Paradiddle wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 10:08pm:

I expected nothing less.

I understand your inability to deal with my story.  It must be difficult for you and your breathren to accept.

If you are truly skilled in statement analysis (which should only be used on things like text messages and anonymous forum posts with great care), then I am sure you know what the issue is.  And I am equally sure you know it has nothing to do with any deception regarding my experiences with the polygraph.

But, again, I understand that it easier for you to attack me than it is for you to believe me.  That's too bad.

And we are once again at the classic polygraph trap of circular logic.  I say I'm telling the truth, and you say I'm not.  And you feel perfectly comfortable calling me a liar, because I failed a polygraph.  If I was telling the truth, I wouldn't have failed, and then I wouldn't be on this forum saying that I had failed.

Hunter wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 11:44pm:

So, let's say I provided my credentials to a bunch of anonymous posters on the Internet in order to satisfy their curiosity.  And after I did so you all said, "Gee, I guess he really is a police sergeant."  Then what?

I am willing to bet you would then claim I had never been polygraphed, or that I had hadn't failed any polygraphs.  After I posted sufficient information to prove that I have taken four pre-employment polygraphs and that I failed three of them, what then?

Then we'd come back to the circular logic again, that I must have been lying on the polygraphs, otherwise I would have passed.   

Ad hom attacks, which include the repeated accusations that I am lying about my profession and my experiences, indicate that you are unable to respond intellectually to whatever I have to say.

Now if I were to post my name, and badge number, and POST ID number, and name of the agency I work for, and my office phone number, would I be able to expect an apology from all the people who accused me of lying about being a police sergeant?  Of course not.  I expect you would once again apply statement analysis to posts on an anonymous message board, where the poster does not wish his identity to be discerned, and come to the startling conclusion that the poster appears to be trying to hide something.

Why is that not suprising behavior coming from a polygraph examiner?  You are taking a guess right now about what I do for a living and whether my experiences with the polygraph are true or not, and you are wrong.  That's not too different from the polygraph examiners who took a guess during my screening exams and were wrong as well.  Why should I have expected anything else?

Hunter wrote on Oct 17^th, 2007 at 5:53am:



Bong !!
Sgt: 3 Points
Hunter: 0

Sorry Hunter. You lose.

Quote:


Sure.

You wouldn't even have to post all that publicly. You could PM the info to someone for a more private authenticated introduction.

Lets face it. You just don't seem like a cop. Statement analysis or not. Most cops don't whine about the same old issue at every opportunity. They move on and move forward. Your whole line of logic is premised in an ethical paradigm which is a little inconsistent with LE and would have us take away cops guns for all the abuses and bad decisions made with them. Most cops would be very reluctant to engage in conversations that aide the bad guys.

Maybe you were a cop one time. Maybe your one of those short time cops... Maybe you were never a cop but wanted to be one.

I'd be happy to apologize if I'm wrong. 

Quote:


These are not the guys that I'd want having my back on a hot call. 

I'll take the guys who choose to fight against injustice no matter what the odds or what strange bedfellows might be involved.

Also, I'll take the guys who refuse to quit.

Ludovico's back up team can be the guys who "move on and move forward" when faced with adversity.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 17^th, 2007 at 1:53pm:

George knows I'm a cop and I believe he knows which department I work for.

Dr. Richardson also knows I'm a cop and which department I work for.  

Would you be willing to believe either of them?  

If either of them have forgotten or would like me to PM them the information so they can call my chief and verify my status as a current sworn officer, with over ten years experience, who is a sergeant and a shift supervisor, I'd be happy to send it to them.  I have no problem with either of them posting that they have verified my LEO status, though I wouldn't want them to make public my name or any other identifying information.

As I have already mentioned to Wonder Woman in a PM, I have seen nothing in the behavior of the trolls (which is, by definition, what you and Paradiddle and others have been in your behavior on this board) that would lead me to believe the contents of a "private" message would remain private.  If any of you are currently sworn officers, would you like to PM me your name, agency, and ORI, so that I might verify your credentials?

The fact that so many are willing to call me a liar based on SCAN principles when they are either ignorant of or at least knowingly violating many of the basics of that technique does not make me any more willing to trust them.

SCAN requires, first and foremost, that the statement to be analyzed is uninfluenced and unaltered by the investigator.  An investigator would not interrogate a suspect for an extended length of time, obtain a written statement, and then attempt to analyze it.  But you already know that, don't you?

I have been posting my story on this board and others for over two and a half years, and it has been questioned and attacked many times.  I have written my statement regarding my series of polygraph exams several hundred times, at least, and have had that statement's veracity questioned nearly as often.  If you feel that qualifies my message board posts as not having been influenced by investigators, you obviously have a very different interpretation of the term than I.

Truly, though, what impact does my profession have on my statements and questions?  Each time someone posts a pro-polygraph opinion, I do not start questioning their claims of being a polygraph examiner, simply because it doesn't matter.  If a person has something to contribute to the discussion, it is irrelevant what they do for a living or how many polygraphs they have taken or administered.

When opinions, statements, and questions are responded to with attacks directed at the credibility of the poster it is an example of an argumentum ad hominem.  It is often used by people who are in a state of intellectual bankruptcy and cannot respond with a logical argument to whatever point or issue was raised.  The best response for someone faced with an ad hominem attack is to simply not respond in any way.

Mea culpa for forgetting that.

Thank you Dr. Richardson for verifying the Sgts. employment and sorry I questioned your remarks regarding your employment sgt.