Normal Topic Trimarco on the Discovery Channel (Read 154063 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Trimarco on the Discovery Channel
Mar 10th, 2008 at 6:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The Discovery Channel aired a show last night about the human body.

They were talking about the human nervous system.

They featured the polygraph in a segment about the autonomic nervous system, and the "fight, flight or freeze" response.  Which is what is measured on the polygraph.  The show gave the impression that people who lie will often elicit this response.   Which is true. 

But they didn't bother to mention that people who ARE NOT LYING can elicit the same response when asked a question if they consider threatening.  Is the act of lying the only reason a person could consider a question to be even slightly alarming?

If you ask a father:  "Did you have sexual relations with your daughter last night?"  Do you think most fathers would have an ANS reaction?  Does that mean they are lying?

They show Trimarco testing a hispanic looking male who was sweating profusely.  Probably had him doing jumping jacks prior the filming.

Isn't Trimarco the guy who claimed on national TV that the test is 95% accurate?

Why won't the polygraphers on this board support Trimarco in his claim? 

TC
« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2008 at 5:58pm by T.M. Cullen »  

"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: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #1 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:16am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 10th, 2008 at 6:25pm:
The Discovery Channel aired a show last night about the human body.

They were talking about the human nervous system.

They featured the polygraph in a segment about the autonomic nervous system, and the "fight, flight or freeze" response.  Which is what is measured on the polygraph.  The show gave the impression that people who lie will often elicit this response.   Which is true.  

But they didn't bother to mention that people who ARE NOT LYING can elicit the same response when asked a question if they consider threatening.  Is the act of lying the only reason a person could consider a question to be even slightly alarming?

If you ask a father:  "Did you have sexual relations with your daughter last night?"  Do you think most fathers would have an ANS reaction?  Does that mean they are lying?

They show Trimarco testing a hispanic looking male who was sweating profusely.  Probably had him doing jumping jacks prior the filming.

Isn't Trimarco the guy who claimed on national TV that the test is 95% accurate?

Why won't the polygraphers on this board support Trimarco in his claim?  

TC


Mr/Ms Cullen,

I saw the same program (accidentally flipping, don't you know).  I thought they explained the polygraph process fairly well. 

Once again, it doesn't fit the mantra of this site, but truly, can you name any reasons why a person would elicit an ANS response to a well reviewed and rehearsed question in a controlled setting, other than the dichotomy of developing a lie (or withholding, minimizing, secreting or rationalizing previously provided information)?

Sackett

P.S.  What exactly are you looking for with your question: "Why won't the polygraphers on this board support Trimarco in his claim?" 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box digithead
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 150
Joined: Apr 11th, 2006
Re: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #2 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:33am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:16am:
Snip...

Once again, it doesn't fit the mantra of this site, but truly, can you name any reasons why a person would elicit an ANS response to a well reviewed and rehearsed question in a controlled setting, other than the dichotomy of developing a lie (or withholding, minimizing, secreting or rationalizing previously provided information)?

snip...


Hmm, disgust, anger, nervousness, undetected hypertension, vascular diseases, diabetes, thyroid problems, or endocrine disorders immediately come to mind...

Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things don't affect the CQT polygraph?
  
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: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #3 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
What exactly are you looking for with your question: "Why won't the polygraphers on this board support Trimarco in his claim?" 


Is the polygraph 95% accurate as he claims?
  

"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 George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6155
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Trimarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #4 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 9:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The Discovery Channel program to which T.M. Cullen refers is episode 3 of Human Body: Pushing the Limits. Information about this program, including video clips from various episodes (including the polygraph segment), is available here:

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/human-body/human-body.html

I've always been perplexed when polygraphers speak of the "fight or flight" response (or, alternatively, the "fight, flight, or freeze" response, sometimes abbreviated F3 in polygraph literature) in connection with polygraphy. When I sat for my polygraph examinations, I never had the urge to strike the polygrapher (fight). Similarly, it never occurred to me to flee the scene (flight): were I so disposed, I wouldn't have sat down in the polygraph chair to begin with! Similarly, the thought of remaining silent and motionless (freeze) didn't cross my mind either.

So if any of our friends in the polygraph community could explain how this "fight or flight" response has anything to do with the situation of an examinee in the polygraph suite, I'd be interested in learning more about this notion.
« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2008 at 12:45pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #5 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
digithead wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:33am:
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:16am:
Snip...

Once again, it doesn't fit the mantra of this site, but truly, can you name any reasons why a person would elicit an ANS response to a well reviewed and rehearsed question in a controlled setting, other than the dichotomy of developing a lie (or withholding, minimizing, secreting or rationalizing previously provided information)?

snip...


Hmm, disgust, anger, nervousness, undetected hypertension, vascular diseases, diabetes, thyroid problems, or endocrine disorders immediately come to mind...

Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things don't affect the CQT polygraph?


Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things do affect the CQT polygraph?

The first few are cognitive thought issues, contributing to the overall state of general nervous tension through the central nervous system,  the rest are biologically altering issues.  The severity one can only assume.  Without having a "specimen" in the chair, one can only hypothesize how or even if their disorder would effect the accuracy of polygraph.  I suspect, unless they are dysfunctional in nature they would not. 

I have tested many people with anxiety disorders, diabetes, hypertension, etc and have gotten good results.   

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



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #6 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:47am:
Quote:
What exactly are you looking for with your question: "Why won't the polygraphers on this board support Trimarco in his claim?"  


Is the polygraph 95% accurate as he claims?


I don't know, I'm not a researcher, I'm just a lowly practitioner.  What does the research results indicate?  80-95%??  If so, then how is it that Trimarco (who BTW I have never actually heard him say that) would be wrong, IF, he was simply taking the higher end results? 

But of course, George often reminds us that it is all a flip of the coin, based on "the biblical" text of the NAS study...

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: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #7 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 4:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:34pm:
digithead wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:33am:
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:16am:
Snip...

Once again, it doesn't fit the mantra of this site, but truly, can you name any reasons why a person would elicit an ANS response to a well reviewed and rehearsed question in a controlled setting, other than the dichotomy of developing a lie (or withholding, minimizing, secreting or rationalizing previously provided information)?

snip...


Hmm, disgust, anger, nervousness, undetected hypertension, vascular diseases, diabetes, thyroid problems, or endocrine disorders immediately come to mind...

Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things don't affect the CQT polygraph?


Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things do affect the CQT polygraph?

The first few are cognitive thought issues, contributing to the overall state of general nervous tension through the central nervous system,  the rest are biologically altering issues.  The severity one can only assume.  Without having a "specimen" in the chair, one can only hypothesize how or even if their disorder would effect the accuracy of polygraph.  I suspect, unless they are dysfunctional in nature they would not.  

I have tested many people with anxiety disorders, diabetes, hypertension, etc and have gotten good results.    

Sackett


I'm off to the airport so I won't be responding to whatever your next thing is but a quick search of Pubmed turned up this gem from your own polygraph people in 1981, enjoy!

Waid WM, Wilson SK, Orne MT. 1981. Cross-modal physiological effects of electrodermal lability in the detection of deception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 40(6):1118-25.
Quote:
Abstract: This study examined the effects of individual differences in electrodermal lability on cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal responses (EDRs) in the detection of deception. One Day 1 each of 74 subjects rested quietly for 3 min. while skin conductance was recorded. Electrodermal lability was scored for each subject, those giving frequent nonspecific EDRs being labiles and those giving few being stabiles. On Day 2, usually 1 week later, 40 of the subjects attempted to deceive a professional polygraph examiner in a field-type test. The 34 remaining subjects attempted to convince the examiner, who was blind as to each subject's condition, that they were indeed being truthful. Deception by stabile subjects was detected less frequently than was deception by labile subjects. Among truthful subjects, the more labile were falsely detected as deceptive on more questions than were their stabile counterparts. Although accuracy of detection was greatest with the EDR, the effects of lability on detection were similar for electrodermal, cardiovascular, and respiratory measures. Labiles also had a higher heart rate during the polygraph test than did stabiles.


Bolding mine. Btw, labile means unstable...

At least I finally found research that shows that increased individual variability in the four channels measured by the polygraph affects the polygraph's ability to detect deception...

I'll add here that the probability of deception (i.e. base rate) in this sample is 54% which is hardly ever the case in a screening situation (it's usually much lower). This just adds to the evidence that the polygraph is biased against the truthful, especially amongst with those having unstable physiological responses...

Regards...

  
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: Trimarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #8 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 6:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
What does the research results indicate?  80-95%??


In your dreams.

Quote:
(who BTW I have never actually heard him say that)


He said it on the "Oreilly Factor" (FNN) about two months ago with millions of people watching.

Polygraphers routinely make such bold statements to the gullible public.  Funny they don't on this board.
  

"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 T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Trimarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #9 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 6:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
So if any of our friends in the polygraph community could explain how this "fight or flight" response has anything to do with the situation of an examinee in the polygraph suite, I'd be interested in learning more about this notion.


The FFF response can be aroused without a full blown response.  IOW, your BP goes up slightly...etc.

But here is something I don't understand.  The FFF response is controlled by the lower brain and unconscious mind.  Typically, the polygrapher, after stopping the tape, and informing the test subject that they "had trouble with the question on....", will ask "WHY ARE YOU HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS QUESTION?"

But the conscious mind is not really involved!  How the hell would one know why their autonomic nervous system got just got aroused.  This would explain why people get totally perplexed when told they are being deceptive.  They are being asked to consciously figure out why an unconscious process in their body has reacted (in the polygraphers parlance "Why are you lying!").

Another key point regarding FFF.  It puts one on guard to react to PERCEIVED THREATS, not necessarily REAL THREATS.  It is a primitive response and according to Dr. Herbert Benson, in his book "The Relaxation Response" the FFF response is often elicited in modern man without any REAL threat, and proper avenue for release.  This causes much undue anxiety and stress.

And the pre-employment "witch hunt" test is very broad and arbitrary.

Whoops, gotta go.  My BP is up, and my hands are slightly moist.  I have to go into my meditation room (latrine) and search my soul for what can be causing that!   Grin
  

"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: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #10 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
digithead wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 4:41pm:
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:34pm:
digithead wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:33am:
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 3:16am:
Snip...

Once again, it doesn't fit the mantra of this site, but truly, can you name any reasons why a person would elicit an ANS response to a well reviewed and rehearsed question in a controlled setting, other than the dichotomy of developing a lie (or withholding, minimizing, secreting or rationalizing previously provided information)?

snip...


Hmm, disgust, anger, nervousness, undetected hypertension, vascular diseases, diabetes, thyroid problems, or endocrine disorders immediately come to mind...

Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things don't affect the CQT polygraph?


Got any peer-reviewed research to show that these things do affect the CQT polygraph?

The first few are cognitive thought issues, contributing to the overall state of general nervous tension through the central nervous system,  the rest are biologically altering issues.  The severity one can only assume.  Without having a "specimen" in the chair, one can only hypothesize how or even if their disorder would effect the accuracy of polygraph.  I suspect, unless they are dysfunctional in nature they would not.  

I have tested many people with anxiety disorders, diabetes, hypertension, etc and have gotten good results.    

Sackett


I'm off to the airport so I won't be responding to whatever your next thing is but a quick search of Pubmed turned up this gem from your own polygraph people in 1981, enjoy!

Waid WM, Wilson SK, Orne MT. 1981. Cross-modal physiological effects of electrodermal lability in the detection of deception. J Pers Soc Psychol. 40(6):1118-25.
Quote:
Abstract: This study examined the effects of individual differences in electrodermal lability on cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal responses (EDRs) in the detection of deception. One Day 1 each of 74 subjects rested quietly for 3 min. while skin conductance was recorded. Electrodermal lability was scored for each subject, those giving frequent nonspecific EDRs being labiles and those giving few being stabiles. On Day 2, usually 1 week later, 40 of the subjects attempted to deceive a professional polygraph examiner in a field-type test. The 34 remaining subjects attempted to convince the examiner, who was blind as to each subject's condition, that they were indeed being truthful. Deception by stabile subjects was detected less frequently than was deception by labile subjects. Among truthful subjects, the more labile were falsely detected as deceptive on more questions than were their stabile counterparts. Although accuracy of detection was greatest with the EDR, the effects of lability on detection were similar for electrodermal, cardiovascular, and respiratory measures. Labiles also had a higher heart rate during the polygraph test than did stabiles.


Bolding mine. Btw, labile means unstable...

At least I finally found research that shows that increased individual variability in the four channels measured by the polygraph affects the polygraph's ability to detect deception...

I'll add here that the probability of deception (i.e. base rate) in this sample is 54% which is hardly ever the case in a screening situation (it's usually much lower). This just adds to the evidence that the polygraph is biased against the truthful, especially amongst with those having unstable physiological responses...

Regards...



I am not a researcher and certainly not an academic; however, I do know many variables play into the validity and reliability of any research project.

While I didn't read the entire research report nor study the valididty of it, I wonder, who were the 74 people?  Were they college student just back from spring break with stories to tell? were they working people with problems of their own and given three minutes of quiet would focus on them.  Could this have caused labile responses during this "evaluation" time.  Possibly misdiagnosing otherwise stabiles as labiles.  I don't see any references to control group by which to determine the accuracy of the results.  I see no randomness, which I'm sure you know is the key to many research projects.  I certainly didn't see anything remotely resembling reward or fear of consequences (as in real life), and as is imperative to polygraph research; otherwise, who cares if you catch me or don't... You didn't report the hypothesis, which as you know if not guarded against, becomes the outcome through self proclaimed prophesy, versus actual findings, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not suggesting this project was done incorrectly, but before I make any opinion about it, I want someone with authority, expertise and academic creditials to review all aspects and method to the results to verify it's validity.  There are many, many "research" projects out there which are worth nothing more than a quick publishing.  I would never blindly assume the one you presented here, or which anyone might present, is automatically accurate and valid until reviewed by someone who has that ability.  

On the lighter side, you disproved George's assertions that polygraph is as good as a coin flip.  54%!  It's better!  Thanks for helping... Wink

Sackett
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6155
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #11 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:44pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:30pm:
On the lighter side, you disproved George's assertions that polygraph is as good as a coin flip.  54%!  It's better!  Thanks for helping... Wink


I haven't stated that polygraph testing is like a coin-flip (that is, a 50-50 proposition). Rather a meaningful accuracy rate for polygraphic lie tests is not truly knowable, because the procedure lacks standardization and control. Note also that digithead did not state that polygraph testing has an accuracy rate of 54%. That figure is the base rate of deception in the study population.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Joined: Jan 31st, 2008
Re: Trimbarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #12 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:44pm:
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:30pm:
On the lighter side, you disproved George's assertions that polygraph is as good as a coin flip.  54%!  It's better!  Thanks for helping... Wink


I haven't stated that polygraph testing is like a coin-flip (that is, a 50-50 proposition). Rather a meaningful accuracy rate for polygraphic lie tests is not truly knowable, because the procedure lacks standardization and control. Note also that digithead did not state that polygraph testing has an accuracy rate of 54%. That figure is the base rate of deception in the study population.


Oh come on George.  You wouldn't begrudge me a little literary license and interpretive summation, would you?  Not unlike many statements made here by some of your followers, would you?

And you're right.  Many times ground truth is not knowable; however, when someone is withholding information, lying about something, etc, etc, the polygraph procedure works very well to identify it.


Sackett

P.S.  Remember to insert the standard mantra in your reply.  I would truly be disappointed if you forgot.  It's actually kind of fun to read...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6155
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Trimarco on the Discovery Channel
Reply #13 - Mar 11th, 2008 at 8:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
sackett wrote on Mar 11th, 2008 at 7:59pm:
Oh come on George.  You wouldn't begrudge me a little literary license and interpretive summation, would you?  Not unlike many statements made here by some of your followers, would you?


While other have made the coin-toss analogy, I don't think it is a particularly helpful one for understanding the variables that are at play in the conduct of a polygraph examination. The likelihood of a coin toss coming out heads or tails can be determined with precision. The likelihood of any particular polygraph "test" result being correct or incorrect cannot be determined with such precision.

Quote:
And you're right.  Many times ground truth is not knowable; however, when someone is withholding information, lying about something, etc, etc, the polygraph procedure works very well to identify it.


The difficulties in establishing ground truth under field conditions is an entirely separate matter from the lack of standardization and control that besets polygraphic lie detection. There is only one polygraph technique that can truly help to determine if a person is withholding information (absent a corroborable confession), and that is concealed information testing (such as Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test). The much more widely used Control Question Test cannot determine whether a person is withholding information.

Quote:
P.S.  Remember to insert the standard mantra in your reply.  I would truly be disappointed if you forgot.  It's actually kind of fun to read...


No mantras, Sackett. But some truths bear repeating. Especially in the face of repeated mis-statements from polygraph operators.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Trimarco on the Discovery Channel

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