Ark, all of this is pure speculation.

It's fun, but inconsequential.

Here's the reality:

APA elections are like those for members of the high school student council.

It's a popularity contest.

I am done asking and answering questions of you here, for now.   

I will be hitting the air again soon, and You can have your time.  I will be fair and let you get your message out so long as you are not slanderous and keep it to facts, and keep the ad hominem argument to a min.

For now I am bogged down with two things

1, I am busy with another examiner's screw up's here in Texas, as per usual.  I hate it when examiners don't follow APA or JPCOT guidelines, and in this case, actually break TDLR law.   

After addressing that, I have a family death I have to attend to back home.  SO if you have an issue with my integrity, I will be more than happy to address the issue face to face, if you'd like, time permitting.   

I am on here right now, so I can make clear that I am not ignoring anyone, just addressing some serious stuff right now and this is low on the priority list.   

I love seeing these bulletin board shoot outs.  It's like arguing how the chicken bones should be read after they hit the floor...

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jun 8^th, 2017 at 7:11pm:


Honest Joe -- or should I say "Amy Baker" -- that's a Freudian slip if ever there was one.

You have made clear your desire to see me lose in my bid for APA president elect. Further, you have repeatedly been vulgar, hostile and abusive toward me on this forum.

So, thanks for the offer to get my message out on your little radio show -- but I'll pass. Had you been fair, civil and unbiased all along, I'd probably be interested. But you weren't, so I'm not.

Once again, I am happy to answer your questions (or anyone else's) publicly on this forum. But there's no way I'll submit to a so-called debate with such a flagrantly prejudiced "moderator."

Please accept my condolences on the loss of your family member. 

Dan, take some responsibility.  I got vulgar and hostile in direct response to your hostility to me as an examiner.  Wow, you are like the other examiners in Texas.  You can dish it out, but ya can't take it.

I promised you I would give you your chance, I promised you I'd be unbiased.

Personally, I think you are a destructive force in the industry, with no intent to make the industry better, or even more honest. All you want is destruction    

I do think you are a talker, and that is all you have is talk.  You say one thing and do another, you lack consistency, realistic direction, and humility.  

Lastly, you haven't EARNED any right, other than being a member of the APA, to sit in the President's seat.  You haven't held any other office; you lack ant experience in the administration of an organization like this; other than your "100% accurate and reliable study" you have contributed nothing to industry; and with that, you have contributed nothing in regard to the betterment of the industry. All you want to do is kick everyone down, without offering to pick anyone up.  Where I come from, I was taught, never kick anyone down, without offering to pick them up to be better for the ass whooping.

You lack the ability to admit when you're wrong, or even look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're being unreasonable.  Your words reflect someone that has little to no willingness to treat others on the level, and someone who is incapable of being a man who squares his actions.  

In my eyes, you are not better than the examiners you hate, and the examiners, I am battling.  Over time, I have started to realize, you are little more than a negative image of the same picture, and you have done little to dissuade that opinion.

Lastly, as you have so eloquently pointed out last year, you didn't want my "endorsement."  Which is good, because I think anyone who bases their vote on an endorsement is a brainless drone. Fact is, what difference does it make if I want you to win or not?  If given the choice, I'm not sure the other two would be any better.  In the end, no matter who gets in, I'm still fucked.

If the establishment gets in, I am still at the mercy of TAPE; and moreover, I'm without anyone to call their unethical acts to the carpet.  I am totally convinced, you would leave me hanging too, and then add the rainbow sprinkles of threatening my livelihood, as well as the livelihood of other small, good examiners. People who do their jobs well, and with respect to examinees.

Fair, independent, and unbiased.

You winning doesn't benefit me even a tenth of a precent.  

Having said that, I don't think the other two guys winning benefits me either.  I believe this makes me the most impartial person to do this. 

To be fair, at least you are honest about wanting to destroy the industry.  The rest of the establishment, knows the status quo will eventually destroy the industry; but they are either in denial, or they don't care that the next generation will be left holding the deed to the house with a damaged foundation, for us to fix their greed and mistakes.  

My only interest, is people making a fair decision, based on what they hear, to make an informed decision, in regard to who will do the least damage.

I am going to continue with the broadcasts, if you want no part in it, I will go off what you have made abundantly clear here.  You know the call in number, but you'll answer my questions, or you will be gone.  I would treat the other two in the same way.  

I will not allow you to avoid the questions or twist my questions in a way that your answers are in the form of questions to me.  Frankly, there are still a lot of questions, on past posts, on this thread, you have successfully avoided answering.  

Here is a good question.  See if you can answer it without making me the bad guy.

If there are questions I have asked, which you have successfully avoided CLEARLY answering here, on this string in the past, why should I expect anything different in the future?

You'll dodge that one too, or make it somehow into questions for me.  

WAKE UP CALL.  I'M NOT THE ONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE

If I was, you wouldn't stand a chance.

I, at least want to fix the problems in the industry; and have ideas where the solutions would benefit ALL involved, including examinees.  

That is the difference between you and I.  I believe if you complain about something, you better have a solution in mind.  While I believe increased oversight and regulation are needed, I do not believe dismantling the industry is warranted at this point.

I'll post links, in advance to future broadcasts.  My suggestion is, man up

In regard to you feeling that you are net given a far chance, come down here and live a couple months of my life down here.  Then, and only then, will you know how it truly feels to have the cards stacked against you.

If any of my detractors gave me a chance to lay out my case, in a forum where people would actually listen, I'd face everyone of them, eye to eye.  You run, hide, and cry like a snowflake.  I wish that these assholes in Texas would given me half the opportunity I offer you.   

This is the thing that annoys me the most about you, you lack the ability to turn adversity into strength.  I have no respect for someone who can't see and act on that kind of an opportunity; especially when it is being handed to you.

  

 

Honest Joe, in the 2014 APA elections, I received 15% of the votes for the office of president elect.

In the 2015 race for the same APA office, after an email outreach campaign initiative, I received 28% of the votes cast.

Last year, I received 25% of the APA member votes cast for president elect -- without doing any email campaigning.

Given that my platform has been consistent since 2014, I think it's safe to say that, today, one in four of the APA members who comprise the active electorate supports me -- and I have never even been to a national seminar.

This is significant because it shows an alarming schism within the "dedicated to truth" APA: The realists such as myself are gaining on the "forensic psycho-physiologist" pretenders.

In my opinion, this paradigm shift can be attributed to my rational arguments, coupled with the power of social media.

Let's review my simple, three-point platform:


1. A bill of rights –- similar to those found in the medical and mental health fields -- for polygraph test subjects, to elevate informed consent and avoid potential harms
 
2. Transparent research, including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series, designed to reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose variations in examiner competence
 
3. Equality for all APA members regarding access to political and educational opportunities, thereby reducing the inequities of a de facto caste society

Sounds reasonable to me -- and evidently to many other active APA members

But let's look at what is really driving this...

Polygraph has no proven scientific basis, and there is no universal lie response. Successful application of the polygraph technique is driven by expertise, not by any scientific formula,  dumbed-down paint-by-numbers cookie-cutter "test" method, or cockamamie 'model policy." 

The power of polygraph -- at least for those who are ignorant of how the "test" works -- lies in its effect as an interrogation prop. 

Polygraph is pseudoscience, plain and simple. And because of that, countless thousands (maybe millions) of individuals have been victimized over the decades. That's just plain wrong.

Indeed, the liebox is a very effective electronic rubber hose, or as Doug Williams has called it for decades, a psychological billy club.

You talk about responsibility. Indeed, it's time for cultural change within the APA -- one that's based in reality, not tortured theories about probabilistics.

Now that I've successfully engineered a three-way race, my chance of winning the office of APA president elect is just as good as that of my opponents. 

I am not out to destroy polygraph, but to reform it. However, some organizational deconstruction will be necessary. My supporters know that.

Your obsession with my APA candidacy for president elect seems most odd. You are not even a member of the APA, yet you devote much time and energy to meddling in the APA political process. Should you ever decide to join the APA, I suspect that, based on your YouTube videos alone, your application would be summarily denied by APA authorities.

Let me be clear: I will not participate in your radio program, because you have demonstrated an agenda against me and my politics.

But, I will answer your questions publicly on this forum -- even the ones you say I've "dodged" over the years.

So bring on the questions, or just stop meddling.

Oh and you didn't engineer anything, YOU LIED.   

Not a good way to start a campaign, and again, not a good characteristic.  Be a man, come at someone head on.  Fight a fight with honor.  A wise man once told me, "A tainted win is only the start of a failure"