Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams (Read 29463 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #15 - Aug 22nd, 2014 at 6:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew Richardson wrote on Aug 22nd, 2014 at 5:33pm:
Dan,

There's very little in this litany of abstract psychobabble to show that the authors’ "research" amounts to anything but a smorgasbord of isolated topics taken out of context from various serious disciplines.  Unfortunately there is no borrowed credibility coming from out of context assertions.

So what do I mean by out of context or in context?  An example... 

In order to examine construct validity for a given procedure, one has to examine the presence or absence of scientific control for the individual necessary/critical subset procedures.  One such subset of activity relates to the “setting” of comparison questions, i.e., the rank deception involved in trying to make an examinee believe that these question subject areas are relevant to the issue being examined in the same sense that the relevant question areas are. 

Quite apart from any lack of propriety and the outright humor associated with such activity (e.g., telling an examinee that the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit has determined that relevant issue perpetrators begin with comparison question violations when no such research or connection exists), there is absolutely no procedure whatsoever in place to demonstrate that such tomfoolery has ever been accomplished with desired results, i.e., was the lie(s) told by the examiner believed by the examinee (one of many things necessary to demonstrate construct validity for the so-called lie detection paradigms)? 

This sort of thing plus the unstandardized/unspecified conversation between an examiner and examinee during the so-called pretest phase of the paradigm makes this whole thing something other than a test that can be examined as to construct validity.

And as Doug has pointed out, the aforementioned doesn't even begin to address the current head-in-the-sand approach to examinee countermeasures.  A procedure that reasonably and in advance of the fact should be viewed skeptically regarding diagnostic validity as a result of said countermeasures can hardly be sold as having construct validity.


Well said Dr. Richardson!  I am delighted that you are still pointing out the absurdity of referring to the polygraph as a "lie detector", and doing it so adroitly - as only a man with your credentials and education can do.  THANK YOU for continuing to bring your insight and wit to this forum.  You mind cuts through the bullshit put out by these pseudo scientists and shows their so-called scientific studies to be, as you so rightly say, nothing but "tomfoolery"!
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 652
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #16 - Aug 23rd, 2014 at 12:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dr. Richardson, in light of your comments, is one to conclude that the American Polygraph Association's hallmark study -- Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques -- is intellectually disingenuous?

  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #17 - Aug 23rd, 2014 at 1:19am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan,

With any given subject matter, I might have an opinion as to the correctness of any assertions made or conclusions drawn, but I am unlikely to have any opinion about the underlying motivations of an individual(s) that I either do not know and/or do not interact with on a regular basis.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 652
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #18 - Aug 23rd, 2014 at 1:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I see your point, Dr. Richardson.

Let's put underlying motivations aside.

I'm fairly confident of what your answer will be, but let me ask you this...  Is the American Polygraph Association's hallmark study -- Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques -- scientifically valid?

Or, as Doug has so succinctly stated, is it "bullshit"?

If there's any middle ground, I'd be interested in hearing your views on that.

In my opinion, the polygraph industry, in large measure, preys on the ignorant and punishes the enlightened. That's why I've adopted an open-book approach to my own polygraph practice. I believe it's critical for consumers to get the big picture about polygraph before taking the plunge. To me, that means helping potential clients understand the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph process.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #19 - Aug 23rd, 2014 at 2:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan,

Although I will be occupied with out of town guests over the next few days, I would be happy to take a look at your referenced APA "hallmark study" if you would care to send me a link to an on-line digital version. 

Perhaps more useful and time efficient for the both of us would be for you to quote various passages of interest to you and I would be happy to provide an opinion should I have one.

As to middle ground (i.e., some legitimate use for the standard polygraph instrument in a law enforcement/security context), my fairly well known views concerning concealed information testing might qualify as such to you.

I applaud you and all others who would offer full disclosure of what is involved and at risk to those who are considering being administered a polygraph exam.

Regards....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 652
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #20 - Aug 23rd, 2014 at 2:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The link below is the APA's official free-access path to the executive summary, full study, and FAQs of their Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/validated-polygraph-techniques/executive-summar...

For our discussion purposes, questions 23 and 24 from the FAQ document might be a good starting point...



"23. What is the accuracy of the polygraph?

There are many factors that appear to affect polygraph accuracy. Among these factors are: the testing
technique, number of charts, number of relevant questions, independence or non-independence of the
relevant questions, ambiguity of the relevant questions, feature selection, scoring rules, decision rules,
use of the "successive hurdles" model, examiner competency, use of a "stim test", CIT or CQT, and
other factors. The use of best practices will allow maximal accuracy.

Questions about polygraph test accuracy are measurement issues involving several dimensions of
concern, including correct decisions, errors, and inconclusive results. Bayesian methods for measuring
and estimating test accuracy, while easily understood are non-resistant to differences in base-rates or prior probabilities. Accuracy estimations based on inferential statistics will be more resistant to base-rate differences.

Although there is no single statistic for characterizing polygraph accuracy, the meta-analysis compared
the accuracy of validated polygraph techniques using the unweighted average of correct decisions, excluding inconclusive results, for confirmed deceptive and confirmed truthful cases along with the unweighted inconclusive rates for deceptive and truthful cases. Because it is impossible to conduct every possible test on every possible person, answers to questions about polygraph test accuracy are always estimates and always depend on the representativeness of the sample data. Scientific calculations of test accuracy include estimates of the range of error, in the form of 95% confidence
intervals that indicate the predicted range of test accuracy if it were possible to complete numerous
additional replications of the accuracy studies.

The 95% confidence interval for unweighted accuracy was
.798 to .940, with a mean of .869. The confidence interval for the unweighted average inconclusive rate was
.068 - .187, with a mean of .128. Event-specific diagnostic techniques, conducted around a single known or alleged problem, have accuracy levels higher than the unweighted average. Multiple issue screening techniques, involving several independent target questions in the absence of any known or alleged problem, have accuracy
levels lower that than the unweighted mean along with higher inconclusive rates.

24. What is the reliability of the polygraph?
The 95% confidence interval for available Kappa reliability statistics was .443 to .842, with a mean of .
642. The confidence range for inter-rater decision agreement, excluding outlier results and excluding
inconclusive results, was .741 to .999, with a mean of .901. Pearson correlation coefficients produced a
confidence interval of .649 to .999 with a mean of .876. All of these are interpreted as good, if imperfect, reliability coefficients."
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #21 - Aug 23rd, 2014 at 7:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan,

I have not looked at the linked material yet and will likely not for a few days...

With regard to the passages about accuracy (presumably in the absence of examinee countermeasures) and reliability, here are my quick thoughts...

The problem that I have with this sort of thing is not with statistics (inferential statistics in particular) nor with any of the various tests chosen.  The problem lies in the assumptions of these tests, most of which require homogeneity amongst sample members with the exception of the condition being tested for, i.e. guilty/deceptive or innocent/truthful. 

Because of the anybody's-guess-nature as to the perceived relationship between comparison question vs relevant question material in the eyes of the examinee and the infinite number of ways a polygraph pre-test can be conducted, almost no two polygraph examinations would objectively be considered to be from an homogenous set, let alone this being deemed for all the deceptive subjects and all the truthful subjects.

This is one of the major reasons I like CIT exams...what little conversation related to the substantive issue can be minimized, scripted, and read, and the key and alternative answers (if constructed correctly) are alike in the eyes of a non-knowlegable examinee.

All of that having been said, my guess would be that CQT investigative exam results are slightly better than chance--the innocent/truthful subject exams at about random chance level and the guilty/deceptive results slightly better.  The latter are slightly better because most investigative exams are brought to an examiner by an investigator.  The investigator's opinion regarding subject guilt is relayed (creating bias) to the examiner, and because the investigator generally has some idea of subject guilt status and more times than not will bring a suspected guilty subject, the bias positively affects the outcome.

When the investigator is wrong this wrong bias is passed on too and everything goes to heck as was the case with the CBS 60 Minutes report in the 1980's (wrong false positive bias intentionally passed on for three fictitious crimes).

Accuracy would be expected to further decline in the case of general screening exams in which the examiner not only does not know guilt status of the examinee, but whether some crime or prohibited behavior has actually occurred at all.  The mind set for the examiner is completely different from a specific incident test...

I would expect the reliability of examiner scoring to be high (unrelated to accuracy/diagnostic validity).  Second or third week polygraph students in a given class pretty much end up with similar chart scores...

I hope this rambling note on the fly is somewhat helpful in elucidating not only the what I believe, but why I believe it as well....

Regards....
« Last Edit: Aug 23rd, 2014 at 7:52pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 652
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #22 - Aug 25th, 2014 at 1:52am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dr. Richardson,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. Your views are most informative.

When your availability permits, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the directed-lie comparison question technique.

In polygraph circles, the directed lie method is becoming increasingly in vogue.  In fact, some polygraph proponents claim the directed-lie approach eliminates the "mind games" associated with traditional CQT techniques, which is seen as somewhat of a step forward.

What say you?

Thanks,
Dan Mangan
www.polygraphman.com
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #23 - Aug 25th, 2014 at 7:15am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan,

I've seen some of the research that supports the directed lie format. But, stepping back and taking an intuitive approach, does it not undermine the concept of the psychological set, in the innocent subject, being oriented toward the comparison questions? Why would the innocent subjects consider them the most immediate threat to their well being if their lying has been turned somewhat innocuous by being so instructed? Would this not degrade the dichotomy, with the relevant questions now in competition?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #24 - Aug 25th, 2014 at 3:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan,

The directed-lie test (DLT) comes with both positives and negatives.  On the positive side...

The DLT does avoid some of the "setting" uncertainty and largely avoids the psychological blunt force that goes along with probable lie CQT comparison question setting during the pre-test phase of examination.  On the negative side...

With any lie test, I believe examinees (both truthful and deceptive) are largely reacting to the consequences of being found deceptive (prosecution, denial of employment, etc) and are not just responsively reacting to the act of lying.  This phenomenon is counterproductive to the task of discerning whether a given examinee is being truthful or deceptive about some given issue and is further accentuated with the DLT which specifies which questions are the ones that have the consequences that warrant being concerned about (the obvious relevant issues-those which the examinee HAS NOT been instructed to lie about) which may well lead to even more false positive results than will occur with the PL-CQT.  Continuing with the negative...

Successful countermeasure execution on the part of an examinee on a standard lie test requires the successful performance on two tasks: (1) recognition of relevant and control/comparison questions (and irrelevant questions as well so as to counter any confusion intentionally added by the examiner about these being comparison questions), and (2) some combination of adequate and properly concealed  physical/mental countermeasures applied to comparison questions. 

Since the DLT identifies the comparison questions, the challenges of identifying which questions to produce countermeasures to is greatly reduced.

So to summarize, as I have suggested in various parts of our ongoing conversation, I do not believe general screening exams work or can properly work under any circumstances and that specific issue testing should be done with properly conducted investigative work (to include good practices regarding non-disclosure of any relevant/key information) and properly constructed and administered concealed information tests...
« Last Edit: Aug 25th, 2014 at 3:58pm by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #25 - Aug 25th, 2014 at 9:42pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have launched a KICKSTARTER campaign to fund a documentary based on my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER: THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION".  Please help me get the word out.  I know there are millions of victims and others who will become victims of polygraph abuse.  This will help stop the insanity of "lie detection".  PLEASE PLEDGE NOW!  For more information, click on KICKSTARTER here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1006420907/from-cop-to-crusader-my-fight-ag...

  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 652
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #26 - Aug 26th, 2014 at 2:22pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dr. Richardson, thanks very much for your thoughts on the DLT.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #27 - Aug 26th, 2014 at 3:35pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dr. Richardson, I completely agree with you when you say, "I do not believe general screening exams work or can properly work under any circumstances."  Yet, in all federal, state and local agencies that use the polygraph, these "general screening exams" are used extensively for just that purpose.  By far the majority of all polygraph exams are "general screening exams" - and they have been proven to be absolutely worthless!


It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for government agencies to rely on the polygraph to "test" applicants with this type of "general screening exam", especially since it has been thoroughly discredited as a reliable and accurate method to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive!  And it is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for anyone to believe they will pass their polygraph "exam" if they just tell the truth!  When you factor in all the damage done to people who are falsely branded as liars by these con men and their unconscionable conduct, this fraud of "lie detection" perpetrated by the polygraph industry should be a federal crime!  The protection provided to some people by the EPPA should be extended to protect everyone from this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!  Shame on anyone who administers these "exams" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!


Wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems?  One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EPPA passed into law.  But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph.  In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system".   The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass.  Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"?  Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed?  Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)?  And why do they insist on continuing to use it?


After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!


  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #28 - Sep 24th, 2014 at 7:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Doug Williams wrote on Aug 19th, 2014 at 10:55pm:
I am preparing to start a KICKSTARTER campaign to raise money for a documentary about my book.Please check it out and let me know what you think.


Gee whiz, Dougy-  project canceled on September 5th after one donation of $100 (you probably "sweetened" the pot yourself).  Guess that tells you that no one gives a shit about you or your book. Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1st4th5thand6th
User
**
Offline



Posts: 28
Joined: Sep 13th, 2014
Re: FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams
Reply #29 - Sep 25th, 2014 at 1:12pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 21st, 2014 at 7:50pm:
That was then. This is now.

Before writing off polygraphy as mere "bullshit," open-minded individuals should look at some of the latest research.

A recent article by John J. Palmatier, PhD, and Louis Rovner, Phd, Credibility Assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the Polygraph Process, and Construct Validity, may give some of the polygraph naysayers due pause.

Here, from the International Journal of Psychophysiology (01/2014), is the abstract:

The term “polygraph test,” particularly in a forensic context, is used generally to describe diagnostic procedures using a polygraph instrument to assess credibility. Polygraph testing has been subject to greater scrutiny, debate, and empirical study than many other forensic techniques. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that, when used properly, the polygraph testing process functions with a high degree of predictive (criterion) validity. However, advocates have failed to address, in a substantive manner, the primary objection often cited by opponents that the polygraph procedure most used in applied day-to-day contexts, that is, comparison question testing (CQT), is atheoretical and lacking construct validity. A review of the available research literature, including that from the neurosciences, psychophysiology, and other relevant disciplines, coupled with an intimate understanding of two commonly used polygraph procedures, the context in which they are used, and the scientific method, strongly suggest that such claims are no longer true, nor warranted. Here, we discuss the interplay of the two most advocated polygraph procedures, the CQT and CIT (Concealed Information Testing), with Preliminary Process Theory (PPT), contemporary writings on memory and other contributions from the research literature relevant to the instrumental assessment of credibility. We conclude that the available scientific evidence establishes not only a plausible theoretical construct that strengthens the practical application of the polygraph process in forensic and other settings, but also concurrently provides directions for future research by scientists interested in the applied assessment of credibility.


Dan...you can quote all the white papers in all the journals you want.  But the simple fact is: neither you, nor the polygraph community, the APA or the federal government can wordsmith around 1 simple irrefutable fact.

There is no correlation between a physiological response and lying.

Given this very simple, irrefutable fact.... your box is nothing more than a prop... and your polygraph process is a total con. 

And even though you sir, the polygraph community, the APA and the federal government can all hold hands together and sing otherwise...doesn't make this simple irrefutable fact UNTRUE!..... 

It doesn't go away, because you and the rest of you  DON'T LIKE IT...

You all know this....and yet you want to somehow con everyone else into believing it...for your own paychecks...

Mr Williams is the ONLY one of you, that has the courage, the conviction to stand up and admit the truth..... its a fraud, it's always been a fraud and all your wordsmithing will NEVER change that.....

You claim you want to run for President elect of the APA?  and you claim it needs an overhaul....   That's implying that this is generally OK but needs a little cleanup....that too is False sir...

Saying the APA needs an overhaul is like saying Jeffery Dahmers  eating disorder could be fixed with proper nutrition Grin..... Bullshit....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
FROM COP TO CRUSADER, by Doug Williams

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X