Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) AntiPolygraph research (Read 25874 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
AntiPolygraph research
Dec 8th, 2007 at 3:31am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
After a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all  of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. 

If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT
study? 

Sanhco Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #1 - Dec 8th, 2007 at 7:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8th, 2007 at 3:31am:
After a careful perusal of your site, it seems obvious that while you make countless criticisms regarding polygraph research, you haven't really done any of your own. In fact you seem to base almost all  of your conclusions and theory on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. 

If you are serious, why don't you commission your own INDEPENDANT
study? 

Sanhco Panza

Did you read the research study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences?  Or do you consider that invalid because it simply studied existing research rather than conducting new research?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #2 - Dec 8th, 2007 at 9:25am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Are you referring to the part of the study that said specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection? 

Or are you referring to their comments about pre-employment examination, which incidentally DID NOT conclude that the results of pre employment examinations were inaccurate. If you read the study you will see that NAS had a problem with the inference that past behavior was an accurate predictor of future behavior. If this is so, please explain why Mr. Mashke spends so much time talking about his education, experience and background making him the ideal applicant absent his failed polygraph. If you accept the premise that past behavior is not a reliable predictor of future behavior or performance, then we might as well do away with job applications all together and just hire whoever walks in the door first. 

Or are you talking about their conclusions concerning problems with espionage screening tests being subject to false positives. Any SCREENING test in any scientific discipline has an unacceptable false positive rate. That is why they are called screening tests. A positive result on a screening test just indicates the need for more specific testing. 

While the NAS study did point out the need for improved research, I don't see it as the scathing indictment of polygraph your Illustrious Potentate or whatever he is calling himself this week tries to represent the study to be. 

In regards to your reply, we may be arguing semantics, but no,  I don't consider the NAS report to be a research study regarding the accuracy and validity of polygraph. I consider it to ba an analysis of existing studies. Its criticisms are not so much directed at polygraph, but rather its opinion regarding the state of polygraph research at the time their analysis was conducted. This does not mean that its study is invalid, Its just not independent research regarding the accuracy and validity of polygraph. 

Again why don't you commission your own scientific study instead of just collecting war stories from disgruntled posters and calling it "Proof?"

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #3 - Dec 8th, 2007 at 9:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8th, 2007 at 9:25am:
Are you referring to the part of the study that said specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection?

You are leaving an important part out of that part of the publication.  The actual passage reads as follows:

Quote:
Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.    


There is no way of knowing if anyone taking a polygraph is untrained in countermeasures.  That’s an important point, because it essentially means that a vital variable is completely unverifiable.



SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8th, 2007 at 9:25am:
While the NAS study did point out the need for improved research, I don't see it as the scathing indictment of polygraph your Illustrious Potentate or whatever he is calling himself this week tries to represent the study to be.

The following quotation from the conclusions drawn in that publication are certainly not an endorsement of the accuracy of the polygraph, by any stretch of the imagination.  I suppose it is a matter of personal interpretation whether you choose to characterize them as “scathing indictments”…

Quote:
Polygraph Accuracy
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.

Theoretical Basis
The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.

Research Progress
Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.

Future Potential
The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.



I believe the actual study was commissioned as a research study.  
Quote:
The Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was asked by the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct a scientific review of the research on polygraph examinations that pertain to their validity and reliability, particularly for personnel security screening, and to provide suggestions for further research.

But, as you say, that may be simply a question of sematics.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #4 - Dec 8th, 2007 at 7:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Well there are some things about the NAS study that aren't exactly favorable to what this site purports to be doing, ie helping an innocent examinee pass his/ her polygraph,

"Some examinees who have not committed crimes, security breaches, or related offenses, or who have little to hide, might nevertheless engage in countermeasures with the intent to minimize their chances of false positive test results (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). This strategy is not risk-free for ... examinees. There is evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001). "

If the countermeasures taught here might actually be responsible for an innocent examinee fail his test then what exactly is the service you are providing?  

I don't believe for one minute that the founder of this site cares one tiny bit about the innocent examinee. I think he got his feelings hurt because he was unable to successfully lie in his polygraph examination and has decided to try to extract revenge by trying to inhibit law enforcement's ability to do it's job. He does so in a carefully worded manner from outside the United States in order to avoid indictment for attempted obstruction of justice. His preaching does very little to disguise his real intent. 

At best he is helping innocent people fail their polygraph examinations and at worse he is trying to help criminals get away with their crimes. All for the sake of grinding his personal axe because he was unable to handle rejection. How mature is that?

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #5 - Dec 9th, 2007 at 1:06am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sancho Panza

Arn't you grinding a personal axe here by attacking George?? Do you know the man well enough to be able to spout such tripe? The way you people try to do damage control tells me this site concerns you a great deal. Only a personal assumption.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #6 - Dec 9th, 2007 at 1:11am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
An add on: Read the post be "stoppolyabusenow" and explain to her how wrong she is. Her polygrapher should be prosecuted for the way he treated her.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #7 - Dec 9th, 2007 at 2:12am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
"You People"  What exactly do you mean by that?    

Never the less You are correct, I don't know Mr. Mashke. I only know his position from reading what he has posted on his website. The only axe I'm grinding is the axe I possess for snake oil salesmen. Which is what he peddles. He is too self centered and focused on revenge to see that he is doing more harm than good. 

If the government actually did everything Mr. Mashke "Claims" they did it was ceratinly tortious. Why didn't Mr. Mashke file a law suit. 

You refer to him as George. You must consider yourself a close personal friend,  which means your opinion may be predjudiced by your friendship rather that guided by his behavior. 

Interestingly enough if you compare his personal experience ( as described by him) to the NAS study he declares a naivte' reagarding countermeasures which places his particular polygraph squarely in the group that the NAS study found to be the most accurate.

This puts us in the position of taking him at his unsupported word or relying on a procedure that NAS declared "Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. "
Have you ever sold any illegal drugs? Answer - No. 
Have you ever used any illegal drugs? Answer - No. 
Have you deliberately withheld any important information from your application? Answer - No. 

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #8 - Dec 9th, 2007 at 9:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8th, 2007 at 7:38pm:

I don't believe for one minute that the founder of this site cares one tiny bit about the innocent examinee. I think he got his feelings hurt because he was unable to successfully lie in his polygraph examination and has decided to try to extract revenge by trying to inhibit law enforcement's ability to do it's job. He does so in a carefully worded manner from outside the United States in order to avoid indictment for attempted obstruction of justice. His preaching does very little to disguise his real intent.

Can you tell us the specifics that led you to form that conclusion about a man you have never met or spoken to?

What leads you to believe he lied on his polygraph, rather than to accept his story that he told the truth and was incorrectly called a liar?

I'm also curious as to what law he is violating that would lead to his indictment.  Can you please provide a link to the state or federal law you believe he is violating by posting information that is already freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #9 - Dec 9th, 2007 at 11:27am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant  

Why would I form such conclusions about someone I have never met or spoken to? 

Well he did co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information.

What leads me to believe he lied on his polygraph, rather than accept his story that he told the truth and was incorrectly called a liar? 

Well, he did co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. 

In response to your last question. I did not say that he is now or has violated any law, what I said was "I think he got his feelings hurt because he was unable to successfully lie in his polygraph examination and has decided to try to extract revenge by trying to inhibit law enforcement's ability to do it's job. He does so in a CAREFULLY WORDED manner from outside the United States in order to avoid indictment for attempted obstruction of justice."

What leads you to believe he told the truth when he tells the world it's OK to lie?  

Why is that such a stretch for you?   NAMBLA has a fancy website and distributes publications stating that it is OK to have sex with children. It is  chock full of justification, scientific studies supporting their position and ways to avoid the consequences of discovery. If you were to read one of those publications or peruse their webpage, I am willing to bet my next paycheck that you would feel absolutely comfortable  drawing certain conclusions regarding the character and behavior of the author/s/ based on your own interpretation of their motives. 


Sancho Panza

« Last Edit: Dec 9th, 2007 at 1:30pm by SanchoPanza »  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #10 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:50am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9th, 2007 at 11:27am:
 Sergeant  

Why would I form such conclusions about someone I have never met or spoken to? 

Well he did co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information.


He did that after he told the truth on his polygraph and failed.



SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9th, 2007 at 11:27am:
 What leads me to believe he lied on his polygraph, rather than accept his story that he told the truth and was incorrectly called a liar? 

Well, he did co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information.


Again, he did that after he told the truth and failed.

Also, I think it is relevant to point out that George continually tells posters on this board that people applying for a position of public trust have an ethical responsibility to tell the truth on their application and polygraph.  That doesn’t sound like the advice of a person who lied on his own pre-employment polygraph, does it?



SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9th, 2007 at 11:27am:
 In response to your last question. I did not say that he is now or has violated any law, what I said was "I think he got his feelings hurt because he was unable to successfully lie in his polygraph examination and has decided to try to extract revenge by trying to inhibit law enforcement's ability to do it's job. He does so in a CAREFULLY WORDED manner from outside the United States in order to avoid indictment for attempted obstruction of justice."


The implication inherent in your post is that, were George not currently residing outside the United States, he would be facing possible indictment for attempted obstruction of justice.  I would still like to see an explanation of what specific laws you believe George is violating, or would be violating were it not for his “carefully worded manner”, by posting information on the polygraph that is already freely available to anyone who chooses to look for it.







SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 9th, 2007 at 11:27am:
 What leads you to believe he told the truth when he tells the world it's OK to lie?  

Why is that such a stretch for you?   NAMBLA has a fancy website and distributes publications stating that it is OK to have sex with children. It is  chock full of justification, scientific studies supporting their position and ways to avoid the consequences of discovery. If you were to read one of those publications or peruse their webpage, I am willing to bet my next paycheck that you would feel absolutely comfortable  drawing certain conclusions regarding the character and behavior of the author/s/ based on your own interpretation of their motives.


Personally, I’ve never been to NAMBLA’s website, so I wouldn’t know what is posted there.  I’ll take your word for it.

Regardless of what that despicable organization has or doesn’t have on their website, it has no bearing on the content of this website.  Drawing a comparison between this website and an organization that supports and endorses child molestation is nothing more than a cheap shot and an example of argumentum ad hominem.  
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #11 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant, your comment "He did that after he told the truth on his polygraph and failed"    is an unsupported assumption on your part. You have no evidence that he told the truth on his polygraph other than him telling you that he told the truth, a somewhat circular fallacy. If he is a liar then any statement he makes is suspect. 

In support of my contention, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that anyone who says that it is OK to lie and even publishes a book containing that philosophy may be a patently untruthful individual or in simple terms a liar.  At least you agree that he did co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information

As to what you would like to see, Look it up yourself. I did not say he was violating the law and the inference is yours not mine. I refuse to be baited into that argument because his occasional disclaimer and careful choice of words would appear to provide an escape argument or plausible deniability from the application of the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. 

As to the comparison to the NAMBLA site, If you haven't been to the site, how do you know the organization is despicable? My career has often taken me places I would never have gone by choice. Never the less the only real difference between the two sites is the subject matter.
Arguendo, ( a bit of pointless latin)The similarities I see are:
#1 The subject matter of both sites addresses a controversial issue.
#2 Both sites offer justification for unethical or immoral behavior
#3 Both sites proffer scientific studies in support of their positions
#4 Both sites offer tactics that purport to allow persons to avoid the consequences of their unethical or immoral behavior. 
Under the above terms it is a fair a reasonable comparison. 

My position is that it is prima facie (more pointless Latin) to conclude that the authors of both sites engage in or endorse the behavior they proselytize. I did not compare Mr. Mashke to a child molester. I have absolutely no information regarding his personal habits other than he thinks it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as long as HE thinks it is justified while representing himself as some sort of Pontifex Maximus Veritate instead of Pontifex Maximus Fraudatio. (Even more pointless Latin) Funny, it doesn't make ME feel superior. 

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #12 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 2:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The original topic of this thread was a challenge to skeptics to prove thatr polygraphy CAN'T detect lies.  It is not their job to do so.  It is the job of objective researchers to determine its validity and accuracy.  I have never been polygraphed, nor do I know anyone who has been.  My interest in this subject followed a Dr. Phil child molester/lie detector episode and I simply wanted to review the scientific research on lie detection.  I have seen nothing credible in support of lie detection, whether it be polygraphy, voice, chemical, or whatever.  It seem that even a confession can't be trusted if the interrogators place the right pressure on the right subject.  All I've heard in support of polygraphic lie detection is purely anecdotal.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #13 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 2:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Oh, one other thing...  Sancho, you're right that Sarge doesn't know whether or not George lied.  But neither did the polygrapher.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: AntiPolygraph research
Reply #14 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
ecchasta wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 2:27pm:
Oh, one other thing...  Sancho, you're right that Sarge doesn't know whether or not George lied.  But neither did the polygrapher.


If I were to agree with you, which I don't.  I believe the polygraph examiner did know whether or not Mr. Mashke was telling the truth. 

But even if I did agree with you that neither sarge or the polygrapher  know for sure whether or not he was lying I do have circumstantial evidence that Mr. Mashke condones not telling the truth.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that anyone who says that it is OK to lie and even publishes a book containing that philosophy may be a patently untruthful individual or in simple terms a liar.  

So, based on the evidence and information at hand. we know several pieces of information that allow one to draw a reasonable conclusion. 

#1Mr. Mashke states that he did not pass his polygraph. 
#2 He states that he did not lie. 
#3Mr. Mashke co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. 

On the other hand
#1 The examiner that  conducted Mr. Mashkes polygraph exam, SA Jack Trimarco, passed a pre-employment polygraph examination similar if not exactly like the one Mr. Mashke failed. 
#2. SA Trimarco rendered a professional opinion that Mr. Mashke was deceptive in his responses. 
#3. Mr. Tremarco did not author a book repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information. In fact I have never read anywhere in any document that he has written where he has condoned lying or deliberately concealing information when one is the subject of a background or criminal investigation. 

It seems to me that deciding who to believe based on those comparisons shouldn't be that difficult.  Any one who tells the world that it's OK to lie shouldn't be offended when someone chooses to take them at their word and brand them as someone who lies. Face it, when you tell people you believe in lying, your credibility will suffer. 

Have polygraph errors been made?  Absolutely. Any scientific test has an error rate. But the fact that errors occur occasionally does not, in and of itself,  mean that the process is not a valid one. 

There is NO evidence that an error or mistake was made in Mr. Mashkes case other than the word of a man who says lying is OK. If one foolishly accepts that it's OK to lie as long as you can be justified in their own mind, one might also conclude that it was OK to lie about drug use going into an examination, if in their own mind they could justify the lie by convincing himself that their prior drug activity was or should be inconsequential to the nature of the inquiry. 

This site seems to want to use the complaints of those who claim," I failed my test and I told the truth." in combination with a few probable errors an attempt to mislead the public into thinking they are the same thing. They are not. 

If I may reiterate my initial post This website bases almost all of its conclusions and theories on the misconception that the plural of anecdote is data. If that were true, Polygraph could anecdotally bury those people who claim they were done wrong with volumes and volumes of accurate and positive outcomes. 

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
AntiPolygraph research

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
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:
X