possibly impact the results.

    ME: Well, then, why do polygraphers go to so much trouble to trick examinees?

    YOU: Oh, well, there are two types of polygraph exams. One type doesn't work very well if the subjects knows how it works, the other is uneffected by a subject's knowledge; it is the later type that we now chiefly use.

    ME: Oh, that's good news.  How does this other type of exam work?

    YOU: Do you want all of our wives to be raped and our children sodomized?! How dare you ask that!

    ME: What?  What are you talking about?

    YOU: I can't tell you how those other exams work.

    ME: Why not?  Doing so can't impact the accuracy, you said so yourself.

    YOU: I've changed my mind; telling you could imperil their accuracy after all.


So, those other exams which you say are so great, does knowledge of how they work negatively impact their accuracy or not?  

If not, then the only reason you're left with for not telling us about them is that "we don't need to know."  That is a claim of such profound asininity that I hesitate to answer it.  First of all, it is arrogant of you to presume that you know what I need to know, since you haven't the slightest idea who I am or what my circumstances are.  Second, if you eliminated from your head everything that you didn't absolutely need to know in order to eat, sleep, work, and procreate, your mind would be an impoverished and desolate place.  I rather seriously doubt you follow your own advice and avoid learning anything that you don't "need to know."  There are other points that could be made, but I think this deals decisively with your pathetic attempt at evasion.  If that is the sort of thing they teach in polygraph school, I'll save my money and be glad that I got a proper education, thanks.


You; So, Iam interested in large retail store security.

Me; Cool, that's my business, my specialty---it is quite interesting how sytems have advanced to address the growing numbers of secure-savvy interlopers.

You; Could you tell me if your state of the art security apparatus works, even if the customers and/or potential criminals are aware of it's workings?

Me; Well, since we installed the systems, we have caught more thieves, assaults, and sex crimes both in the store and in the parking lots----even though we have posted signs everywhere in and out of the stores.

You; Great...but can you tell me how it works?

Me; Yeah sure...we use motion sensors, magnetic tag detectors, infrared cameras with 18 phase autozoom with audio, and axis points of manned 2-way mirrors.

You; huh. Interesting. But can you tell me how they are managed and how do you know they work?

Me; Sure. They work very well as we have seen a substantial increase in crimes caught, and a dramatic decrease in inventory shrinkage. If you go to the technical school which teaches you the basics, then get employed with a secretive and/or elite institution---you will learn many of the nuanced tricks of the trade.

You; Right, but can you tell me why this incredible system works even if the criminals see the cameras, the doorway magnetics, the motion detectors and the two-way mirrors?

Me; Well, they just work very well. I hope that was helpful.

You; OK, but how can you catch the bad guys if they know about the stuff-----and how do you monitor the good guys too----what kinds of software do you use----how many security staff----what kinds of hours do you security staff work-----who holds the combination to the cash safes....

Me; Hey buddy, I answered your questions----there is the aspect of business trade secrets here and...

You: Oh, if they are such secrets, than they must be weak. Tell us oh retail giant how you run this super de duperdy new security apparatus?

Me; Uh hang on a second. You are beginning to seem well...kinda put off. What is it that you do? Are you a forensics or security specialist---we could use good people.

You; I don't want to work in the field of security---it's not my business----I just want to know details and trade secrets of the security apparatus.

Me; As you have indicated, it is none of your business sir, literally and figuratively speaking.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #29 - Sep 27th, 2007 at 3:22pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The reason that a security person wouldn't give out certain information is because doing so would help potential thieves.  Are you saying that giving out certain information about the polygraph would lessen its accuracy?  You're trying to have it both ways, Paradiddle.  On the one hand, you want us to think that there is no knowledge that a subject could possess which would lessen the accuracy of the exam.  But on the other hand you refuse to tell us how your awesome test works because doing so could lessen its accuracy.  Well, which is it?

As for "trade secrets", that applies to intellectual property.  The reason KFC doesn't give out the Colonel's recipe is so that you have to go to them to get the chicken.  Are you saying that if you told me how the process worked that that little bit of knowledge would allow me to become a polygrapher and start competing with you?  Surely not.  The claim is disingenuous. 

I think one of the problems that we're having here is that you're programmed to view any questioning of the polygraph to be an attempt to destroy it.  So you're assuming that that's where I'm going with this.  Why don't you set those assumptions aside and just answer my questions directly and honestly and then if I start saying that the costs of the polygraph outweigh the benefits we can have a proper, informed discussion of the matter?
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Calling out LieBabyCryBaby

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