TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 21^st, 2008 at 4:55am:


I didn't say I was disagreeing with you, I was just saying that you were very hostile and defensive, kind of like now. I never said they had full civil rights, but the basic ones still stand. The one that is most encumbered by this probation is the 4th and 2dn amendments. The 1st and 5th amendment rights still stand with some restrictions. 

By the way,  I get my information from a lawyer that I pay for this kind of advice before I go shooting my mouth off. So, unless you have a Bar Card, what you have to say in regards to the interpretation of law means nothing to me. I would also thank you to not give legal advice or interpret law without a license to do so. That kind of thing can get you into trouble. I have an idea, let’s let the judges and lawyers decide what a violation of conditions is, after all they are the ones who wrote the law. Do your job and let them do theirs. 

If someone wants to risk getting into trouble, then let them hang them selves. Though I am willing to bet if they are exposing the likes of you, the Judge may be easy on them to get to you.

Moreover you are in no place to inform me of anything. You sound like one of those chart rollers that loves the word inconclusive, just so you can charge for another test, and don't say that examiners aren't looser with inconclusive in PCSOT than with any other test. Lying just insults me and degrades you.

Tell me to you mark your test with the term "utility test"? Oh my, did I use the term “utility test” in my outside voice? Silly me. I wonder if anyone else knows what a "utility test" is.  Or do you run a true polygraph? 
Are all your examinations audio and video recorded? 
Do you run only approved formats? 
Do you hand score all charts or do you give then a quick "global review"? 
Do all your PCSOT tests run a minimum of 90 minutes? 

If you have to think about any of these questions or you get defensive, than my concern is that you are outside of APA standards. Don't say there aren't examiners out there that don't do it, we all know they do and who thay there are.

By the way, I wonder if you can tell me how the GSR works and what is the difference between analog and sensor box GSR? I await this answer with great anticipation. If you know the answer maybe you can tell me, just so I know.  

Next time read the post. Interesting how hostile you have been and you don't deny it. 

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 21^st, 2008 at 3:05pm:


It seems my ahem esteemed colleague    has been happy to tell you that the process is accurate, but fails to "Reach down deep now, and in your cool sobering maturity" tell the posters, at least in part, why he believes the process is accurate. I can now understand why the credibility of the profession is questioned.   Using the "it does so work" argument just causes more questions and suspicion. Therefore I will apologize for my dear colleague from parts unknown and try to explain just a bit more using a post I have made in the past on another discussion. I think you'll find my post far more enlightening.

the following is the cut and paste text from that posting.


 Re: Polygrapher Violating Disclosure of Information to fellow Officers
Reply #11 - Yesterday at 7:44pm      nopolycop wrote on Jan 10th, 2008, 7:03pm:
Please explain to me, Mr. Wolf, how one can "pass" or "fail" an opinion?  It is well established that the results of a polygraph examination is simply the learned opinion of the polygrapher, correct?  With the more experienced, better educated polygraphers likely to have a more accurate opinion, correct?

Assuming the above is accurate, how can one pass or fail an opinion? 
An examiner reading your physiological data and scoring the data based on the degree of physiological arousal that is 
1, timely
2, significant
3, and consistent among the 3 collected charts

Should be able at accurately assess which question you are most afraid of. Lets, remember people, this is not a lie detector, it's a fear detector. We are reading sympathetic vs parasympathetic nervous system reaction. No one can “detect a lie” unless of course that person truly is GOD. And if you do meet God, tell him to call me. I know a lot of people that are trying to find his son and I am sick of them asking me where he is.

While there are some scoring systems that give the examiner a degree of subjectivity, the decision to go to the green or the red SHOULD be an objective one. This is sadly not always the case. Thus bringing me to my next opinion.

I feel, in some cases, the new examiner is more apt to be objective than subjective. The new examiner is fresh out of school, wide eyed and truly eager to do it all "by the book". They will often sit at their desk with a ruler and a score sheet and take 5-10 minutes to score chart #1. ahhhh to be a young examiner. On the flip side of that, the new examiner can miss a few things that only experience teaches. I believe that you learn about polygraph in polygraph school. It's what gets pumped into that new examiners brain after school that makes him/her a chart roller or an examiner.

That brings me to the next issue.

The more experienced examiner, can be someone who truly loves his/her job. They can’t wait to get and sometimes comes home late because time got away from him/her. This is an examiner that trains interns well, quality controls the lesser experienced charts for errors, and corrects the bad habits or unprofessional behavior of the examiners under his or her supervision. Sadly this examiner is not in the majority. 

Some more experienced examiners may have "hit the wall". Maybe he/she has become a bit jaded or has become someone who goes to work, does the job, and goes home like many people that some of us know. They forgot how important it was to be objective and fair. This examiner, in my opinion has many years under his or her belt and can't wait to for the day that they can leave it all behind them and spend their last days in God's waiting room, Florida.

On the flip side of this is the arrogant pinhead that feels that he/she maybe is "God's gift to the polygraph community". This is someone who runs his/her office like a chart factory, feels that they are somehow above the law, and disregards the principals of polygraph because after all, they seem to think they know it all. 

Because they know it all, they try to hire or train as many people as they can in an effort to infect the community with their brand of "truth", making it more difficult for the examiner that does give a crap to make a solid difference that is positive and helpful to the world. This is next to impossible because of the chart roller larva that is infecting this industry with a smothering virus of ignorance, self indulgence, and egotism.

In closing over 51% of the time I would trust the non politically motivated "new guy" to give a fair test over most of the examiners that have been around  25+ years.

Let me know if I have missed anything in my answer. 

I do hope that I have given you more understandable information than "it does so work".

        T.M.

    It would seem you were unable to deal with MY posting altogether, other than recycling something altogether unrelated.  I think this goes to my previous point about the same old Mantras being said over and over with no piercing effect.   

   Please answer this for me if you can.  Math is the only perfect science.  Polygraph (as well as other charts) are converted to mathamatics in rendering a decision.  There are almost endless case examples in specific issue testing of confirmed charts PRIOR to other evidence validating them.  Well trained Examiners with the most modern computer equipment, inclusive of motion sensors, have usually a low end 2% to high end 5% or less Inconclusive rate.  In the remaining 95 to 98% of the time they are able to arrive at a clear point of rendering a clear finding, and one which is usually consistent in those charts.  How do you account for the Examiner's hand score (subjective), as backed by the computer algorithm products (objective) arriving at the same conclusion in such high numbers.  Neither the computer or the examiner place anything on the chart, and it ALL comes from the subject.   

  Please don't respond with your opinion about how you don't like it, as I have a child at the single digit age range who can do that about his food.  Rather, You as an articulate adult please use logic to account for the above variables.  Not a mantra, or blanket statements, but specifically --------- how are they able to do this  ? 

TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 21^st, 2008 at 10:24pm:


Huh?!!!! Are you responding to TM here or me? If you are asking me, you should answer my questions first. 

You should answer anyway. Or are you to busy looking in whatever reading material you have gathered from some class you took from some crackpot with a fake PHD or an absent minded boob that can't even remember to renew a license. Take your choice, because I doubt that you went to a quality PCSOT school.