My beef is not with the APA, the NPA, the AAPP or any other organization outside TAPE or the State of Texas, and I would like to keep it that way.  Now I would love to know what they think that their own examiners in Texas are too afraid of their own test that they claim is up to 89% (from what I see on the APA website).   

Having said that, I think the APA, NPA, AAPP et al. are sitting this one out because it is not their fight.  If this is the case, I think it's a smart decision on their part.  It's never good to get in the middle of two dogs fighting.

If they want to get involved, it is in my hopes it will be to mediate this to an end.  Having said that, it takes two sides to cooperate with a mediation; TAPE has shown they have no interest in keeping their word or making things right; as a deal was made in the past and then they took that deal and my handshake and slapped me in the face like the bottom feeders they are.

My point is, in the state that utilizes polygraph more than in any other state (in my opinion), polygraph examiners are afraid of the very product they try to convince people to use.  Well, except one examiner; me.   

Why would anyone use a polygraph examiner who is scared of his own machine I wonder?  Would you use Chemo therapy from a doctor that wouldn't use it to save his own life if he had the same cancer?

Another example, if you question the cleanliness of a bar, and that bartender says everything is clean from counter to tap; you take a clean glass (or what you believe to be a clean glass), pour a pint, and give it to the bar owner to drink and he won't drink it; would you stay in that bar?

Drew Richardson wrote on May 3^rd, 2015 at 11:51pm:


Doc,
The opposing side seems to have gone silent in recent weeks. So, in order to add balance to the discussion, allow me to play devil's advocate. 

What comes to mind as I read this thread is Matte's "Control Question Verification Test" where he suggests to gauge the efficacy of the Control Questions by utilizing them in a "fictitious" crime scenario. 

Could not this method be applied in a similar (yet crafty) way to see if the examinee consistently responds to a series of relevant questions in which only the examiner knows are from a bogus scenario?--possibly suggesting that the person may not be suitable for testing?