That's lame. Perhaps voting should be a requirement, at least for full members.

quickfix wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2017 at 7:21pm:


The "real" examiners quickfix speaks of clearly fear a bill of rights for polygraph test takers, as well as an ongoing countermeasure challenge series. Indeed, their rejection of those "idiotic" ideas is most telling.

Admittedly, getting 13% of the vote was disappointing. In 2014, I received 15% of the vote for president elect. That number jumped to 28% in 2015, and fell by a few points to 25% last year.

I can't help but wonder how this year's outcome would have differed if the 40% of the usually active electorate who did not vote had participated in the process. (Of the 2,700 APA members, less than 300 voted in this year's elections. Typically, about 500 members usually cast ballots.)

Still, the 13% of the electorate that do support me reinforce the schism that exists within the APA. There is a progressive wing within the organization, and that's encouraging.

I remain hopeful that the fight for ethics, honesty and accountability will gain favor among the APA electorate, and participation in the election process will trend upwards in significant numbers.

Meanwhile, I am content to educate polygraph consumers -- both primary and secondary (e.g., SOTx providers, police chiefs, etc.) -- about the risks, realities and limitations of such pseudo-science, and provide a remedial path for victims of polygraph "testing."

"Ark, frankly speaking, I'm mystified by the purported 40% decline in voter turnout for 2017 as compared to each of the previous three years."

INTERESTING OBSERVATION DAN, AS A MEMBER OF APA MYSELF, I NEVER RECEIVED A BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION BUT DID RECEIVE SUBSEQUENT RUNOFF BALLOTS AND YOUR SOLICITATION DAVE. 

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 15^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:


sorry dan, not me...  Fact is, I haven't been here since our blow out.


if it was me, I'd say it....

Moreover, I wouldn't have said most of the stuff he said; not even on  fake SN.

Lastly, If I was going to pick a fight with you, or anyone for that matter, I would simply log in and start poking.  

But thanks for thinking it was me, that guy has way better Grammar.  

I'll say it again, and I will not back off this position.

The problem is not the test, it is the corruption within the industry and the people who are unwilling to stand up and demand better.

Dan, Jesus Christ could look into your eye and tell you are not 100% right, and you would deny him.  So what is the point of arguing with you?  

I am done with your one way question and answer sessions.  

You fight your fight to destroy the polygraph industry.

I will fight mine to fix the corruption and problems.

You continue to fight behind a keyboard.  

I will continue to fight mine by actually wanting to look my detractors in the eye. I'll keep fighting for the opportunity to be heard and ask questions that the examiners in Texas are afraid to answer, even in a room full of TAPE's own members; confronted with undeniable evidence of their lies, corruption, and unethical acts.   

I'll continue to go to any polygraph meeting I can, and answer any question asked of me.  Unlike you, I back up everything I say, in person, with documentation, and good intentions.  

If only you can say the same.

Dan, you make the implication that I am pro establishment it seems, if this is the case, even the people here will tell you, you're barking up the wrong tree.  In fact, it seems that is all you can do; run to the end of your chain and bark.  This is one of my suspicions why the APA, or anyone in the establishment, has no fear of anything you have to say.  

Seriously Dan, no one has any fear of you.  You are having zero impact, you aren't even warm.  

Anyway, you have to know, some questions for me, are complicated.  I say this, because lets face it, unlike you, anything I have to say, is not only watched, but taken very seriously, and open to internal disciplinary action. Which as you know, are often nightmare scenarios of long processes where I am left to fight the fight alone.  Funny how people say they have my back, but when I need them, actually at my back, they are no where to be found.  

Actually, I take that back. There has been one or two instances, behind closed doors where people have taken up for me.  Having said that, I'd say, 90% of the time, I am on my own, and no matter how right I am, it doesn't matter because the card are stacked against me.  

Now, having said that, examiners and associations outside the state of Texas, have told me, that while they may agree that I am being treated unfairly, they want nothing to do with what is going on in Texas.  So as long as I keep this a Texas issue, I can do what I was so long as I don't cross the line into slander, libel, or badmouthing outside the Texas issue.  

I have my opinions on accuracy and reliability, and while I may not share your opinions as a whole, there are a few that have merit.  I have never said anything different.  

To nutshell it.

I think some of your arguments are subjects of credible reflection and review.  Its the messenger who lacks credibility, because you lack the balls to do that is necessary to go as far as is needed to even ask to be taken seriously, much less be taken seriously at all.

You can make the argument that I am wrong all you want.  You can make the argument that one day you'll be APA president and you will rule from a, "bully pulpit."  Dan, I got a newsflash for ya, it's simply not going to happen.  You will never be elected into any office in the APA, because of your message.  I keep telling you that, and you keep not listening.  

You're the George McGovern of the APA, you keep running hopeless campaigns that you know you will never win.  Having said that, at least McGovern went out there and put his neck out and got involved.  He took credible stands, at times, at great risk to his career.  He went out there and met people, pressed the flesh, looked people in the eye.  He took his stands, and wasn't afraid to look into peoples eyes and justify them.  He didn't lack the courage of his convictions.  

This is one of the reasons why you're not taken seriously, you lack the courage of your convictions.  You avoid putting your neck out at all costs.  You stay here, in your comfort zone, where you think you sit on high and can't be touched, because you're allowed to ignore any question put to you and no one calls you to the plate.  

Hmmmmmmmm sound like what the polygraph establishment in Texas does, huh?

Why should I answer one of your questions, when you avoid giving any real, coherent, and honest, answers yourself?

You give only Hillary Clinton, double talk answers, and then fire out questions demanding detailed answers, and engaging in name calling and schoolyard bullying to deflect your vague answer. All this while shifting the burden onto other people to your demands.  You rely on this to, "win the day."

Here is your playbook.

They are not presented in any particular order.

1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.

2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.

3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.

4. CLAIM THAT IT IS “OLD NEWS” AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. 

5. QUOTE SELECTIVLY. Always quote the selectively, or describe things in a general manner.

6. IF ASKED FOR MORE DETAILS, IGNORE THE QUESTION.

7. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.

8. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).

9. RESORT TO INSULTS.  Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it. 

10. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized. 

11. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning

12. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)

13. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post.

14. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.

Now, to be fair, we all engage in some of these tactics, mostly unintentionally, but you have a pattern of doing this.  I honestly believe, you do these things intentionally, and systematically.  You do it knowing that people will just get sick of a pointless debate, walk away, and you can claim your tainted victory.  

Sorry man, I want debates to actually go there, and I want to actually solve problems.  I don't even think you really know what you want.  

Interesting observation.....

You seem to be quite talented at walking the line and avoiding choosing clear sides on the issue.  On one hand, you say it is pseudo science, while at the same time PRACTICING THE PSEUDO SCIENCE.  

If this isn't hypocrisy in action, I don't know what is.  

You say you hate the APA, or at east men it clear by your words, yet you give it money every year and try to run for office you know you will never win.  Or is it that you are in denial?

WTF is that all about?

You are a walking contradiction.   

Joe McCarthy wrote on Sep 19^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:



Joe, I am able to say that after much perseverance, my polygraph business model has evolved to the point where most of my time is spent in polygraph consulting, not in polygraph "testing."

In those cases where a "test" is administered, I always make it clear to consumers well in advance that polygraph is pseudoscience that has been roundly condemned by the legal, medical and scientific communities since the 1920s.

Yes Joe, my potential consumers are duly informed that the polygraph "test" is essentially without scientific merit. Still, some insist on moving forward. 

Please explain how my providing a requested service to an informed and consenting customer is hypocritical.

Meanwhile, I am content to be the Harold Stassen of APA politics. (George McGovern came and went. Stassen was a perennial candidate.) I'm just a lowly polygraph operator speaking truth to power -- and the APA membership. My campaigns for APA president-elect put me on record as being the only vocal realist in an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth.