Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
AntiPolygraph.org
Make a Donation

   

Important: We strongly recommend that you use the free Tor Browser Bundle when browsing AntiPolygraph.org. (Here's why.) For an alternative, system-wide implementation of Tor, try The Amnesiac Incognito Live System. For better anonymity, guest posting is enabled, and you may use a fake e-mail address (e.g., nobody@nowhere.com) when posting as a guest.

Be aware that polygraph operators also read the discussions on this message board. If you wish to remain anonymous, be careful not to post enough personal detail that you could be identified (for example, the exact date of your polygraph examination).

Try the chat room to communicate anonymously with other visitors presently online. (Choose a user name and leave the password field blank.)

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Reply Add Poll Send Topic Print
FALSE syllogism? (Read 15197 times)
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Hawaii
Gender: male
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #15 - May 16th, 2008 at 4:26pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
Kaisho,

The test is NOT reliable, and is very subjective.

  My experience bears that out.  Your experience bears that out.  The personal experience of many other people bear that out.  The evaluation of the scientific community bears that out.  Test results are generally not admissible in court for that reason.  It is against the law to require an employee or job applicant to submit to the test (except for LE and Fed).

So what more is there to know?  Do you still need confirmation from a practicing polygrapher?   Then again, your question to sackett was probably meant as a challenge and not as a real question.

TC

P.S.  And the test IS based on the FALSE syllogism in my original post.
Back to top
 

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

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



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #16 - May 16th, 2008 at 4:41pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
Yes, Yes, TheKaisho,  you don't know what you meant to say.  Ask Cullen, he knows what you meant to suggest or ask...

My point to you is that the possibilities of the variables influencing the test are emmense and should not be dismissed.


Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #17 - May 16th, 2008 at 5:42pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 16th, 2008 at 4:09pm:
TheKaisho,

your indignation is understandable.  But as your question presents itself my response is this.  With ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.  

Bias, as suggested by cat is certainly a possibility, but there are hundreds of others; however, it is a variable that you have insisted I ignore.  For that reason, I nor anyone (with any true knowledge of polygraph) would be able to explain the dichotomy.


Sackett



Kaisho,

Fortunatly we have another member of the "initiated and soon to be informed club" with us. Welcome. Unfortunatly for you though you had to suffer being accused of a crime you didn't commit.
You posed a very good question to Sackett, who fancies himself as the "house expert" on Polygraph.At this point I don't know if he is or not you be the judge from his posts.
But you see Sackett does not have a good answer to your question because the truthfull answer does not serve his cause, so he is left with no other tool but to put down, critisze and demean anyone who oppses his "psydo-scince" in an attempt to discount you as a lier who is just whinning.
The fact is that you were given 2 equal Polygraph tests and got 2 entirely different results. I am not surprized!
This is the acual reliabilty of Polygraph, pretty much the toss of a coin. Sackett knows this. He has often gone on about the importance of Polygraph and how there are so many "accurate" charts and that one cannot for the most part fool the machine. He has often been know to contradict his own logic and does so again with you.
If the Polygraph is, as they claim 95-98% accurate then how can examiner bias possibly alter the results!
I was given a Polygraph when I was accused of a crime and failed in spite of telling the FULL truth.
I like you was looking for some explaination of how this could happen and once I discovered what was going on with Polygraphs I decided to stay on here and help eliminate Poly's.
Because they DON"T work. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Hawaii
Gender: male
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #18 - May 16th, 2008 at 9:12pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
Quote:
if the Polygraph is, as they claim 95-98% accurate then how can examiner bias possibly alter the results!


And how can there be, as Sackett suggests, an immense number of factors involved? 

For example, examiners would have people believe that the simple physiological readings the machine measures can tell if a person is being DECEPTIVE, even though the person is telling the truth.  Very simple and straight forward, not as complicated as Sackett makes it out to be.  "It's very simple Mr. Applicant.  The machine says you are lying.  SO FESS UP!"

But when questioned, polygraphers say the process is so very complicated.  Many factors involved.  You're mind is just to small to comprehend the process.  Only the ORDAINED can fathom the complexity!

Modern day "witch doctors", if you will.

TC
Back to top
 

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

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box nopolycop
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 383
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #19 - May 16th, 2008 at 10:50pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 16th, 2008 at 4:09pm:
With ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.


It is precisely this argument, (the number of variables which cannot be controlled) which renders the results of any given polygraph test an unscientific guess.
Back to top
 

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



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #20 - May 17th, 2008 at 12:19am
Mark & Quote Quote 
Well, well, well, I see the whole gang is awake and has come around to attack the poor, lonely examiner...

Anyway, yes, it is true.  I believe the polygraph process is about 90+% accurate; however, the accuracy, viability and utility of the polygraph rests with numerous factors.  These factors, otherwise called variables, which the "anti's" now discount as possibilities effecting the entire process and outcome, is a very important factor for consideration. 

Everything you can imagine can affect the process, and while we can assume many things, it is up to the examiner to ensure those factors are as minimized as much as possible to ensure the results will be accurate.  Sometimes, variables are minimized and lied about by the examinee, which the examiner has no knowledge or control over.  This could certainly have an impact on the examination.

Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda.

TheKaisho,  you can make up your mind what is right and what is wrong.  I hope this (all) has helped in some way to explain your question.

Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Connecticut, USA
Gender: male
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #21 - May 17th, 2008 at 12:39am
Mark & Quote Quote 
It certainly seems logical to say that if the "variables" are neither quantifiable nor fully controllable, then you can never have an accurate test.

Claiming that the test is more than 90% accurate as long as a bunch of unquantifiable, uncontrollable variables are set up properly is nonsense.
Back to top
 

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous ętes intellectuellement faillite.
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #22 - May 17th, 2008 at 2:40am
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 17th, 2008 at 12:19am:
Well, well, well, I see the whole gang is awake and has come around to attack the poor, lonely examiner...

Anyway, yes, it is true.  I believe the polygraph process is about 90+% accurate; however, the accuracy, viability and utility of the polygraph rests with numerous factors.  These factors, otherwise called variables, which the "anti's" now discount as possibilities effecting the entire process and outcome, is a very important factor for consideration.  

Everything you can imagine can affect the process, and while we can assume many things, it is up to the examiner to ensure those factors are as minimized as much as possible to ensure the results will be accurate.  Sometimes, variables are minimized and lied about by the examinee, which the examiner has no knowledge or control over.  This could certainly have an impact on the examination.

Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda.

TheKaisho,  you can make up your mind what is right and what is wrong.  I hope this (all) has helped in some way to explain your question.

Sackett


Now please note folks that Sackett on numerous occasions has come on here to say that there are just a few of us "antis" as he puts it.

And of course he has no explaination on how these "factors otherwise know has variables" can possibly make a truthfull examinee into a lier.
Other than to say ........... your simply not being fully truthfull. Any other explaination would not bolster his agenda.
He does however at times say that the need for a deception detection device is very much needed and since we have no other device....... well ....... we just use this and make people believe that it accually works.
Shocked
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Hawaii
Gender: male
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #23 - May 17th, 2008 at 1:31pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
An he doesn't even give examples of these "variables". 

And again, examiners claim there is only a 2-5% chance that a reaction means something other than deception.

All these pesky little "variables" to control, lest they "effect the entire process and outcome".  Yet the test is 95% accurate.  Seems counterintuitive.

Quote:
Claiming that the test is more than 90% accurate as long as a bunch of unquantifiable, uncontrollable variables are set up properly is nonsense.


That all these variables exist is quite shocking.  My NSA polygrapher Mr. lingenfelcher, assured me that the there was only a 2% chance a reaction on the machine meant anything other than "deception".  Dirty rotten fibber!

TC
Back to top
 

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

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



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #24 - May 17th, 2008 at 6:00pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
By referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean? 

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider. 

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?! 

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #25 - May 19th, 2008 at 10:26am
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 17th, 2008 at 6:00pm:
By referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett


The fact is that you are the lonely examiner here, the only one that continuely come here and posts messages that contradict others that you post and that fly in the face of the supposed "accuracy" and "validity" of your "science"
The other "examiners" are wise enough to keep quiet when the facts are against them....... Not you Sackett, you continue thae mantra no matter the facts and evidence. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the casue.
VARIABLES ..... a new factor to consider .......... I.E. ( if the examiner AKA wizard of oz believes you)  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box sackett
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #26 - May 19th, 2008 at 11:07am
Mark & Quote Quote 
notguilty1 wrote on May 19th, 2008 at 10:26am:
sackett wrote on May 17th, 2008 at 6:00pm:
By referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett


The fact is that you are the lonely examiner here, the only one that continuely come here and posts messages that contradict others that you post and that fly in the face of the supposed "accuracy" and "validity" of your "science"
The other "examiners" are wise enough to keep quiet when the facts are against them....... Not you Sackett, you continue thae mantra no matter the facts and evidence. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the casue.
VARIABLES ..... a new factor to consider .......... I.E. ( if the examiner AKA wizard of oz believes you)  Grin


"notguilty1"

I can't answer why other examiners do not post here.  I know a LOT of examiners read this board, but someone has to present a balanced side of realty because you guys have really missed the boat.  That's OK, I remain entertained.

Your suggestion that I am simply posting contrary thoughts and opinions here and can't really remember my own lies is baseless and pathetic.  While I conflict with many posters on this board, my ideology and beliefs are constant because it is what I believe, based on my experience, training, education and past.

Besides, where exactly have I posted "one thing" then contradicted myself?  I post what I believe, nothing more, nothing less and think readers can make up their own mind.  BTW, I would appreciate a specific example and now that you have made the accusation, please do not nitpick, it makes you look petty.

Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #27 - May 19th, 2008 at 5:26pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 19th, 2008 at 11:07am:
notguilty1 wrote on May 19th, 2008 at 10:26am:
sackett wrote on May 17th, 2008 at 6:00pm:
By referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett


The fact is that you are the lonely examiner here, the only one that continuely come here and posts messages that contradict others that you post and that fly in the face of the supposed "accuracy" and "validity" of your "science"
The other "examiners" are wise enough to keep quiet when the facts are against them....... Not you Sackett, you continue thae mantra no matter the facts and evidence. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the casue.
VARIABLES ..... a new factor to consider .......... I.E. ( if the examiner AKA wizard of oz believes you)  Grin


"notguilty1"

I can't answer why other examiners do not post here.  I know a LOT of examiners read this board, but someone has to present a balanced side of realty because you guys have really missed the boat.  That's OK, I remain entertained.

Your suggestion that I am simply posting contrary thoughts and opinions here and can't really remember my own lies is baseless and pathetic.  While I conflict with many posters on this board, my ideology and beliefs are constant because it is what I believe, based on my experience, training, education and past.

Besides, where exactly have I posted "one thing" then contradicted myself?  I post what I believe, nothing more, nothing less and think readers can make up their own mind.  BTW, I would appreciate a specific example and now that you have made the accusation, please do not nitpick, it makes you look petty.

Sackett


OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."
You have made remarks that, the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually know for sure that any chart is accurate) now, on this thread ( as well as others) there are, ........ this time you call them "variables".
"The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen"[/highlight as you point out.
Because, the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual that may or may not be lying.

Also, you mention that we want to "[highlight]throw it all out,rather to try to improve it
".
You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we've got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because, ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work AKA antis cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying.

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



Posts: 347
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #28 - May 19th, 2008 at 5:49pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
"notguilty1", the following was cut/pasted to reduce a simple "quote" which would take half a page and is superfulous to this discussion.

You wrote:  "OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."

You have made remarks that the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually knowfor sure that a chrat is accurate) now on this thread ( as well as others) there are ........ well this time you call them "variables".
The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen" as you point out because the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual.

Also, you mention that we want to "throw it all out,rather to try to improve it".
Well, You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying."

I suppose you need to be reminded that "the machine" does nothing more than collect and record physiological and biological data.  "The machine" is never inaccurate (unless broken) as it simply receives information and tranfers it to a computerized program (or energy in the case of the analog instrument) which in turn places it onto a chart. 

The variables of which I mentioned which effect the process (though not asked for by the original poster to discuss; as you guys have hijacked this conversation) were all the other factors that have a consideration in polygraph.

Therefore, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion or provide any example that I have conflicted myself in any way shape or form!

Finally, I do not believe it is talking in circles (i.e. circular logic) to suggest that if someone, such as yourself is to crusade against something that works, despite your assertion it is enternally and completely flawed, that perhaps having an idea of something else to take it's place is unnatural or uncalled for!  I think it makes common sense. 

Besides, eyewitness testimony is perpetually flawed and innaccurate (estimated at 60-70% innaccurate) .  Do we now discard all witness testimony unless tied fastly to technical or scientific evidence?  Based on what you (and others) suggest, eyewitness testimony or opinions should never be allowed in court or in civil proceedings; because of it's inherent flaw and lack of accuracy.  So much for a witness box...


Sackett
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Paste User Name in Quick Reply Box notguilty1
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 300
Re: FALSE syllogism?
Reply #29 - May 19th, 2008 at 9:19pm
Mark & Quote Quote 
sackett wrote on May 19th, 2008 at 5:49pm:
"notguilty1", the following was cut/pasted to reduce a simple "quote" which would take half a page and is superfulous to this discussion.

You wrote:  "OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."

You have made remarks that the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually knowfor sure that a chrat is accurate) now on this thread ( as well as others) there are ........ well this time you call them "variables".
The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen" as you point out because the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual.

Also, you mention that we want to "throw it all out,rather to try to improve it".
Well, You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying."

I suppose you need to be reminded that "the machine" does nothing more than collect and record physiological and biological data.  "The machine" is never inaccurate (unless broken) as it simply receives information and tranfers it to a computerized program (or energy in the case of the analog instrument) which in turn places it onto a chart.  

The variables of which I mentioned which effect the process (though not asked for by the original poster to discuss; as you guys have hijacked this conversation) were all the other factors that have a consideration in polygraph.

Therefore, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion or provide any example that I have conflicted myself in any way shape or form!

Finally, I do not believe it is talking in circles (i.e. circular logic) to suggest that if someone, such as yourself is to crusade against something that works, despite your assertion it is enternally and completely flawed, that perhaps having an idea of something else to take it's place is unnatural or uncalled for!  I think it makes common sense.  

Besides, eyewitness testimony is perpetually flawed and innaccurate (estimated at 60-70% innaccurate) .  Do we now discard all witness testimony unless tied fastly to technical or scientific evidence?  Based on what you (and others) suggest, eyewitness testimony or opinions should never be allowed in court or in civil proceedings; because of it's inherent flaw and lack of accuracy.  So much for a witness box...


Sackett


I know I know. Polygraph is more accurate than any thing else out there. That must be why eye witness testimony IS admissable in court and Polygraph is not!
If this was only so, what a great machine it would be at detecting lies which I remember you saying that it does not yourself. ( don't have the time to find it it your post. I accually work for a living.)
What you say though is true the "machine" does nothing more than collect and record data. It is the polygraph industries contention that somehow that means it can accurately detect deception is what's in question in this........very successfull web site.
If it wasen't and we were all full of it ........... we all would not be here.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Reply Add Poll Send Topic Print
FALSE syllogism?
Open Live Preview Live Preview


You can resize the message area by dragging the right- or bottom border.
                       
Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1: