Quote:


There are posts putting his title in quotes ("Dr.") and alleging that he is a poor student who was barely able to pass the DoDPI Basic Polygraph Examiner Course. Do you not see those as attempts to belittle his education and intelligence?

A good analogy for you is someone who places posts on a golf site disparaging Tiger Woods. 

It's one thing to make posts assailing his attitude, character, etc. The poster really could objectively believe that he is an arrogant jerk.

Still, once the person adds posts saying that he has a terrible swing, poor fundamentals, etc, they sort of scream bias (player hater) and call all of the other posts into question as tomfoolery.

Again, one does not have to read thousands of astrology charts or own a crystal ball to be an expert resource for stating that fortune telling is a joke. Nor does one have to have tons of field experience as a polygrapher in order to use academic expertise to render an expert scientific opinion with regard to the validity of polygraphy.

Quote:

Or, he may have "called bullshit" on some or all of the lectures which Mark Johnson and the other Kool Aid drinkers at DoDPI saw as a lack of understanding.

I'm sure if Carl Sagan had attended an 8 week long astrology school, the unanimous opinion of the "professionals" in attendance would have been that he "simply didn't get it" either. 

Quote:

JB, that was an interesting read. 

The only reason for my praise of "hard" science is that my undergrad degrees were in social science. Peers who majored in hard science had an exponentially greater workload.

Although a political science BA and a chemistry BA are equivalent with regard to academia, I'm going to head out on a limb and say that the average hard science major is more intelligent and works a hell of a lot harder than a social science major.

Can we agree that you don't see an awful lot of sociology majors dropping out for pre-med tracks (the curriculum is bio/gen chem/physics/organic chem) due to the difficulty of the sociology curriculum?

Guys,

Dr. Drew wrote that he has become a "unwitting" and "reluctant" social activist after being contacted by hundreds of polygraph victims!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK DOCTOR!

You have an audio recording on this web-site for God's sake! You are actually out there on the net trolling for "victims". Spin...spin....spin....

MM

Quote:


Your point is stretched like taffy on a puller. If Cornell U assigned Carl to be an astrology student and to research astrology---only to have Carl be a lethargic student who a leading expert in that field states in a legal declaration that Carl has the single worst grasp of the fundemental priciples of astrology that said professional has seen in a career lifetime----then Carl would indeed be worthy of being called "not an expert on astrology---much less a "superior expert." Knowing Carl, he would have been a superb astrology student and researcher, regardless of what his opinions and/or merits of the field relied.

Quote:


To further debunk your comparison, Carl Sagan was tasked (similarly as J. Allen Hynek) to explore the possibility for otherworldly visitation (ufo's) and Carl, although a great skeptic--having said " [paraphrased]great claims require great evidence"----delved into the study relentlessly---even the silly stuff. He was a man among men and a scientists scientist------fact of the matter, I am insulted that you would dare breath the name Carl Sagan in the same breath as Drew Richardson. 

Quote:


There you go again with "I have a feeling"which explains why you worship anyone claiming to pass under and grad college science courses.More on that later.----Carl would have been worshipped by astrologers---besides, your comparison of Carl attending a seminar and Drew attending an intensive school and training in field conditions for preparitory research is way off the mark. Are you drinking alcohol? A seminar?
Jesus H Christ you are so wrong Gino I don't know where to begin. 1st--to interrogate, means to Accuse. "Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation"---is wrong. Since when does a polygraph chart administration contain interrogation (accusation)? Any accusation come after the test is administrated. While "luminaries" may not all be psychologists and physiologists, neither are polysomnographers---people who conduct sleep studies with multiple component instrumentation and make critical analysis of circadian and physiological maladies involved with sleep problems. Dr. Richardson did not point anything out to us, other than the fact that he was disgruntled----now I hear he is involved in an allegedly sketchy private venture with an allegedly irreputable attorney in the business of FMRI lie and memory detection. Gee, funny when a guy leaves coca cola badmouthing the place and the industry and folly---then goes over to RC cola for work. Regardless, if you want to be nit picky, last I checked Drew wasn't a neurologist or a neuro-linguistics expert----important areas of expertise when studying the brain and how it processes language and images. I do wish him luck, and if fMRI makes my kids safer from predators, than I will gladly change careers to something that actually pays a living wage and doesn't have a group of "anti-anything" critisizing every professional misstep.

Quote:


I have a brother who would agree with you and one that would disagree with you. Who asked you what you think is acedemically hard and what is easy? Are you in high school Gino, cause study hall really sucks---let's go to the mall for pizza.

Your #3 is venom without substance. Polygraph is both hard science and higher art. Boy, those gung-ho hard-ons at the secret service poly mill must have really ruffled your feathers. 

niters

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2007 at 4:49am:


The only thing missing is Smokey Robinson's first solo album, a rose, and a single pink candle. Sarge's post is perhaps the single greatest stroke fest I have yet seen from one anti-poster to another. Any crisp human can plainly see that the anti activists on this site would do well to let go of their man crush with Drew. To compare him with Carl Sagan is like comparing steak to bologna-----and the bologna's "use by" date expired last month. peeyooo.

Quote:


Gino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview. If on the other hand a person such as yourself fails a polygraph---than yes, expect an ACCUSATION (INTERROGATION). Trust me, I am an examiner, not a sideline activist.

Quote:


Your analogy is completely flawed, but your fans will ignore the flat notes as they are rabid loyalists of your tunes---much like core John Lennon fans supported during the "Yoko" years.

Quote:
 

Fraudulent PhD's "abound?" What, 5 or 6 phony doctorates and you call that "abound/ bountiful?" If I have 5-6 bucks in my wallet, does that mean to Gino my money/wallet is bountiful? Get off the bong.


Quote:


Again you sound like a high schooler who poo poos the kids that sit at the other lunch table----cause of their smug faces and their stupid hair cuts----let's go girls and smoke behind the gym! sigh

Quote:


OK, now I'm interested---grown up time. Shouting?----super loud shouting or the type of "shouting" that is mere crescendo volumunous emphaticisms? Profanity?---are we talking "shit, goddamn, piss, crappity smack, pussy, dick,asshole" (the big network 7)?  Physically aggressive posturing?----grabbing collar or karate stance or what? Pounding fists?---that one is self explanatory.  Sounds like another Abu Graib.
Gino, I take it you were never in the US Marines. Well, ya just described the first week of basic training---a sort of part art/part science applicant screening process if you will. The Secret Service protects the President of the United States among other entities such as the Department of Treasury ---and so they are truly a bunch of strict, gung ho "hard ons" if there ever were such. I wouldn't be suprised if the Secret Service asked applicants to endure sexual humiliation in an attempt to break the narcisism of cocky rooks or the facade of cloaked cowardice----much less 1 day of possible verbal abuse that makes the marine corp look like a year in gulag. I am an admitted left leaner, but when it comes to the essential US Fed LE and Intel services, I expect a degree of ego shattering psychological abuse on some level. Protectors of our country need to have thick enough skin to protect their own fragilities in order to protect those of our countrymen and women. In the old US Cavelry, they called it "breaking the man before the horse." Don't like it? Get a job with Microsoft----it pays better and no one gets "microscoped" or "broken."

Sergeant,

DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position. 

Regards,

MM

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 13^th, 2007 at 1:38pm:


I go away for a few days and you guys redefine the term interrogation. Wow!

Let's see, my Webster's Dictionary defines the word interrogate as a verb that means "to question formally and systematically." Interrogation is the noun version and which means a "process of questioning formally and systematically."

So the polygraph examination isn't formal and the questions aren't asked systematically? I had no idea...

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 2:25am:


You might check it out yourself, you could learn something new...

But please explain how a polygraph examination is not an interrogation...