notguilty1 wrote on May 25
th, 2008 at 4:22pm:
sackett wrote on May 25
th, 2008 at 5:15am:
"B-girl",
That is the whole purpose of this web site. Help everyone, regardless of truth, pass their polygraph test. This includes applicants, CHILD MOLESTERS, criminals, spies, everybody!!! George really does not care who he assists, though he will suppose an aire of indignation when the subject is presented.
This site is all about making polygraph illegitimate in order to do away with the polygraph process. He enlists the assistance of a few whiners who suposedly had false positives, then, Bam! There you are! "All these people" (about 4-5 of them, were falsely ID'd as liars (without any proof whatsoever mind you), so polygraph must be stopped!
Then all the spies can get in...
Sackett
Sackett, In this country if you accuse some one and say they are a liars then, YOU need to prove it NOT the other way around. You should have learned that when you got your GED.
I know in your world King Sackett sits in ultimate judgement of all that come before you. Hell....... you judged me as a liar over the net and you've claimed that simply hearing someones answers to certain questions will tell you they are lying ( the armored car driver statement come to mind) without even being hooked up to a poligraph.
You continue to claim that there are only 4-5 people who have had bad experineces with polygraph ....... there are thousands of people who come here for information and get it "unfiltered" by the site.
People can make up thier own mind. Even without your nonsense.
Did you require proof before you assumed I only had a GED? Did Cullen require proof to call me a liar and all examiners liars during polygraph testing? Did you require proof to assume every other poster here really was telling the truth before posting as a so called false positive? When did you ever require "proof" before spouting your opinion of polygraph or endorsing the opinions of other angry posters? How much polygraph research have you really read up on, or is it just what is posted on this "anti" board that fuels your anger?
No, you are only "entitled" to presentation of proof when accused in a court of law. Does a boss need "proof" to fire you for wrongdoing? No. A simple suspicion is all that is really needed. Does a wife need "proof" or mere suspicion to accuse you of infidelity? Does a mother require "proof" or mere suspicion that a child has done something wrong? No. Does a civil court need "proof" before finding a judgement? No, only a preponderance of the presented evidence!
You see, "notguilty1", you assume too much. There is nothing that requires "proof" before a person can be considered withholding information. Polygraph adds to that suspicion and aides in indentifying the less than forthcoming.
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
As for your indignation due to your own ignorance of human nature... there is really nothing for me to say.
Sackett