Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) A question I am curious about (Read 27088 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #30 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 1:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Forget the NAS!

Not a very credible organization.

Personally, I find the opinions of the APA, headed by polygraphers with phoney Ph'd degrees more credible.

Hey, they livelihood DEPENDS ON THE POLYGRAPH.  Or more precisely, the MYTH of the poly.

I also get my info on crime statistics from the Gambino Family.
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #31 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 2:16am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
"Q.E."

no, I am not trying to discredit what the NAS prepared or their organization.  I am sure if presented with the same (selected) material, I would have written a similar presentation in conclusion.  Of course, they did report a certain level of viability with specific issue testing which everyone who seems to quote that (one) study as "proof" tends to ignore...  

To the point,  I was attempting to draw a pictorial of the foundation from whence information is derived.  I failed you and I apologize...

Aldridge,

all of that and you have a sense of sarcastic humor?  How does the spouse handle the separation...?

Sackett (non-PhD)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #32 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 2:27am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The report concluded that, regarding pre-employment screening anyway, the test is not accurate enough to be useful.  Too many worthy candidates (like me) get falsely accused of dishonesty.  Spies pass with flying colors (AA, Larry Wu-tai Chin)....etc.

Other than that, it's a pretty good test.

What they should do, if a candidate has significant problems on the poly, and is otherwise a superb prospect worth spending the money on, hand his/her case over to trained INVESTIGATORS, to check the guy/gal out.  Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.

Had they done that with me they would have found a military linguist who held a TS SCI for 20 years, and passed each and every 5 year update with flying colors during his career.  It's not like I was an unknown commodity in the intelligence community.

I did get a call from a FBI SA a year later.  We chatted about the area of concerns that came out in my poly.  She said she didn't see what the problem was and ended the phoncon on an apologetic note.
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nomegusto
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 75
Joined: Nov 26th, 2007
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #33 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 4:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Shocked
Oh great!!!! I agree with you Mr. Ames...
Thank God, I've had good polygraphers, who judged my actual background included with the polygraph for different agencies.

I'm also a believer in the polygraph, for LE cases. Great tool for interrogations, maybe a good tool for a POS who doesn't know better, and fails there HR pre screen (if they were a dirt bag). But, I'm more against the prescreen. Thats just my interpretation, and the decision of the powers to be.

But, shhhh don't tell anyone I've agreed with you... I don't want people to think, that I'm anti polygraph...  Wink
  

semper paratus
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: A question I am curious about
Reply #34 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 6:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Feb 13th, 2008 at 9:30pm:
Al,

would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis?  


I believe the NAS used a collection of 57 studies when conducting their research study.

On the APA’s web site they write:

Quote:
The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are also mentioned.


Are the 80 research projects they used somehow superior or more accurate than the 57 research projects the NAS used?  Is there any doubt that they used 80 studies with conclusions that backed up their own preconceived notions regarding the accuracy of polygraph testing?

Other examiners have referred to the NAS study as somehow incomplete or inadequate because it only used a portion of the available studies.  That seems hypocritical considering the APA (motto: "Dedicated to Truth") did exactly the same thing.

I think that if the NAS study was truly invalid or inadequate the APA and polygraph examiners in general wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to discredit 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 sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #35 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 4:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
"Sarge",

once again you have have misrepresented what was posted and derailed the conversation.  I am not trying to, or as you put it, spend "so much time" trying to discredit the NAS report.  I am; however, pointing out a rather obvious fact that selected resources were chosen by the NAS to review and then report their findings, which in my opinion was academically dishonest. 

The NAS purports itself as an unbiased organization of researchers and academics in various scientific fields.  Their using selected material which supported their hypothesis to "discover" a particular finding was not the best or most honest work by so-called "unbiased" scientists.  In that light, I believe I even posted that given the same material I probably would have the same results (you conveniently ommitted that).

My posting had nothing to do with anything presented by anyone else, but you obvioulsy felt threatened by the information presented and had to distract the conversation.  That too, in my opinion, is dishonest.

"Al", you wrote:

"The report concluded that, regarding pre-employment screening anyway, the test is not accurate enough to be useful"

I do believe they reported accuracy and viability in specific issue testing and potential applicability in screening tests, but more research was needed (a typical and neutural researcher note).

If we're gunna report the facts, lets report them all, I say...

Have a nice day, Smiley


Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box digithead
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 150
Joined: Apr 11th, 2006
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #36 - Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:06pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Feb 13th, 2008 at 9:30pm:
Al,

would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis?  Was this the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment and periodic security screening tests they were condemning?  The very same NAS members (not all of course) who when the DOE abated screening tests as a result of that report resulted in multiple security violations through laziness, misconduct and/or negligence to such a degree the program had to be reinstituted?  

A slight conflict of interest, I believe.  I (personally) see their report as I would fat people writing a report condemning McDonald's for selling fat filled products while they hold their convention at the local Burger King and receiving BK stock options in exchange... These minor details conveniently ommitted when citing their findings.

BTW, I am all for finding a better "mousetrap."  Some thought CVSA was it, it is not...  Got any suggestions? Then invent it!  But for now, polygraph is the best we have.

Sackett

P.S.  BTW, how's the food at Leavenworth?


I gotta chime in here even though I need to be working on my dissertation which why I've been absent from this board...

Anyhow, "the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment"?!?! Really? You claim that the NAS report was done by people who work for the national labs and the DOE and are being screened by the polygraph? Baloney!

The main authors, Feinberg and Faigman, are from Carnegie Mellon and UC-Hastings respectively. The rest of the committee are from other universities or research organizations like RAND and the Cleveland Clinic. Not one is listed as working for a national lab and the committee is made up of statisticians, physicians, psychologists, and lawyers who I would argue are eminently qualified to examine the evidence on polygraph and render an opinion. Name one person on the list of authors of the NAS study who is employed by a national lab or is subject to polygraph screening.

Here's the link in case you have trouble finding it: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=375

Your implication is misdirection at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst. The NAS selected the 57 studies because the excluded studies were, as they put it, "below the quality level typically needed for funding by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health." That's academic speak for saying the majority of research on the polygraph is crap.

I can understand that you feel the need to attack their conclusions but if all you can offer is an attack on their credentials then you don't have much of an argument...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #37 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
digithead,

I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process.  But, many are!  Name one?  There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such.  Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.

Just because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist). 

You have your opinion.  Fine.  As an examiner, I have mine.  I know it works well.  Pefectly, no.  BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...

The research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap."  However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."

I believe you have your right to your opinion.  I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me.  Your opinion would change.

Sackett

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box digithead
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 150
Joined: Apr 11th, 2006
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #38 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:06am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
digithead,

I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process.  But, many are!  Name one?  There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such.  Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.


Except that none of the authors of the report are subjected to polygraph screening which is your implication. I think the NAS was quite aware of the appearance of bias and went out of its way to select people uninvolved with polygraphy beyond the requisite knowledge of physiology, psychology, statistics, engineering and law. To claim that this group was biased against the polygraph is sheer nonsense...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
Just because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist).


You seriously think this? Wow, so that explains how polygraph people suppress their cognitive dissonance they get when they read this report, it was all an inside job designed to discredit polygraphy from the get-go...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
You have your opinion.  Fine.  As an examiner, I have mine.  I know it works well.  Pefectly, no.  BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...

I never ask anyone to take me at my word, there is plenty of research out there to support my position that CQT polygraphy is fatally flawed, the NAS report to wit...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
The research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap."  However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."

Yes, it's crap. If it can't qualify for NSF or NIH funding it means that there are serious flaws in the research methods. How else would you translate the NAS description of the state of polygraph research, especially since you agree that most of it is "crap?"

Additionally, qualifying for funding is different than actually getting funding because of the fierce competition for research dollars. Just because the research design is well-done doesn't mean it will actually get funded. Their conclusion is that the research methods were so poor in the ones that they excluded that they wouldn't even be considered for funding...

sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 1:01am:
I believe you have your right to your opinion.  I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me.  Your opinion would change.


No, my opinion wouldn't change because I would be roundly shouted down if I asked any questions that challenged conventional polygraph practice, especially when it comes to CQT...

I do think that GKT is promising however because it resides on a cognitive basis rather than the emotional basis of CQT...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #39 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
digithead,

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave your (fairly) applied logic as the basis of your opinion and give you the last word.

I, on the other hand, will apply my knowledge and experience to opine that many of the statements on this board (not specifically yours) are wonderful examples of why a little bit of knowledge and an emotional agenda are a dangerous thing.  Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing"

BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway. Grin

Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #40 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 3:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 2:29am:
 Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing"

BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway. Grin

Sackett  


Sackett:

If you are as good as you say, why don't you take Drew Richardson up on his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge?  You could singlehandedly put this countermeasure foolishness to rest.
  

"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.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #41 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 4:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
"n.p.c.",

First off, Richardson nor anyone else on this board is qualified to proffer such a challenge.  It would be akin to me challenging you to come to where I am and wash my car.  OH YEAH!  It's been XX days and you haven't washed my car.  Chicken?  Can't handle it?  Don't know how to wash a car???  See everybody, n.p.c. doesn't know how to wash a car...  Now,  disprove my hypothesis.  IT HAS BEEN 763 DAYS AND N.P.C. HASN'T PROVEN TO US THAT HE KNOWS HOW TO WASH A CAR!!!  Do you really know how to wash a car??? If you did, you'd accept my challenge, huh?!  Nope!  You missed the rims and antenna, see you have failed in proving to my satisfaction that you know how to wash a car...

Be realistic, no examiner will take up on the challenge.  Not out of fear.  Not out of inability, but because no method or means of CM identification would ever satisfy the fanatical idiology of those who boast their effectiveness.  Professing to be fair and impartial to such a challenge coming from an "anti" board is no more than grand-standing to the audience.  But, like I said, it's an open board.

You keep your opinions and I'll keep mine.  We can agree to disagree, in a civilized manner and share them openly.  Let those who read this board figure out who is accurate, believable and professional.

BTW, sorry for the sarcasm before but I am tired.  


Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #42 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 3:32pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sackett:

I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.

One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins.  I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic.  THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.

Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website.  But, because  you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.

For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph.  That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.

Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.

Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves.  I am not going away.
  

"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.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #43 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 5:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
nopolycop wrote on Feb 15th, 2008 at 3:32pm:
Sackett:

I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.

I explained why in my previous posting.  I thought I was clear.

One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins.  I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic.  THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.

Of course we're thin skinned.  People on this board are attacking our profession without having any more than a cursory understanding of the sciences that go into polygraph, what would you expect?  BTW, my sarcasm was addressed for the purposes of my analogy since I did not want to assume anything about you.  Therefore, I used the car wash analogy as it is innocuous and non-offensive example.  I didn't mean to insult, but didn't want to really insult by assuming anything.

Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website.  But, because  you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.

n.p.c., I haven't tried to discredit anything, just open eyes of those who would read this board and blindly believe everything written here.  Then, believing what they read, enter an examination room like mine and screw themselves out of a job or their freedom, then wonder what happened...

Why would I go away?  Most have been respectful and as long as that remains I fear nothing written here.  I must admit though, it is sort of like a debate between the democrats and the republicans. Each side has their opinions and there is little chance either side will change.  I am not here for you or the rest of the "usualy suspects", I am here for the curious and to present an alternate understanding of the process where I believe it is best applied.  Com'mon, do you really want me to go away...?


For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph.  That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.

Polygraph requires an examinee to be mentally and physically healthy at the time of the examination.  Accusations, false or not, are naturally stressful; however, they are not abnormally so and would not prevent an examination.  Nice try at extending the conversation.  Of course, if these type of allegations were causal to abnormality, then no examination would ever take place since every examinee would be abnormally distracted.  And, no examinee would ever pass, since they would be abnormal, right?  Then why do many examinee's pass?  It is certainly not that they implemented the techniques outlined in TLBTLD!  But then again the extinction of polygraph IS the purpose of this board, right?!

Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.

Your opinion and certainly entitled to it.

Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves.  I am not going away.


Wow!  Return sarcasm?  At least I apologized for mine in advance...

Talk with you soon,


Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: A question I am curious about
Reply #44 - Feb 15th, 2008 at 9:11pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sackett:

I am, unfortunately for the extension of this conversation, going to be tied up for the next couple of weeks.  But, to finish my part of this thread, regarding you leaving, I have no opinion of whether or not you should leave here, but most other polygraphers who have come here do so with an agenda, then when they get their asses handed to them on a plate with logical argument, decide they are better off playing with themselves over at PolygraphPlace.  I find it amusing.

Frankly, honest discussion of polygraph with polygraphers would be refreshing.  Let's start with you answering a few honest questions.  A yes or no, (you may expand upon your answer, of course).

1)  Can you for certain tell if a person is lying?

2)  Can you for certain tell if a person is using countermeasures, and if so, which ones can you for certain detect?

3)  What is the accuracy rate of polygraph, and how can one be certain that accuracy rate is valid?

Please give these a stab, but I will have to let others continue this thread if they are so inclined, as I do have to take care of business.

BTW, I don't apologize for my sarcasm, it is one of the better things I do!
  

"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.)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
A question I am curious about

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
                       
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