Quote:Joe -
You'll notice that the anti-polygraph people like George Maschke and Drew Richardson speak like dignified, educated men and never use crude, vulgar language
. Quickfix talks like a thug and actually advocates against the U.S. Constitution. He probably can't read which explains why he doesn't grasp the first amendment. He has to be a polygraph examiner. Framing innocent people with polygraph witchcraft is probably the only way he can earn a living. I am certain he couldn't solve a real case and catch a real criminal.
Ok, back the truck up a wee bit.
Again, A quick reminder that I am unbid in all of this; after all, being independent, fair and unbiased are the hallmarks of a TRUE polygraph examiner. I see both sides of your argument.
George and Drew have never been "crude" that I have ever seen, and although we differ on many aspects of the polygraph debate, they have always been dignified to me, which is far better than I deserve. Because I will admit, I am crude, rude and socially unacceptable. Having said that, I am honest about it and don't hide behind screen names.
So sometimes crude is a good thing. Sometimes the straight forward approach is better than sugar coating.
I will agree, his book and his videos are protected by the first amendment. I am a Libertarian and a huge believer in the Constitution. But this wasn't a first amendment case. It had nothing to do with the book or his videos. If his book or videos were the problem, this would have happened years ago.
The problem was his behavior around actually teaching and coaching the test in such a way as to hide people that told him, according to the evidence presented, that they were trying to hide. His crime wasn't teaching the classes or the book or his video. It was, according to the charges, teaching the classes in an effort to obstruct whatever it is they said he was trying to obstruct. I think I have that right. Anyway, I don't know, I wasn't there, I didn't see the evidence and I was not a trier of fact. With all due respect, neither were you.
Polygraph is here, and people practice polygraph. As such there are people who are going to be against it. As a polygraph examiner, I embrace this only because it creates balance. There needs to be check and balances in all aspects of life that creates balance. This is a universal fact.
Anti polygraph advocates are really friends to polygraph in a weird way. 1, it keeps us, or should keep us honest. If we know, or this is the way it should be, that people are watching, then it should encourage us to avoid appearances of impropriety. 2, it keeps us on our toes and always striving with ways to keep up the opposition. In a way, this is a general business model. Competition is not a bad thing. It keeps people innovative and creative. It encourages everyone to always do better, or sell better, or have better integrity than the guy down the street.
If polygraph weren't here, you guys would just have something else to flip over. This is the human condition.
I will agree that 9 times out of 10 he is an examiner, but then you are under a guest name too and I don't know who you are, so maybe you are one too just playing a game? We don't know.
If he is an examiner, I wish I could look into his eyes and tell him what a bottom feeder he is that would make light of someone killing himself. I also believe that is he is an examiner, he is a coward because he won't stand by what he said and own it.
Everything I say, I own, I don't hide. SO not all examiners are without honor my friend. And what you consider witchcraft, I consider a calling; and I put my future on the table a few times believing in that calling.
That is what makes me better than them. I stand by what I see and I am the ONLY polygraph examiner in the world who can truly say that.
Pages: 
Doug Williams Polygraph Trial Discussion Thread (Read 131954 times)
