Hmmm....Rice, do you like kids? So what brings you to this realm chief?

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 2:10pm:


I guess that means that this paedophile actually told you that he he went to AP for advice.
Yeah sure.
Are you the spokeswoman for blondes?

EosJupiter wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 6:15pm:



Eos
It is always great to get a pat on the back from a foe, but your congrats with one hand steals money and endangers children with the other hand. Wonder Woman probably spent a great deal more time and energy with the distraction of the countermeasures rather than the acute dynamic risk-associated behaviors of Chester. Your positive remark falls flat, as Chester may be a great fan of yours----I have had 2 clients who named you personally from reading your blogs (also Digithead on one occasion in '06). Thanks for nothing.

Hey d**k head,  If you only had a clue.  Yeah, CM's can be spoted!  Plus, I have worked with sex offenders for many years.  I actually suspect you of being one.  My comment was directed to EOS stating he only educates those that don't look like scum bags.  Turn it around all you want.  The fact is, I caught the bastard using CM's. and you guys were helping him.   And 1904, FU, the SO did admit researching CM's on this site!   Any other good advise for sex offenders?

Oh yeah, 1904, just because you were a bad polygraph examiner doesn't mean the rest of us are.  So go back to your dark hole.  Throwing out a blond joke - do you have 'little mans syndrome?' Throw another cheap shot buckwheat!

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:


Nice ad hom! Nailed three at once...

But you failed to address any of my questions. The polygraphers who post on this site regularly claim that countermeasures are ineffective yet now you're accusing this site of helping sex offenders. If this site and its countermeasures are ineffective, how are they helping sex offenders? If anything, it just gives you guys another reason for revoking them. That seems to me to be helping you guys if countermeasures are ineffective and you have great methods for detecting them...

As for good advise for sex offenders - follow your treatment protocol because that's the only way you're going to be able overcome your predilictions. The polygraph may be pseudoscience but the rest of the treatment plan is based on sound science and has ample proof that it does reduce recidivism. And stick to your supervision guidelines because that's the only way you're going to remain free...

And sorry, no, I'm not a sex offender but again, nice ad hom...

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 7:15pm:


Thanks Eos, I almost missed this one...

Named me personally? Wow! And what exactly did this sex offender say that I said? That I think the containment method is useful except for its reliance on CQT polygraphy? That I think CQT polygraphy is pseudoscience? 

And to think, he actually named a person who posts under a anonymous pseudonym when he could have relied on the NAS, Lykken, Iacono, Furedy, Feinberg, Cross, Saxe, Seto, and other luminaries who have railed against CQT polygraph and its usage in real peer-reviewed research...

Somehow, it rings hollow...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 9:31pm:


I know Kim quite well and I've had many arguments with her about the polygraph but she is one of the true believers unfortunately. The containment method with the exception of the polygraph is a great tool because it emphasizes individualized treatment, cooperation across all levels of treatment and supervision staff, and supposedly has continuous quality improvement built in...

The problem is that there is no research that has been able to disentangle the effect of using CQT polygraph from the other treatment protocols so claiming that it is responsible for the decline in recidivism is foolhardy. And given the plethora of research outside of pro-polygraph circles that shows that CQT is not based on sound scientific principles and is inherently unreliable demonstrates to me that its use in the containment method undermines the containment methods effectiveness. Not to mention the problems of habituation and sensitization...

And if poor training is factor then God help us all...

Regardless of the fact that no polygrapher claims 100% accuracy, the bulk of the science shows that CQT polygraph cannot have any high degree of accuracy, especially in screening applications like sex offender treatment...
 
Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 9:31pm:


Throwing out barbs to point out illogic is one thing. It's another thing altogether to call someone a "d**k head" or accuse them of being a sex offender. That's just childish and I think it is a sign of intellectual weakness. Your first paragraph in this post was at least well reasoned and on point. In my opinion, the only dialogue worth engaging in is respectful discourse. We may have our differences in opinion but I'm not going to call you names just because I disagree with you...

So please stop with the name calling and ad hom; it distracts from the real issues we should be discussing...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


Only because some people don't seem to understand respectful discourse and reasoned debate...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


If that's your interpretation, fine...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


That's what reasoned debate is all about...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


Kim is a wonderful researcher, a great writer, and she has many good ideas. She's done an incredible job over her career and I respect her greatly. I happen to disagree with her over the use of the polygraph. I don't think that sabotages any of her other work...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 10:05pm:


Nor do I know who any of you are. That's the beauty of anonymous boards...