Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 6
th, 2007 at 1:13am:
You know Sarge, I often thought you might be a good guy. Now I have serious doubts. Let’s just take your statement of poorly performed CM's. Do you really believe that all these people visiting this site can maintain calculated CM's? If you are really honest you will admit they can't. Okay, I know you won't admit it out loud but deep down inside you know the truth. They all try and most are caught. Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. If the guilty want to attempt CM's - let them. Just like the case I mentioned about two days ago. A Pedophile that is intelligent and a wiz with computers, working at a College...attempted CM's and I caught him. Also, Sarge, I am not going to tell you how I caught him nor am I going to release his name, address, phone# – video, audio etc, for your confirmation. Polygraphs are confidential.
You really lost me with this one, Wonder Woman.
Paradiddle made a claim that countermeasure detection works quite well, and I asked what I think is an objectively reasonable question as to how he came to that conclusion. And that gave you serious doubts that I’m a “good guy?” Okay…
I have no idea if “all the people” visiting this site can maintain “calculated CM’s”. I also don’t know how many people use CM’s at all, or how many people use CM’s but have never visited this site. I don’t know how you could possibly know any of the above, either.
You claim “they all try”. That doesn’t seem reasonable. Everyone who visits this site attempts CM’s? And most are caught? How do you know that?
Your conclusion seems to based on your claim that you sometimes catch people who admit to using CM’s, and who also admit to having visited this web site, right?
How many people have used CM’s but were not caught? Neither you nor I have any idea. How many of the people who successfully used CM’s learned how at AntiPolygraph.org? Again, neither you nor I have any idea. So how can any polygraph reasonably make the claim countermeasure detection works well? You simply don’t have the data necessary to make any such claim. There could be a significant percentage of subjects who pass because they successfully use CM's, or there could be one or two a year - there's no way to know. All you can refer to is the number of people who admit to using CM's, and that number by itself is useless unless you can compare it to the number of subjects who used CM's and were not caught and did not admit to their use.
Also, if you care to look at my previous posts, I never asked you how you “caught” anyone, and I didn’t ask you to release anyone’s name. Therefore I am uncertain as to why you directed those comments at me.