sackett wrote on Mar 28^th, 2008 at 3:07pm:



Well, Yes I guess your right and this board could be filled with people that come on here to just come up with untrue stories but then of course that would apply to you too Sackett we don't know that anything you say is true either.
So lets not get caught up in that. I think most readers can work through what they can or cannot believe and what is probably true.

...and what about the "anti" posters, posting as multiple personalities here.  In other words, trying to make this board look active with many posters and victims, when in fact, there are VERY few...?

Sackett

Twoblock wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 6:33pm:


You make an interesting statement.  Especially given that every examiner on this board has been attacked as liars, unethical charletons, rude and criminal in nature and actions.  Many of the anti posters here are caught up in a fanatical cause.  That's OK, you'll attack me as doing the same, when all I do is my job.  Difference is, you took a test, apparently failed and now crusade against it; while I perform them and make my living from them and successfully I might add.

If you don't "get" a statement, you PM George?  That's not seemingly unbias on your part; therefore, your intentions and purpose are obvious.

This site is not about any truth, but how to attack polygraph and make it less viable.  Call it a conspiracy, call it a crusade, call it freedom of information, call it a chat room, I don't care.  Problem is, as previously stated to Mr Cullen, it is NOT going to go away!  The minimal efforts here hardly have any effect on the use of polygraph as a whole, while examiners are in fact working hard to get standardized and more professional.  This site does in fact help in that effort.

As for pre-employment testing.  Examinees who come for pre-employments who "play" around in the test or display an attitude, will most likely not get the job they desparately want and probably worked hard for.  So who's really tricking and being dishonest to whom...?  

With only one recent claim that CM's worked (ie, sniper; and even he admitted he didn't really need them...)  where are the many examinees who I (and others like me) catch on a fairly frequent basis?

Let's agree to disagree!  

Sackett   

P.S.  As for "anti" poster imposters?  Yes, it is apparent, but no, I can't prove it to you.  Read the typos, misspellings and stories and they are clearly made by more than one, BUT, many are also as obviously repeated by the same, under a different name.  As for providing proof of anything.  Can you provide me proof that examiners can not identify CM's better than "chance"?  Or better, can you provide me proof that CM's actually work?   Empty challenges, by either side, mean nothing.

sackett wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 4:11pm:


And who would these people be, praytell?

Quote:



Well, they have to make a living.

Besides, got anything better to replace it?

Blah! Blah! Blah!

P.S.  How do you KNOW you were telling the truth?   

They claim a 95-98% accuracy rate.  What are the chances you were in that exceptional 3-5% on THREE SEPARATE TESTS.

I find that hard to believe!

      Fair Chance,

   I think you make some very good points in that no real professional should fear their test being video taped and/or audio taped as to show the event later to authorized concerned parties.  One does however give up certain privacy rights when applying for a job that pays via taxpayer money, but ofcourse those areas that an examiner may no go into are covered by labor law in both federal and your respective State statutes / or labor case law.

twoblock,

yes, I do skim read.  Reason is, much of the blustery garbage I read here is just that.  I'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.   
Opinions are like, well, you know the rest...

Having said that, I recognize you took one test, way, long time ago and that you reportedly used CM's.  OK.  Times change and so do (slowly) the ability of examiners.  When you took your test, grandfathering of training was still acceptable.  No longer.

What question are you saying I failed to answer?  I'll bet I answered it somewhere here and you might be just as guilty of skim reading... 

Sackett

P.S.  I agree.  No anomosity.  Have a good summer and "see" you when you get back.