Quote:Gino everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.
I KNOW I KNOW You guys do it all the time.
The line Gino cited is the take home conclusion of the NAS report. It's not cherry picked to support a conclusion that the report doesn't make, or a view that the polygraph review committee members didn't voice.
Quote:For example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.
T.M. Cullen's citation of the NAS report is not deliberately misleading in the manner you suggest. He highlighted quoted passages in blue. (It would be preferable to have used quote tags for this purpose.) The first passage cited in his last post is from
pp. 212-
13 of the NAS report. The second passage, also in blue, is found at
pp. 214-
15.
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
Quote:...George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.
I have never claimed to be a scientist, never allowed myself to be erroneously characterized as such, nor have I tried to create any such impression.