Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) On the lighter side (Read 12903 times)
sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #30 - Mar 3rd, 2008 at 8:59pm
Print Post  
"n.p.c.",

You wrote: "So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc."

Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #31 - Mar 3rd, 2008 at 10:25pm
Print Post  
Okay, I get it... I hurt your feelings cause I said that when you make the statements that polygraph isn't about lie detection, (flying in the face of what the rest of the industry is saying the purpose of polygraph is) is lying, misleading, deceiving, etc. and so that is what you are referring to when you say I called you a liar.  No my friend, that was just my opinion, which is all a polygraphers opinion of someone being deceptive being, an opinion.  Consider it akin to a false positive.

No, we are on the same planet, but because we are hashing things out here on an internet board, it is the best we have to communicate like this.  I know mistakes can happen with this form of communication, but there is no better way, we just have to live with these mistakes, okay?
  

"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
 
LALE
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 17
Joined: Jan 28th, 2008
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #32 - Mar 6th, 2008 at 3:51pm
Print Post  
EJohnson wrote on Mar 3rd, 2008 at 6:23pm:
[quote]No, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.

Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.

Your point has no steam feller.


Quote:
LALE, you are clearly having fun, eh? Antipolygraph activists are trying to change the industry, pro-polygraph activists are advocating the positive uses and both parties come here to debunk one another. And LALE is after something altogether different.


Lale is here to debunk you. Confusion over.

Quote:
My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----

NASA would probably disagree..

Quote:
The Scantool doesn't detect malfunctions nor does it claim to (see your point here little man), as many a consumer has assumed. The Scantool pulls a code from the vehicles' computer system. The code doesn't merely tell the technician "fix the suspension actuators"---but instead, the code aids the technician by "indicating" (i.e."problem indicated")a system gliche, but the code does not pinpoint precisely what the malfunction is.
I think you are bored out of your wits....?

Quote:
Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector,

Sackett et al will def disagree with you...

Quote:
although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least.


Aint that the truth and the general pattern. ie - Polygraph errors.

Quote:
Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period.


My friend, if scantool is unreliable when diagnosing man made articles that are to all intents and purposes - identical - Then what chance does your polygraph scantool have in pulling identical codes from human beings, of whom not one of the billions born have identical psyche ?
May I reply on behalf of yourself and Sackett: "Zero chance."

Quote:
Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.


Yes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.

BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary.  Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EJohnson
Limited (No Attachments)
Offline


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #33 - Mar 7th, 2008 at 4:12am
Print Post  
Edited:
Lale is here to debunk you. Confusion over.


So that is why you're here, eh? I thought you were here for the recipes.

Quote:
Quote:
My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----
NASA would probably disagree..

No, they would not disagree. The first space shuttle had less computer memory and hard drive than a modern Ford Taurus. The more complexities were the space shuttle back-up systems, and the back-up for the back-up systems. The first shuttle was very much a more analogue type vehicle.

Quote:
I think you are bored out of your wits....?



sometimes, but I generally retain my wits----especially if operating heavy machinery.

Quote:
Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector,
Sackett et al will def disagree with you...


Do you actually believe polygraph examiners agree on everything? Are you 17 years old?

Quote:
although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least.

Aint that the truth and the general pattern. ie - Polygraph errors.


I suppose in your profession, there are no errors? I'll have to contact Dominos to see.
OK, cheap shot----sorry, I'm grouchy.
Yes Lale, errors happen. My wife has a client who was told last month that she had HIV. It was a false positive. The woman made drastic changes in her life---until the mistake was rectified 2 weeks later---the woman had already cashed her 401k, taking a huge loss in annuities/interest. That's the second false positive they have had in 2 months. Go figure.

Edited:
Quote:
Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period.

My friend, if scantool is unreliable when diagnosing man made articles that are to all intents and purposes - identical - Then what chance does your polygraph scantool have in pulling identical codes from human beings, of whom not one of the billions born have identical psyche ?
May I reply on behalf of yourself and Sackett: "Zero chance."


I never said Scantool was not accurate. I just said it is a great tool to diagnose peripheral malfunctions----but the public has this steadfast misconception that the machine is the end all simple solution.

"Zero chance" eh? Now you are just being blustery.

Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.

Yes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.

BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary.


Quote:
Yes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.


Now we agree on something (lol). Tell me more of your problems, and together we can make sense of why the voices keep telling you to do bad things. Tongue

Edited:
BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary


Don't we all. The root of "articulate" is "art." I don't use technical dictionaries when I write here (maybe it would help my spelling eh?)----it's useless, as many posters have problems with looking at science and how many fields have both strengths AND weaknesses----and the weaknesses don't negate the validity of the whole. Doing such is, again I say, Inductive Reasoning. Look it up.

night night.









  

All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, &&all men are Socrates.-----Woody Allen  &&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #34 - Mar 7th, 2008 at 8:09pm
Print Post  
EJohnson wrote on Mar 7th, 2008 at 4:12am:
Don't we all. The root of "articulate" is "art." I don't use technical dictionaries when I write here (maybe it would help my spelling eh?)----it's useless, as many posters have problems with looking at science and how many fields have both strengths AND weaknesses----and the weaknesses don't negate the validity of the whole. Doing such is, again I say, Inductive Reasoning. Look it up.

night night.


I don't believe the root of "articulate" is "art".  Rather, the root of the word is "articulatus", which means "to divide into distinct parts."


"Ars" (not "art") is the Latin word for "art".
  

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


Internet Countermeasures
Yields Failed Tests

Posts: 176
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #35 - Mar 8th, 2008 at 1:58am
Print Post  
I sit corrected.
  

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



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #36 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:05pm
Print Post  
LALE,

first off, I don't know a thing about Scantool; nor do I want to.  I do understand when the mechanic who uses it and tells me my timing is off, though...  It means I'm gunna be paying out some money!!

BTW, you have totally misrepresented my statements on "lie detection."  No doubt purposefully, so for your benefit I'll type this slowly.  The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course).  Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang?  Yes! Yes! Yes!  So get over it, already!!!  Roll Eyes

Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #37 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:52pm
Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:05pm:
 The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course).  Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang?  Yes! Yes! Yes!  So get over it, already!!!  Roll Eyes
Sackett


What are you trying to say here, Sackett?  The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not?  Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
  

"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
 
notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2008
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #38 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 4:31pm
Print Post  
nopolycop wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:52pm:
sackett wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:05pm:
 The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course).  Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang?  Yes! Yes! Yes!  So get over it, already!!!  Roll Eyes
Sackett


What are you trying to say here, Sackett?  The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not?  Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?


Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements.  This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Reply 2 n.p.c.
Reply #39 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 4:39pm
Print Post  
you replied, "What are you trying to say here, Sackett?  The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not?  Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?"

I certainly feel like an inarticulate layman.  I thought my postings were fairly clear and written for the simplistic of minds, apparently, I was wrong.  

One last time... The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving, your body reacts to the mental developement of a lie because we subconsciously know it's wrong (based on the natural thought process being truthful and the sociological reinforcement throughout our life that lying is wrong).  All societies in the world have the same basic premise.  The correlation is clear and obvious.  BTW, why do we have the ANS reaction versus maintenance of homeostasis when seeing a cop?  What is it about a guy on the side of the road, in a marked car, with a radar gun that poses the threat.  We have that reaction before going through even the first of cognitive thoughts of, what is my speed?  Did he get me?  How much is the ticket, etc? (Also equivalently post presentation thought to, am I going to be falsely accused a liar, etc)

You and others like to address lying as the sole act of saying something (out of your mouth) that is not true.  This allows for the further premise that, I told the truth and they called me a liar.  The facts is, withholding, minimizing, rationalizing and avoidance are also manners of lying through the natural thought process. All of this are causes for the mental conflict resulting in the ANS reaction. Are there other reasons for ANS reaction? Yes!, but not generally in a polygraph suite.

Besides, you can't give yourself an ANS reaction voluntarily. You can't think through the question of, "did you do___..?." and later cause a ANS reaction if you have no recollection of the incident and/or conflict arising from the answer of no."  Meanwhile, you know if you're not telling everything which you have knowledge of about an issue and are withholding that information.  This knowledge is a reason for the ANS reaction.  

Finally, as I've already discussed in previous postings, the general nervous system, i.e., cognitive thought, residual to a question and answer will not cause the same ANS reaction, though it will certainly effect the GNS.  BUT, that effects the whole system, and throughout the entire test, not specifically to one question or the other.


I hope that explain things stisfactorily enough.  If not, I can not make it any more easier to understand, and I give up trying to get through to you and your anti-buddies.

Sackett
   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #40 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 4:52pm
Print Post  
notguilty1 wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 4:31pm:
nopolycop wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:52pm:
sackett wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 2:05pm:
 The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course).  Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang?  Yes! Yes! Yes!  So get over it, already!!!  Roll Eyes
Sackett


What are you trying to say here, Sackett?  The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not?  Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?


Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements.  This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.


"notguilty1",

Once again, I try, I mean, I really try to make the things as basic as humanly possible.  This way even the most simple minded people can understand what I say.  The reader (that's you) does not have to agree with me, just understand. In your case and the case of your compadres here, I must say, I have failed to achieve even that minimal a level of accomplishment.  Since I don't have crayons and paper, I guess this will have to do.  

H a v e  a  g o o d  d a y.

Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #41 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 5:17pm
Print Post  
No Sackett, please answer my questions directly.  I'll re-phrase for simplicity:

Is the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?

Does a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?

  

"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
 
nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: Reply 2 n.p.c.
Reply #42 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 5:21pm
Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 4:39pm:
. The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving,
Sackett[/b]   


BTW, I don't have an f-f-f reaction in the ANS when I see a cop by the side of the road when driving, I usually slow down a little to make sure my brother or sister is okay... But, that's just me.
  

"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
 
sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #43 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 6:13pm
Print Post  
Okay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature.  But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative.  Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.

Sackett

P.S.  I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Joined: Oct 20th, 2007
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #44 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 6:29pm
Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 9th, 2008 at 6:13pm:
Okay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature.  But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative.  Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.

Sackett

P.S.  I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"


Anomoly of human nature?  NOOOOO, I am a cop, and knowing that other cops sometimes get into a jam on the side of the road, I slow down and make sure everything is okay, that's all.

And, regarding my questions, any reader will obviously see that you not only have not sufficiently answered my simple questions, but refuse to do so. 

Have a nice day.  Wink
  

"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 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo