AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - Blood preasure v. pulse rate

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

News:

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Procedure › Blood preasure v. pulse rate

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Add Poll

Send Topic

Blood preasure v. pulse rate (Read 22931 times)

1904 Ex Member	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #15 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 10:42am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Oct 28^th, 2007 at 10:47pm: [quote] The bottom line in scoring any feature is simply asking which reaction is greater. The bigger reaction gets the score. That's oversimplified, I know, but it's easy. What is the current thinking with regard to pneumo's? Smaller chart tracings / reaction = greater response OR Greater tracings / reaction = smaller response tks


	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #16 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:02pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Oct 28^th, 2007 at 10:47pm: Quote: Can you answer me this hypothetical. Suppose a subject pulse rate was 80 BPM on the control questions. What increase in BPM would result in a "deception indicated" result? We don't score pulse rate alone, so your question doesn't make a whole lot of sense.. I tend to think simply. If increased pulse rate also increases blood pressure, then that's two of the four tests that one can manipulate simply by his/her thoughts. I personally know, by working with a heart rate monitor, that I can elevate or decrease my heart beat rate. I have also induced the same in others very quickly and easily through increased mental stress. Since breath rate can be purposely controlled, that's three of the four tests that can be manipulated by the test subject without too much difficulty. It stands to reason then, that an individual could manipulate the results of any polygraph test simply through his thoughts, forget tacks in the shoe, biting the tongue or clenching his butt muscles. Please explain how this thinking is incorrect, anyone.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

EJohnson Limited (No Attachments) Offline Internet Countermeasures Yields Failed Tests Posts: 176 Joined: Oct 23^rd, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #17 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:19pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: I tend to think simply. Agree Quote: If increased pulse rate also increases blood pressure, then that's two of the four tests that one can manipulate simply by his/her thoughts. I personally know, by working with a heart rate monitor, that I can elevate or decrease my heart beat rate. I have also induced the same in others very quickly and easily through increased mental stress. So, can you do such James Bond feat within 5 seconds, and sight unseen be able to restore baseline withing 25 seconds, and have the entire phony stimulus perfectly memic a natural, timely, and fluid response. nah. Don't forget, if your "breathing" or anything else about your polygrams are suspicious---they will be labeled as such--therefore, you will be labeled as a likely cheater. If cheating on a poly is nothing more than a little science project---that's one thing. If you are hiding something serious and are motivated to cheat, than perhaps you can elaborate on the subject matter for which you are willing to risk the greater chance of getting caught than a false positive (empirically shown btw.) I can assure you that far more savvy people have been trying to beat the test than yourself----based on some of the acceptable/understandable naive remarks.

	All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen &&
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #18 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:38pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	EJohnson wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:19pm: Quote: I tend to think simply. Agree Quote: If increased pulse rate also increases blood pressure, then that's two of the four tests that one can manipulate simply by his/her thoughts. I personally know, by working with a heart rate monitor, that I can elevate or decrease my heart beat rate. I have also induced the same in others very quickly and easily through increased mental stress. So, can you do such James Bond feat within 5 seconds, and sight unseen be able to restore baseline withing 25 seconds, and have the entire phony stimulus perfectly memic a natural, timely, and fluid response. nah. Don't forget, if your "breathing" or anything else about your polygrams are suspicious---they will be labeled as such--therefore, you will be labeled as a likely cheater. If cheating on a poly is nothing more than a little science project---that's one thing. If you are hiding something serious and are motivated to cheat, than perhaps you can elaborate on the subject matter for which you are willing to risk the greater chance of getting caught than a false positive (empirically shown btw.) I can assure you that far more savvy people have been trying to beat the test than yourself----based on some of the acceptable/understandable naive remarks. First Mr. Johnson, you make the assumption that I am trying to beat the machine. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and I am not going to divulge any motivations for my discussion here. Period, end of story. Now, back to your questions. I don't know if I can pull off a James Bond feat, (as you describe it). I'll have to give it a try. What you seem to be saying though, when you say that if a polygrapher sees anything suspicious about one's polygrams, they are labled as cheaters. Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. Also, it seems like all these studies quoted are merely "little science projects" as you call them too. What appears to happen in real life though, is that polygraphs are relied upon by authorities to clear murder suspects that go on to kill again, (Gary Ridgway), clear Olympic class athletes who then later confess to doping, (Marion Jones), and clear spys to damage our national security, (pick one, there are many). Not to mention, (but I'll do it anyway) the legions of people who suffer reputational damage by "failing" a polygraph during an employment screening, as others have mentioned here.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

EJohnson Limited (No Attachments) Offline Internet Countermeasures Yields Failed Tests Posts: 176 Joined: Oct 23^rd, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #19 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:06pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	nopolycop wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:38pm: EJohnson wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:19pm: Quote: I tend to think simply. Agree Quote: If increased pulse rate also increases blood pressure, then that's two of the four tests that one can manipulate simply by his/her thoughts. I personally know, by working with a heart rate monitor, that I can elevate or decrease my heart beat rate. I have also induced the same in others very quickly and easily through increased mental stress. So, can you do such James Bond feat within 5 seconds, and sight unseen be able to restore baseline withing 25 seconds, and have the entire phony stimulus perfectly memic a natural, timely, and fluid response. nah. Don't forget, if your "breathing" or anything else about your polygrams are suspicious---they will be labeled as such--therefore, you will be labeled as a likely cheater. If cheating on a poly is nothing more than a little science project---that's one thing. If you are hiding something serious and are motivated to cheat, than perhaps you can elaborate on the subject matter for which you are willing to risk the greater chance of getting caught than a false positive (empirically shown btw.) I can assure you that far more savvy people have been trying to beat the test than yourself----based on some of the acceptable/understandable naive remarks. First Mr. Johnson, you make the assumption that I am trying to beat the machine. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and I am not going to divulge any motivations for my discussion here. Period, end of story. Now, back to your questions. I don't know if I can pull off a James Bond feat, (as you describe it). I'll have to give it a try. What you seem to be saying though, when you say that if a polygrapher sees anything suspicious about one's polygrams, they are labled as cheaters. Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. Also, it seems like all these studies quoted are merely "little science projects" as you call them too. What appears to happen in real life though, is that polygraphs are relied upon by authorities to clear murder suspects that go on to kill again, (Gary Ridgway), clear Olympic class athletes who then later confess to doping, (Marion Jones), and clear spys to damage our national security, (pick one, there are many). Not to mention, (but I'll do it anyway) the legions of people who suffer reputational damage by "failing" a polygraph during an employment screening, as others have mentioned here. What questions? You just stated that you won't address why you are to be polygraphed---which is a first on this site---and can sometimes be falsy assumed to be that you are a sex offender---although I wouldn't go that far at all. Gonna try huh? hmmm. Your flame baiting questions and volcanic rant shows your true motivation. You are an antipolygraph shill apparently, as you have earlier asked rather earnest and naive questions, only to turn around and rant the party line with the mantra. You grossly exaggerate the false negatives, presuppose a number of false positives based on heresay. I wouldn't swear off plastic surgery just because I've seen bad work or erroneous execution of technique.

	All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen &&
	IP Logged

Barry_C Very Senior User Offline Posts: 114 Joined: Oct 17^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #20 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:08pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	There are thousands of polygraph tests done each year, and yes there are and will be errors (as it the case with any test), so a few anecdotal stories do not support anything. I couldn't pull off what you suggest, and I've tried, but yes, I'm just one data point. The research on the DLCQ wouldn't support your assertions though.


	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #21 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:19pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	EJohnson wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:06pm: [What questions? You just stated that you won't address why you are to be polygraphed---which is a first on this site---and can sometimes be falsy assumed to be that you are a sex offender---although I wouldn't go that far at all. Gonna try huh? hmmm. Your flame baiting questions and volcanic rant shows your true motivation. You are an antipolygraph shill apparently, as you have earlier asked rather earnest and naive questions, only to turn around and rant the party line with the mantra. You grossly exaggerate the false negatives, presuppose a number of false positives based on heresay. I wouldn't swear off plastic surgery just because I've seen bad work or erroneous execution of technique. Mr. Johnson, show me where I EVER said that I was going be polygraphed. You are being intellectually dishonest. Are you accusing me of being a sex offender now? Oh wait, you said you weren't. Guess that's an old polygrapher's trick to get a reaction, huh? Ranting the party line? I have learned much during my 10 days here, and certainly am intelligent enough to see who has the better argument. Flame baiting? If reasoned argument is flame baiting, them I am guilty, and Mr. Maschke can kick me off, I'll go quietly and won't bother to re-register. I have for the most part learned what I need to learn anyway. BTW, hearsay is admissible in court under certain exceptions. Polygraph results aren't, unless agreed upon by both parties. Good day Mr. Johnson.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #22 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:32pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:08pm: There are thousands of polygraph tests done each year, and yes there are and will be errors (as it the case with any test), so a few anecdotal stories do not support anything. Sir: I respectfully suggest that the chaplan(s) who had to tell the mother(s) of the victims of Gary Ridgway (after he was removed as a suspect) that their daughters had been brutally murdered might feel differently. I believe I read that there were over 3000 polygraphers in the U.S. 3000 times 100 exams a year, (I suspect the number is much larger, but for purposes of discussion, we will call it 100) equals 300,000 polygraphs. Given even a conservative 10% error rate, that means 30,000 people a year are either being falsely accused of crimes, or given free passes for criminal activity. This doesn't seem acceptable to me, does it you?

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

1904 Ex Member	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #23 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:41pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	nopolycop wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:32pm: Barry_C wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:08pm: There are thousands of polygraph tests done each year, and yes there are and will be errors (as it the case with any test), so a few anecdotal stories do not support anything. Sir: I respectfully suggest that the chaplan(s) who had to tell the mother(s) of the victims of Gary Ridgway (after he was removed as a suspect) that their daughters had been brutally murdered might feel differently. I believe I read that there were over 3000 polygraphers in the U.S. 3000 times 100 exams a year, (I suspect the number is much larger, but for purposes of discussion, we will call it 100) equals 300,000 polygraphs. Given even a conservative 10% error rate, that means 30,000 people a year are either being falsely accused of crimes, or given free passes for criminal activity. This doesn't seem acceptable to me, does it you? Dont expect a logical reply. You will be accused of flame baiting etc. When you paint them into a corner, they become insulting, pull out out their techno-thesaurus' and try to baffle you with the old BS baffles brains mumbo jumbo, bayesian horse dung.


	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #24 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:47pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:08pm: There are thousands of polygraph tests done each year, and yes there are and will be errors (as it the case with any test), so a few anecdotal stories do not support anything. When you score an exam DI the only way you would know you are right is if the person confesses or if some sort of incontrovertible physical evidence is discovered. If neither of those are present your conclusion that said exam's result was accurate is simply anectdotal evidence. When you score an exam NDI the only way you would know if you are right is if the person somehow produces proof of a negative, that they have not done whatever they were being asked about. Lacking that any conclusion in the accuracy of that particular exam is simply anectdotal evidence. In the vast majority of pre-employment screening exams where no damaging admission occurs, there is only one person who truly knows if the subject was being truthful or deceptive, and it is NOT the polygraph examiner. The examiner can guess, and they can claim that the person did or did not show signs that they (the examiner) has been trained to discern as signs of truth or deception, but they cannot know. The subject knows. Why should the anectdotal evidence of people who have taken the polygraph be any less credible than the anectdotal evidence of the polygraph examiners? Logically, since only the people who have taken the polygraph truly know if the test result was accurate or not, they should have far greater credibility than the examiner.

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #25 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:53pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I have not found Barry C to be disrespectful. Of course, I may not be hearing effectively, the words of Supreme Court Justice C. Thomas keeps ringing in my ears: "Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (U.S. 03/31/1998)

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

Barry_C Very Senior User Offline Posts: 114 Joined: Oct 17^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #26 - Oct 29^th, 2007 at 7:39pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: When you score an exam DI the only way you would know you are right is if the person confesses or if some sort of incontrovertible physical evidence is discovered. If neither of those are present your conclusion that said exam's result was accurate is simply anectdotal evidence. When you score an exam NDI the only way you would know if you are right is if the person somehow produces proof of a negative, that they have not done whatever they were being asked about. Lacking that any conclusion in the accuracy of that particular exam is simply anectdotal evidence. Again, more nonsense. First, "the [NDI] person" wouldn't necessarily have to prove a negative, which is difficult to impossible. Another could confess to the crime. (You could always argue the confession was false, and we'd never get anywhere.) Think about what you said. The same is true in the courtroom when most of the evidence is circumstantial (the bulk of the cases). Your argument implies you expect 100% accuracy with polygraph. If you hold everybody to that standard, then life isn't going to be all that pleasant. Have you ever made an arrest on PC? How low is that standard? It's much lower than many polygraph calls. You could set alpha at .6 and still meet the PC threshold. We're starting to go in circles, which bores me. I was hoping to have some good discussions here, but the lack of consistency is getting to be tiring. Quote: I believe I read that there were over 3000 polygraphers in the U.S. 3000 times 100 exams a year, (I suspect the number is much larger, but for purposes of discussion, we will call it 100) equals 300,000 polygraphs. Given even a conservative 10% error rate, that means 30,000 people a year are either being falsely accused of crimes, or given free passes for criminal activity. This doesn't seem acceptable to me, does it you? It depends. What is the cost of those errors? It's a philosophical question, and I've addressed that already elsewhere.


	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #27 - Oct 30^th, 2007 at 9:24am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Barry_C wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 7:39pm: Again, more nonsense. First, "the [NDI] person" wouldn't necessarily have to prove a negative, which is difficult to impossible. Another could confess to the crime. (You could always argue the confession was false, and we'd never get anywhere.) Think about what you said. The same is true in the courtroom when most of the evidence is circumstantial (the bulk of the cases). Your argument implies you expect 100% accuracy with polygraph. If you hold everybody to that standard, then life isn't going to be all that pleasant. Have you ever made an arrest on PC? How low is that standard? It's much lower than many polygraph calls. You could set alpha at .6 and still meet the PC threshold. We're starting to go in circles, which bores me. I was hoping to have some good discussions here, but the lack of consistency is getting to be tiring. I don’t see how you concluded that my “argument” implied that I expect 100% accuracy from the polygraph. I was responding to the following post of yours: Barry_C wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:08pm: There are thousands of polygraph tests done each year, and yes there are and will be errors (as it the case with any test), so a few anecdotal stories do not support anything. That certainly suggests to me, as I’m sure was your meaning, that the “anecdotal” evidence of polygraph errors do not support anything. My response, which I believe was on point rather than being circular nonsense, was to suggest that, barring confession or incontrovertible physical evidence, any polygraph result used by an examiner to demonstrate that the polygraph is accurate is also anecdotal evidence. An oft-repeated phrase by examiners on this board and others is that only a polygraph examiner can offer a credible opinion regarding the accuracy of the polygraph, because only they have the training and the expertise to do so. Any claims (based on personal experience) by non-examiners that the polygraph is inaccurate are dismissed as merely anecdotal evidence. I suggest that the opposite is actually true, because (again, barring a confession or physical evidence) out of the two people involved in the polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for certain if the test result is accurate. Yet the examinee’s opinion is often dismissed as mere “anecdotal” evidence, rather than (I suppose) “hard” scientific evidence. Did you have anyone “pass” his or her polygraph with you in the past month? How do you know they weren’t being deceptive? How do you know they weren’t using countermeasures? I’m sure you can point to various indications that they were being truthful, but you cannot truly know. The person who passed, however, knows for certain if they were being truthful or deceptive. The only accurate anecdotal evidence concerning that polygraph exam would be the subject’s version of events, not the examiner’s version of events. Did you have anyone “fail” his or her polygraph in the past month? How do you know they weren’t being truthful? Again, I am sure you can point to various indications that they were deceptive, but you cannot truly know for sure. The subject knows if he or she was being truthful or deceptive. Again, the only accurate anecdotal evidence regarding that exam would come from the subject, not the examiner. It is wrong to dismiss anecdotal evidence from the one person in every polygraph exam who knows for a fact if the results of the exam were accurate or not. I understand why you dismiss such evidence, and that is where I believe circular logic comes into play. There are people who claim the polygraph is not accurate, because they told the truth during their exam or exams and were falsely branded a liar. However, if you believe the polygraph is accurate, you are not going to believe such claims because if they failed a polygraph that means they were lying, and why should you listen to liars?

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

1904 Ex Member	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #28 - Oct 30^th, 2007 at 12:26pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	To Barry C, I'm pre-empting your next question and answering it in anticipation: Yes. Sarge not only is a real police officer. He also went to college.


	IP Logged

Barry_C Very Senior User Offline Posts: 114 Joined: Oct 17^th, 2007	Re: Blood preasure v. pulse rate Reply #29 - Oct 30^th, 2007 at 5:48pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: It is wrong to dismiss anecdotal evidence from the one person in every polygraph exam who knows for a fact if the results of the exam were accurate or not. That's not science. You act as if there is no way to confirm our findings. When we run tests in the field, we do confirm some of them independently. If we take a random sample of 100 cases confirmed, by say, DNA, and we compute accuracy rates, why would there be any reason to believe those figures would different from those not independently verified? That makes no sense. For example, I ran tests in one case that we treated like a murder (the most "impossible" of cases according to the anti crowd). (I asked if the subjects killed a person.) We later learned - with video - no murder took place, and nobody was responsible for the person's death. That's confirmed data. We in the polygraph community also have confirmed errors. We can use all that data to determine accuracy. It's not anecdotal. It's empirical, which is what counts, but we're going round and round again. We come up with the error and accuracy rates of juries in the same manner. We prove cases historically. Witnesses come in and say what they saw, heard, smelled, etc. Do we convict the innocent with "good" witnesses? Of course we do. Elizabeth Loftus documented a case in her book on eyewitness memory in which a person was convicted of a crime based on positive IDs of 17 eyewitnesses! DNA, it turns out, said they were wrong. So, we don't "really" know if a person is guilty just because a jury says so. We all know that though, and we are willing to take that risk. We weigh the benefits against the costs, and we have what we have. Our system is designed to avoid false positives, which is why we end up with more false negatives. We could change the "cut-offs" though, which would change the direction of those errors. How many people are arrested or charged (on PC) but not convicted? Why? Again, the cost of a false arrest is not as problematic as a false conviction. Whether you like that or not, that's the way it is. How did we get to that point? Data. We've gotten better at analyzing it, and I'm sure there are more changes to come. (Look at line-ups, for example.) To day we should look at anecdotal "evidence" is a step back time as there is no way to verify it (which is why it's anecdotal).


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Blood preasure v. pulse rate

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.