Nonombre,

I don’t understand how you can characterize the behavior of the trolls (their behavior classified them as such, by definition) as “telling another side of the story” or as anything similar.  The people who were banned were contemptuous, rude, insulting, and disrespectful from the moment they registered here.  I think the five or so people who were recently banned engaged in more ad hominem attacks in the past month than has been seen on this board in the past several years.

nonombre wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 1:35am:


Your comment makes it clear that you do not approve of the conduct you feel has been directed at examiners over the past several years.  If the behavior is unacceptable (and I do believe personal attacks are unacceptable) it does not become any less so because it is being done by someone with whom you agree.  It also does not become any less acceptable if you resort to the schoolyard argument of, “He started it!”

nonombre wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 1:35am:

This is simply a gross mischaracterization of events.  If you want to see an example of petty dictatorship that will instantly silence the opposition, go to PolygraphPlace.com and post a message questioning the validity of the polygraph.  The post will be deleted and your account will be banned within minutes.

On the other hand, George allows pro-polygraph posts every day.  The people who were banned were banned only after repeated admonishments to keep their discourse civil, and they chose to ignore those warnings and continue their personal attacks on the posters themselves, rather than on the ideas espoused by them.  

You and I have engaged in lengthy online debates about various aspects of polygraphy, and I don’t ever recall you taking the “anti” side.  Your opinion has always been welcome and I don’t ever recall questioning your veracity or attacking your character in any way.  If George was truly the “petty dictator” you have named him, as soon as you made it known you were not opposed to polygraphy he would have banned you.


nonombre wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 1:35am:

Trolls are defined as people who, “regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, 'Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.'"

I understand (though I do not agree with) your justification that the examiners who were recently banned from this forum were merely retaliating for similar behavior that was directed at them for the past several years.  I don’t see how you can reasonably characterize such retaliatory behavior as anything other than attempts to annoy, attack, and disrupt.  Such behavior is, by definition, trolling.

nonombre wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 1:35am:


And then you finish up with another argumentum ad hominem.  You disagree with George’s opinion on the polygraph so he must be psychologically similar to thieves and traitors.

I think any objective observer to these proceedings would easily conclude that George, Gino, and Drew conducted themselves with far more grace and class than did any of the examiners and polygraph supporters who were repeatedly attacking their veracity and character.

Mr. Johnson,

There can be little doubt that yours was a coordinated effort, and a well-informed source has confirmed that you, in fact, were the key player in this endeavor to debase the level of discourse on this message board.

It is true that your posting privileges as Paradiddle were banned after you posted a poll -- a poll calculated to insinuate the false notion that AntiPolygraph.org sends malware to our visitors. But you had disregarded multiple earlier warnings to abide by our posting policy.

Let anyone who claims to have received malware from AntiPolygraph.org state so openly and provide proof. No one can do so, because we have never sent anyone malware of any kind.

In his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma, videorecorded for evidentiary purposes and played in open court, Dr. Louis Rovner, Ph.D. (one of your group) falsely claimed that I sent him a virus (a federal crime). I have refuted that claim by posting the complete text of the only e-mail message I have ever sent to him. Any who continue to repeat such false and malicious accusations may find themselves in court.

EJohnson wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 2:06pm:


If I understand your point of view, when you post a study that supports your opinion, it is “scientific proof.”  When someone else posts a study or refers to a study that is counter to your opinion, what is that?  If you refer to a study it demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives this site is responsible for, but if I refer to the NAS research study or the OTA study from 1983 my cites are shrugged off as being irrelevant?

You write that you are always up for debate, but is that really how you would characterize the majority of your posts here, as debate?  Really?  You were engaged in a debate?

When I posted my story regarding the polygraph and you questioned my veracity regarding not only my experiences, but also that I was even a police officer, was that a debate?  When you continually denigrated not only my opinion, but me personally, simply because I do not agree with you, was that a debate?

If you are so certain that the polygraph is well grounded in science and is a valid method for detecting truth or deception, I would think you could easily refute any contrary opinions without resorting to name calling and accusations of lying.

It is difficult for me to believe that your intention when you came to this site was to engage in a debate about the polygraph.  It seems obvious that your intention was to treat anyone who disagreed with you with contempt and disrespect.

For anyone who was unfamiliar with the polygraph and who chose the last month or so to do some research on it, if they visited this message board I have no doubt that they came away with the conclusion that, based on the sample they observed here, polygraph examiners are rude, disrespectful, peremptory in their decisions, and completely unable to intelligently defend their chosen profession without resorting to juvenile personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them.

I doubt that such an impression is accurate for the majority of polygraph examiners, but that, sir, is the impression you and your comrades left over the course of the past few weeks.

Quote:


Even polygraphers cannot deny that that this site is THE address for polygraph related issues on the Web. Our search engine rankings are indeed high. They may disagree with the content here—but they know we are tops with regard to visibility.

What outsiders do not see is the sheer volume of contact we receive from major media organizations, prominent attorneys and others who influence polygraph policy along with the “thank you” notes from those who have successfully employed countermeasures.

Quote:


Mr. Johnson, despite what you may believe, our motive in exposing you and your compatriots was not to hurt your careers or tit-for-tat revenge. 

In actuality, we were tremendously concerned that the educated readers described above might read the posts of paradiddle & co were and see them as so abusive and off the wall to the point that no group of adults—let alone a group of professionals—could have possibly authored them. 

Instead, the only logical conclusion would likely have been that the posts were prepared by George and I in a fraudulent attempt to portray polygraph examiners in a negative light.

We were forced to disclose identities to defend against the well-founded concern that we fabricated the posts to make polygraph examiners look bad.

Fortunately, as I have said earlier on this thread, while I certainly have issues with how polygraphs are conducted, THE TOMFOOLERY THAT WENT ON HERE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS. 

It was the brainchild of a rogue group of polygraph examiners that was taken to a degree that apparently at least one fellow examiner found reprehensible.

It would appear that (admittedly there are exceptions) there exist some patterns in the demographics of the outed trolls.  Level of claimed formal education is not high (Rovner being the exception), the examiners are local and private (not Feds), they have a high degree of involvement in post conviction sexual offender testing (the bottom feeders of the screening world), and they for the most part are located in the Rocky Mountain and western states.  

Although we would likely not find valid many of the practices of federal examiners doing specific issue criminal testing and are likely not held in any higher regard by them than by the trolls, we are pleased to know that the feds are either smart enough or principled enough not to get involved in the shennanigans that led to the outing of these trolls.

Gino, you know full well the exposure was due to information that was posted on your ‘expert’ Drew.  You were never forced to disclose identities.  It was an act of revenge….plain and simple.

For the record, I received ONE ‘civility’ warning from GM and that was after I was called a ‘whore’ by two block.  (Hey TB I see you joined the discussion again when you found out we were banned…lol)   I do find it interesting that I was banned when I corrected GM - not because of warnings (although I've also had my share and received them too).   I didn’t use an anonymous proxy to hide from GM.   And for the record 1904 ‘outed’ me several weeks ago.  You relied on a hack examiner to get your dirty work done.  And, by the looks of things, it doesn’t look like it stopped any of us from posting?     Shake and bake baby! 

I hold my head high and feel honored to be part of a rogue group (lol – you AP guys are too much!) of examiners.  Ray, Eric, Lou, and Ted – my hat is tipped to you guys.   BTW, Nonombre, thanks for the kind words -  I hope they don’t ban you.

BTW, I see Gino has removed some of his posts.  Didn’t he say something along the lines of ‘the looks on their faces this morning would be like pumping the neighbor’s cat? Gino, that is sure an off the wall comment….

So if you are outing people, Gino, why hide your identity?  Be a man.  You said we didn’t have the nads to post under our own name and yet GS is a pseudonym.

Donna.Taylor wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 11:09pm:


For all his abrasiveness, nonombre is, at least, not engaged in game-playing in an attempt to avoid discussion and create false impressions.  In fact, his long-time presence here is living proof all of your compatriots' claims that, somehow, Antipolygraph.org is not interested in open discussion ring hollow.

I have no idea whether you actually understand why you as a group were outed.  If you do, then you demonstrate (once again) the lack of ethics displayed by so many polygraphers who post here.  If not, then in my opinion you have a real blind spot regarding your own behavior.

EJohnson wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2007 at 10:19pm:


Mr. Johnson:

Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.

nopolycop wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 1:40am:


Ah shucks, come on nopoly4me, please call me Eric!---not that "Mr. Johnson" formal stuff! And may I ask what your name is and where you reside?



thought not