George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:
 

SLANDER???? 
There is easily as much or more evidence that you were caught lying and cheating than you are able to produce that you were truthful and not cheating. Like I have said before the only evidence you have to support your contention that you "wrongly failed" and were "falsely accused of cheating "is the word of a man who endorses lying and cheating.  Do I really have to post all of those quotes again that prove you endorse lying and cheating? If you believed you had a slander action you could have pursued them against S A Jack Trimarco and Ervin Youngblood

Any wet behind the ears attorney could demolish your credibility on the witness stand without breaking a sweat based on your own written words. 

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker. The other day you were claiming that you Quote:
. I explained to you  the difference between relevant questions and relevant issues. Now that you understand the difference you de facto acknowledge that you do in fact encourage people to lie to relevant issues by now very carefully stating that you have never encouraged anyone lie to "Relevant Questions". This allows you to continue to endorse lying to relevant issues and still maintain some semblance of denial.

Sancho Panza

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 5:01pm:


Malicious.? I for one would have never known that you were busted by S A Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood if you hadn't decided to disclose it to the world. I don't really understand how you could support a claim that anyone who repeats information that you disclosed to the world is acting maliciously. 

False?? Well, you just admitted that you couldn't prove that it was false. I just choose to believe an FBI Special Agent and a Police Employee before I believe you. Neither of these men to my knowledge have ever failed a Polygraph, been accused of cheating on a polygraph, or co-written a book and published a web site which encourages lying and cheating and attempts to instruct people on techniques to allow them to pass a polygraph while lying. Both of these men had long term careers working for agencies where their credibility was subject to constant attack. You barely got started before you were determined to be unsuitable by the people tasked with making those decisions.  

Defamatory ??  Dr. Maschke the foundation for whatever fame or infamy you might enjoy stems from the opinions of S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood.  You should write them a thank you note and praise anyone who furthers your legend by repeating their opinions. You disclosed this information for the purpose of adding credence to your claims of poor treatment and to increase your name association with your cause. You can't really call the information you use to make yourself famous as defamatory. Well, you could, but most people would think it was a silly contention.

The final element of a slander in the legal sense is damage. Perfecting a damage claim regarding something you disclosed about yourself and occurring on a bulletin board where you control access would be somewhat problematic.

You accused the FBI of somehow revealing the results of your Polygraph to Mr. Youngblood which led him and his supervisor to accuse you of countermeasures. Like I said, if you had been slandered, you should have pursued it there. 

You have repeatedly called me a liar yet you have absolutely no supporting information from anyone that I have ever lied to you. All I did was refuse to answer your question about where you could find a research paper. 

You repeatedly side step the truth of the statement that there have been no scientific studies published or otherwise that both state that the countermeasures you endorse are undetectable AND use your book TLBTLD as a cited source for the procedures or techniques for producing undetectable countermeasures. You return to a quote from your book that does not answer the question. You try to use careful semantics to try to pretend that you don't encourage people to lie to relevant issues on polygraph examinations even though you know that all the questions on the test are relevant to the testing process. Even the ones that are not labeled "Relevant Questions" are by definition, relevant.

RELEVANT
Main Entry: rel·e·vant  
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-vənt\ 
Function: adjective 
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up — more at relieve 
Date: 1560 
1 a: having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b: affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c: having social relevance
2: proportional , relative
relevant. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relevant

Sancho Panza

Anonymously slandering someone because you are losing an argument is cowardly and shows a lack of integrity.  But we have come to expect this from the polygraph interrogators who post here.

TC

Pailryder,

The only thing that you can take note of and report (now and twenty years ago) is the number of confessions obtained per number of polygraph examinations administered.  This is not the same thing as the considerably more meaningful number of confessions obtained per guilty subjects examined.  You don't have ground truth for the latter.  You no doubt have confirmation of the true status of only a small subset of the number of guilty subjects that you examined during a given period of time.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 9:05pm:
 
Mr. Cullen,   

First,  Dr. Maschke invites anyone who posts on this board to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Implying that I am somehow cowardly or hiding, simply because I choose to accept his invitation when your buddies, Notguilty1, Sergeant1107, meangino, getrealalready, poly-ana, twoblock and others have also accepted his invitation is simply your foolish, ill conceived attempt at applying a double standard to the posters on this board in furtherance of a feeble attempt to lessen the impact of my argument. I have no way of knowing whether or not your name is really T.M. Cullen and really don't care.


Second,  Dr. Maschke called me a liar when he had zero evidence to support that statement. I however, am criticized when I respond to his accusation ,using his own words to expose his character. 

Third, Just because I am a minority on this board does not mean I am losing an argument. Sometimes being a majority just means that all of the fools are on the same side. 

Have you ever asked yourself; if Dr. Maschke thought or could prove his claim that his career was intentionally damaged by S.A. Trimarco who then colluded with Mr. Youngblood to deny him both a security clearance and gainful employment why he didn't file a lawsuit seeking actual damages for loss of pay, and punitive damages for their illegal behavior and the intentional infliction of emotional distress? My belief is that the only reason he didn't sue is because his career was NOT intentionally denied or damaged by S.A. Trimarco nor did he collude with Mr. Youngblood to deny Dr. Maschke anything in spite of what Dr. Maschke chooses to claim in his undisputedly self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" story.

Besides, my position gained a bit of ground today even GETREALALREADY acknowledges that
getrealalready wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:
getrealalready wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:


I can't wait to see how Getreal tries to wiggle out of those comments. I figure you or he will accuse me of twisting words, even though they are cut and pasted directly from his post. But then I'm nowhere the expert at word twisting Dr. Maschke has proven to be. 

Sancho Panza

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 11:04pm:


Actually I was speaking in generalities, bit since the funny hat fits you so well, its yours.

Sancho Panza

notguilty1 wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 3:16am:

S.P.

I stand completely behind that which I wrote and which you in part referred to (partially quoted):  


getrealalready wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:



Again, If you had merely reported that Dr. Maschke had been found deceptive on more than one polygraph, you would have agreed with his considerably earlier self-report on the matter.  You did not.  You engaged in childish slander.

I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters.  Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.