Quote: If a person "Passes" or "Fails" a polygraph exam, what does that actually mean? Is the final conclusion that a person passed or failed rely upon anything verifiable, or is it simply the opinion of the examiner? If the former, what verifiable aspects of the process are there? If the latter, then what leads up to that opinion of the examiner, and can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?
Those were your original questions. If you read TLBTLD, you'll find the answer you're looking for. (Note those last few words.)
Donna didn't accuse you of being a polygraph examiner. She accused you of researching more than you've stated. The problem is, it appears, is that you're not paying close attention to what you've read.
Quote: With all due respect, I would have thought your experience in calling me a liar about being a police officer and then being proven wrong would have cautioned you about continuing to post personal attacks rather than simply joining in the debate.
For the record, few believe Drew, so they don't believe they've been proven wrong.
Quote: By the way, I have to wonder if any of the polygraph examiners who were so sure I was lying about being a cop ever took the time to ponder if perhaps their ability to detect truth or deception wasn't quite as good as they thought it was...
I seem to recall they used statement analysis (et al), something touted here by some as superior to polygraph. Perhaps if they had used polygraph, then they would have the correct answer. Do you want to volunteer for that one?
Before you answer, I'm kidding with you.
Take care.