Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Who Lying (Read 21494 times)
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #15 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:23pm
Print Post  
Quote:
If you believe the results of the study, and you believe what you wrote yourself, how is this site helping sex offenders?  The worst George could be accused of doing, if you believe the study and your own words, is causing people to fail who have previously committed sex offenses but who now are being truthful during their polygraphs.  But that can’t be what is happening, since you also wrote, “If and that is a big IF the SO’s are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here.”  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.

Given all that, I’d appreciate it if you could explain exactly how this site helps sex offenders.


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:
Eric has also pointed out that he doesn’t know of a single polygraph examiner that would bet his or her mortgage on the accuracy of a polygraph test.  It is difficult to read a non-endorsement like that and not come to the conclusion that examiners will tout the accuracy of the polygraph when it is of no personal consequence, but back off when the outcome of their supposedly highly accurate exam might have serious personal consequences for themselves or their family


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:
Regarding the ethical considerations involved in the publication of information about polygraph countermeasures, see my Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public.

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.
« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2007 at 1:04pm by EJohnson »  

image011.jpg ( 31 KB | 63 Downloads )
image011.jpg

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5786
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Who Lying
Reply #16 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 2:57pm
Print Post  
Hunter wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:51am:
Your best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair.  Indeed a proud day for you. 


Do you think it is fair for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Donna.Taylor
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #17 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:18pm
Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 2:57pm:
Hunter wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 11:51am:
Your best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair.  Indeed a proud day for you.  


Do you think it is fair for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception?


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

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Who Lying
Reply #18 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:25pm
Print Post  
EJohnson wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:23pm:
[quote] 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.. 

Feel free to find and reference a single post of mine that could possibly be characterized as “playing Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders.”  You won’t be able to, as I have never done such a thing.

I don’t believe the polygraph is an accurate detector of deception.  That doesn’t mean I support or offer advice to sex offenders.  It also doesn’t mean I counsel people to lie, or that I encourage them to omit information.

I am aware that you and I disagree on the utility of the polygraph.  But when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5786
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Who Lying
Reply #19 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:45pm
Print Post  
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.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Who Lying
Reply #20 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:47pm
Print Post  
Donna.Taylor wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:18pm:
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


I find it interesting that you characterize my post as an attack on you.  I was merely pointing out the obvious contradiction inherent in your statements; if you believe that TLBTLD does nothing to assist liars in passing the polygraph, then how can you believe George is assisting sex offenders?

What I would characterize as an attack was your blatant assaults on my veracity when you posted under the name "Wonder Woman," which were completely different from my entirely civil post containing questions about an obvious paradox in your writings.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #21 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:13pm
Print Post  
Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:25pm:
EJohnson wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:23pm:
[quote] 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..  

Feel free to find and reference a single post of mine that could possibly be characterized as “playing Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders.”  You won’t be able to, as I have never done such a thing.

I don’t believe the polygraph is an accurate detector of deception.  That doesn’t mean I support or offer advice to sex offenders.  It also doesn’t mean I counsel people to lie, or that I encourage them to omit information.

I am aware that you and I disagree on the utility of the polygraph.  But when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.


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. Smiley...ah young people.

Quote:
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.


Oh Please. A load of.............
« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:32pm by EJohnson »  

AF453Close-Friend-Posters.jpg ( 37 KB | 62 Downloads )
AF453Close-Friend-Posters.jpg

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5786
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Who Lying
Reply #22 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:20pm
Print Post  
EJohnson wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:13pm:
Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 3:25pm:
EJohnson wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 12:23pm:
[quote] 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.. 

Feel free to find and reference a single post of mine that could possibly be characterized as “playing Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders.”  You won’t be able to, as I have never done such a thing.

I don’t believe the polygraph is an accurate detector of deception.  That doesn’t mean I support or offer advice to sex offenders.  It also doesn’t mean I counsel people to lie, or that I encourage them to omit information.

I am aware that you and I disagree on the utility of the polygraph.  But when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.


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---'cause my therapist and parole agent says this is dead serious stuff. Great, I'll try countermeasures next Spring, but eanwhile, 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.

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.)

Quote:
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.


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


Eric,

Instead of fabricating a discussion by Sergeant1107, why don't you point us to an actual example of his supposedly playing "Dear Abby" to sex offenders?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Who Lying
Reply #23 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 5:56pm
Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #24 - Dec 10th, 2007 at 6:38pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Eric,

Instead of fabricating a discussion by Sergeant1107, why don't you point us to an actual example of his supposedly playing "Dear Abby" to sex offenders?


I suppose you think that sex offenders ONLY come to the preconviction section---and so Sarge's advice of using countermeasures  and participating in the general forum on other boards isn't problematic....... via "Dear Abby-ing?"
Pre-emptive retort;
George; Well, I suppose that depends on what the definition of "think" is.



Quote:
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.


You make many presuppositions there---all of which are in error. I don't have the time for such lunacy 101. All SO's are required to take polygraph tests in most states---that is to say, in states where there is containment, than all Offenders are required to be tested. I think Alaska might no yet have a containment program, but I could be wrong. The recitivism rate is lower in states that require polygraph testing/containment method(Kim English 2003) and furthermore, a large proportion of offenders do not believe in the accuracy of polygraph----or treatment for that matter. This doesn't negate the fact that both of which (tx and poly) are extremely valuable in protecting the community---alongside other documented means. Your theory is rediculous---and a stretch of the neck.
« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2007 at 9:43pm by EJohnson »  

image015.gif ( 69 KB | 66 Downloads )
image015.gif

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Underjustice
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Dec 7th, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #25 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:22am
Print Post  
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.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #26 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:32am
Print Post  
Underjustice wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:22am:
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.




Eloquently stated Roll Eyes


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
 
Donna.Taylor
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Who Lying
Reply #27 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 1:36am
Print Post  
Underjustice wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:22am:
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.





Please go talk to your PO or therapist before you are in full cycle.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Who Lying
Reply #28 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 3:13am
Print Post  
So EJ doesn't have time for lunacy, huh?  Any have time for science?  You don'thave to answer that.
This entire discussion reminds me of another pseodoscientific application of a sexual behaviour theory, the plethysmograph.
Check out http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Who Lying
Reply #29 - Dec 11th, 2007 at 4:01am
Print Post  
EJohnson wrote on Dec 10th, 2007 at 6:38pm:
I suppose you think that sex offenders ONLY come to the preconviction section---and so Sarge's advice of using countermeasures  and participating in the general forum on other boards isn't problematic....... via "Dear Abby-ing?"  


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.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo