Ludovico wrote on Oct 17
th, 2007 at 1:53pm:
Quote:
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?
Sure.
You wouldn't even have to post all that publicly. You could PM the info to someone for a more private authenticated introduction.
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.