Quote:


Sarge, I don't think Donna was contending that this site "helps" sex offenders----oh no----this site only serves to claim that polygraph isn't valid, and that examiners are merely doing their job to "fill their pockets." This site provides a web forum for sex offenders on parole and probation----a whining zone online------and lest we forget that  every state strictly prohibits web forums of any kind be used by sex offenders "on papers." 
TLBTLD implicitly encourages examinee's to be manipulative, and to not disclose information. Information disclosure is a critical key in the treatment and supervision of sex offenders. The e-book states "say nothing, no matter what"----dangerous advice indeed. This site isn't dangerous per se, but the advice and the empty qualifiers  i.e."this site is for the innocent" .....is merely boxed and bagged horse shit with a ribbon. Perhaps Sarge's Connecticut lawman brothers and sisters would not be so chummy if they knew that he plays Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders, knowing little to nothing about the challenges of containment interrogation. Go with your gut Sarge, it has worked out great for so many of our leaders. If you want, take a look at some of your supervised offender population in Connecticut at http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2157&Q=294474&dpsNav=|;
These are just some of the 150,000 U.S. men and women that you place at lower priority than your "fractional" hobby. But, you are extremely bright....and you will no doubt justify that you are just a guy on a site that has some little oh information----it's all so ubiquitious---and you have no effect.

Quote:


You are quoting me out of context-----and I expect as much from the likes of you. I stated that I nor any examiner I know, would ever bet their mortgage on any test, be it biopsy, drug, IQ, or polygraph----as no test is 100%. Is that clear copper?

Quote:

George,
whenever you respond to any arguments centered around ethics, be it unproven countermeasures, or your sex offender outreach program here----I can only classify your historic responses as Inductive reasoned, anecdotal, and for the layman------dodgey.

p.s. Save the Latin for Mass, and I'll save the Yiddish for dinnertime.

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 2:57pm:


GM - I think the key word would be without evidence after your site encourage people not to make admissions.

UJ
Don’t make statements up and reflect them on me.  I have helped numerous SO’s through polygraphs and life situations when they are in compliance with their therapeutic & parole conditions.  You, however, are on a web site that if known by your PO would result in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.   You committed the crime – you have to do the time.  Probation/Parole is a privilege.   

By the way, there are grievance procedures with any AP&P and/or therapeutic situations.  Instead of going the appropriate direction, you came to a web site chat room that recommends complete denial and manipulation of testing procedures.

Funny thing is, I hope on your next Polygraph the examiner asks if you have been on any internet chat rooms….try to get that one out of your head.  Your being here proves you are not in compliance with your AP&P conditions.   

Sarge, what point of “The guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well’ do you not understand?   Then you state:   It seems that sex offenders who are honest and truthful don’t wind up being polygraphed; only the liars are polygraphed, and the study you supported and your own words make it clear that liars who read TLBTLD don’t pass their polygraphs anyway.”  At no point in time have I ever stated innocent sex offenders do not wind up taking polygraphs.

I find it interesting that you are attacking me over a discussion on a convicted sex offender visiting a site that encourages manipulation and denial.  That speaks volumes.

GTG

Eric,

I cannot recall a single post by Sergeant1107 that could be construed as him playing "Dear Abby" to or mollycoddling persons in post-conviction polygraph screening programs.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 3:25pm:


C'mon! You post on the sex offender section (that IS what this is) with your statements invalidating the tests which are so troublesome for offenders (and effective) in the sex offender treatment and supervision realm. I love your distortion---it is easily identified. Allow me to demonstrate;

Pedophile; I am having trouble with polygraphs---they want me to be interviewed and tested on a regular basis. sob!

Sarge; Yeah, that test they use is completely worthless, and easy to beat.

Pedophile; Wow, so I am taking this stuff serious for nothing?!---'cause my therapist and parole agent says this is dead serious stuff. My therapist keeps telling me he cares about my health, but now I know he is part of a con game. I am done being his sucker! Great, I'll try countermeasures next Spring, but meanwhile, I'll go ahead and do some cocaine and party with my sister's friends.

Sarge; now now, I didn't tell you to do that.

Pedophile; I gotcha. I am a great guy who made a big mistake---and prison made me all better.

Sarge; If you are applying for a position of trust, than you should tell the truth---and use mental countermeasures on your test, and don't do what the examiner tells you----he is a fool. The machine is a prop, don't tell them anything damning---cause that is the only good use for polygraph. Only omit what you know to be unimportant information. Did I ever tell you that I failed 3 previous tests and I.... (trails off)

Pedophile; (laughs) sure....this site is cool buddy.

Sarge; I love it. Hey, by the way, do the right thing! And if you you have another test coming up, swing by for all of your test beating needs----er, that is if you aren't misbehaving, even though statistically you are likely in the 92% of sex offenders who violate their conditions of parole----but I get a sense that you are different (wink.)

Pedophile; Hey, I gotta go, I am on a library computer---i am not supposed to be in a library OR on the internet. Thanks for your compassion!

Sarge; Hey, be careful. You should be in jail, ha ha ha ! Be safe, cause I am a cop. ...ah young people.

Quote:


Oh Please. A load of.............

I'm starting to see a theory of aplication for polygraphy developing here.  It goes like this:
Since a sex offender is a known bad guy and many SO's believe in the accuracy of lie detecting, forcing them to take periodic polygraphs will deter them from their crime.  That seems to be the theory.
If the pro-poly community were objective and scientific they would ask: Since not all SO's are required to take periodic polygraphs, what is the recitivism rate for polyed vs. non-polyed SO's?
Perhaps the theory could be expanded to use the fact that a large percentage of people (I assume SO's too) believe in God.  We could require them to answer their parole questions before God.  This might have an even greater effect!
Either way we wouldn't have a clue if they were really violating their parole, but what torchure it would be for the SO bastards.

D.Taylor,
The statement I made isn't made up but reflect your own true statements.   

If "[you] have helped numerous SO's through poly and life situations when they are in compliance with their therapeutic & parole conditions" than why do you try to invoke 'fear' in a SO who never said 'I did not do commit the crime (first compliance in treatment) and have serve her/his time (the privilege which was given to her/him).  However, you try to invoke fear without any real knowledge of her/his privilege but on only what you think is the normal for all SO: 
     (1) You are on a wb site that if known by your PO would result in 
          additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.
      
     (2) I hope on your next poly the examiner asks if you have been
         on any internet chat rooms(very broad question) -try to get 
         that one out of your head (but on one chatting with kids but
         with adults).

I would ready tell the examiner the privilege which was given to me does not invoke sanctions and/or possible revocation for being on a web site that have possible grievance procedures where "AP&P and theraputic have not provide such grievance procedures to be fair "for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception." (Thanks George).
I went the appropriate direction to those who like yourself, D.Taylor, only "result[ed] in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation" for bring forth the truth of my privilege to chat on a web site that is known by PO & theraputic providers that inform SO of the "denial and manipulution of testing procedures" without no appropriate direction to grievance.  If standing for the truth about who lying than you have not help numerous SO but only help to revoke their parole base on some test you have no truth in it yourself.

 

Underjustice wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 12:22am:


Please go talk to your PO or therapist before you are in full cycle.

EJohnson wrote on Dec 10^th, 2007 at 6:38pm:


I don’t think I have ever counseled anyone to use countermeasures.  I have said that I don’t believe answer questions truthfully and then doing math in your head is unethical, and I still believe that.  Answering questions truthfully fulfills my ethical responsibility.  What I think is no one’s affair but my own.

Is it truly that difficult for you and your ilk to believe that a person of ethics and conscience can disagree with you about the accuracy and worth of the polygraph and yet not be a supporter of child molesters and liars?

If you look at my past posts you will see that I always counsel people to tell the truth on their polygraphs and on their applications.  I don’t recall ever counseling anyone to lie, and I don’t recall ever counseling anyone to use countermeasures.

My opinion, based on my past experiences and the research I have done, is that the polygraph is simply inadequate as a detector of deception.  I post my opinion on this board, as well as on others, and I don’t believe that by doing so I am engaging in any sort of unethical behavior.

Do you believe that it would be more ethical of me to remain silent about a process I know, though personal experience, to be inaccurate and worse than worthless?  That it would somehow indicate higher morals or a greater sense of honor if I only spoke out in support of whatever issues the majority agreed with, instead of speaking my mind?  Because some of my brother and sisters in law enforcement believe in the worth of the polygraph, it is unethical for me to voice my opinion in opposition of theirs?

You are barking up the wrong tree here.  I don’t think you can find anything in any of my posts to indicate a lack of ethics or a support of liars.  There is certainly nothing that indicates a tolerance for, much less support of, sex offenders.  

On the other hand, in many posts authored by your and your comrades what is clearly transmitted to the readers is that you seek to vilify, to the detriment of your own credibility, anyone that disagrees with your opinion.  I don't see a great deal of ethics in that.