The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


  Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
  Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
  Why does the APA support the psychological rape of children?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Why does the APA support the psychological rape of children?
Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-23-2013 10:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
The current issue of Polygraph contains the "Model Policy for the Evaluation of Examinee Suitability for Polygraph Testing."

Here's a particularly worrisome excerpt...

quote:

4. Examinee suitability. Persons who are able to undergo polygraph testing should minimally meet the following requirements:

4.1 Age 12 or older.


Age 12 or older? TWELVE?

This is madness.

If a minor under the age of 18 (in some states) cannot legally consent to sex, then why is it OK to make them submit to rape by polygraph?

Is the polygraph indu$try so hungry for more "te$t$" that it is willing to sacrifice underage individuals who are incapable of giving consent?

Who are the APA "officers" who signed off on this lunacy? Identify yourselves. Come forward on this forum -- right here, and without delay -- and justify your position.

And by all means, bring the polygraph-specific data I'm you must have that supports this folly.

You should be ashamed.

Dan

IP: Logged

wjallen
Member
posted 01-23-2013 02:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for wjallen   Click Here to Email wjallen     Edit/Delete Message
Dan

I am not speaking for the APA, but only for myself. At the request of the child's family and the county sheriff, I polygraphed a 12 year old charged with and later convicted of capitol murder. A sad and truly tragic case for all involved. I find your characterization of my participation in this case as a rape by polygraph inaccurate and offensive.

IP: Logged

liedoctor
Member
posted 01-23-2013 02:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for liedoctor   Click Here to Email liedoctor     Edit/Delete Message
I once tested a 14 year old girl suspected of breaking into a friend's locker at school and stealing a valuable camera. By the end of the test, (and with the permission of her parents) we recovered from her bedroom at home, several thousand dollars worth of property stolen from multiple student lockers, two department stores, several homes of friends, and most of the fashion outlets at the local mall. As I recall, this was a pretty "grown up" 14 year old with a vocabulary that would have made any sailor proud...I'm pretty sure the term "rape by polygraph" would not be particularly appropriate in this case.

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-23-2013 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
I'm sure there are countless such anecdotes where the lie detector has been used to terrorize a child "for the greater good."

That doesn't make it right.

The bottom line is that the child CANNOT give consent.

Of course, the APA will find a way to ju$tify f*cking with a kid's mind.

Remember, Johnny, the polygraph KNOWS when you lie!

Tell me, is the trick stim "test" part of this perverted package?

Incredible.

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 01-23-2013).]

IP: Logged

clambrecht
Member
posted 01-23-2013 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for clambrecht     Edit/Delete Message
*********************Deleted***************************

[This message has been edited by clambrecht (edited 01-25-2013).]

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-23-2013 03:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
There is no harm to the examinee regardless of their age.

A grotesquely blind and most telling comment, emblematic of the law enforcement mindset.

Anyone have Katelyn Sack's number handy?

IP: Logged

Ted Todd
Member
posted 01-23-2013 08:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ted Todd     Edit/Delete Message
Dan,
Sorry for the rant last PM. You really hit a nerve when you used the term rape. I will always be proud of the work we all do. I don't share your views.

Take care,

Ted

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 01-23-2013).]

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 01-23-2013).]

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 01-24-2013).]

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-23-2013 11:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
Ted,

That was spoken like a most dedicated polygraph apologi$t.

One more time: A child cannot -- I repeat, CANNOT -- consent to a polygraph "test."

But you run it anyway.

Does that make you a polygraph pimp, or a polygraph whore?

You can get back to me later on that, but meanwhile, please answer me this...

If a child is given a polygraph that results in a false positive, do you think that child's psyche can be harmed? If not, why not? If so, is running the test worth the risk? And who are YOU to say?

Dan

IP: Logged

necotito2
Member
posted 01-24-2013 11:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for necotito2   Click Here to Email necotito2     Edit/Delete Message
"Model Policy for the Evaluation of Examinee Suitability for Polygraph Testing."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941025&slug=1937798

Guess APA proposes guidelines, not supportive!!

IP: Logged

Brownjs
Member
posted 01-24-2013 02:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Brownjs   Click Here to Email Brownjs     Edit/Delete Message
My good friend Dr. Kang Lee has some more contemporary publications on this topic. It's now understood that children start to lie very early in life.

Dr. Lee is the real deal. He's certainly not one of those self appointed experts. This is an international scholar with genuine credentials.
http://www.kangleelab.com/Projects.html

I'm not sure what's right or wrong morally but this is relevant to the topic.

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-24-2013 04:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
It's now understood that children start to lie very early in life.

So what.

Children reach puberty earlier.

Children have sex earlier.

Does that mean we should lower the age of consent for adult-child sex?

Polygraphing kids twelve years old. Sick. God help us.

What's striking about the APA's de facto endorsement of the psychological rape of children by polygraph is the blatant commercialism of it all.

Establishing a ridiculously low age -- twelve -- for examinee $uitability opens so many doors of opportunity.

Hell, it's gotta be a gold mine. No alchemy required.

I'd like to know, specifically, which board members currently profit from running polygraph "tests" on children.

Please, don't be shy. Stand up and be recognized!

But don't stop there. Like Ted, tell us about your remarkable "See, it works" moments putting children on the LIE DETECTOR.

Tell us about all of the budding Trayvon Martins that you put on the path to righteousness.

But while you're at it, be sure to share with us the false positives. You know, those kids who told the truth and were called liars.

Oh wait, you don't have any? Polygraph "works" with children all the time? As in 100 percent?

Well, there's another big opportunity for you!

Start lobbying to put a polygraph operator in every school in America. They can keep all those armed guards company, share war stories and stuff.

Come to think of it, the APA does have an NRA-like mentality...

Just as the NRA's solution is always more guns and less laws, the APA's solution is similarly MORE te$t$ and LESS restrictions.

The APA decision makers have long lamented the lack of public awareness about polygraph.

Soon, they're gonna get it.

Dan

IP: Logged

Brownjs
Member
posted 01-24-2013 04:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Brownjs   Click Here to Email Brownjs     Edit/Delete Message
“So what”

My observation is that Dr. Lee’s research has passed ethics review with the following Universities:

Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

It’s obvious that these ethics review boards and the children’s guardians do not see Kang’s testing of a child’s credibility as being harmful.

It’s an interesting discussion Dan and I do respect your passion.

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-24-2013 05:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
Jamie,

When we get similar buy-in from psychology departments at major universities who have carefully studied the effects of hooking up children accused in criminal cases to polygraph machines, then I'll be impressed.

Until then, I'm afraid the APA is simply looking for trouble -- both legal and financial.

Dan

IP: Logged

Brownjs
Member
posted 01-24-2013 06:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Brownjs   Click Here to Email Brownjs     Edit/Delete Message
You may be right Dan and I certainly do understand your concern. A credibility examination on a child does provoke thoughtful consideration.

My humble opinion is that our profession has much bigger fish to fry.

Respectfully,

JB

[This message has been edited by Brownjs (edited 01-24-2013).]

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 01-24-2013 08:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E   Click Here to Email Bill2E     Edit/Delete Message
After looking thru the Model Policy for the Evaluation of Examinee Suitability for Polygraph Testing, I am concerned about several areas. We are taught in basic polygraph schooling how to screen examinees, why do we need a policy developed by the APA which goes much further than necessary in its statements? An age range is not good, it should be confined to the examinees ability and mental suitability for testing. I have not seen a 12 year old that I personally would give a polygraph examination to with any confidence in the result.

The portion in the policy regarding medications should have been written by an MD not a PHD unless the PHD is in pharmacology. According to a number of the stipulations in the model policy, I am not qualified to take a polygraph examination. (Therefore I may not qualified to give an examination.) MAYBE WE have gone one step too far in this model policy and MAYBE WE should revisit this model policy.

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-24-2013 10:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
Ted:

No worries, my Backster Brother. It's all good here on The Polygraph Place forum.

Jamie:

Indeed, we have plenty of big fish to fry. But I'd like to help protect those who cannot protect themselves.


Bill2E:

I agree with you.

After taking a close look at the "suitability" document, I'm seeing a definite trend...

Virtually all of the APA's "model" policies are models in their own right -- models of feel-good self-aggrandizing industrial happy talk that are little more than underthought but overwrought exercises in mental masturbation laboriously concocted by a circle-jerk of like-minded pretenders totally entrenched in the illusion of providing workable solutions for self-identified problems created in a grossly egotistical and laughingly microcosmic trade setting that is effectively detached from reality.

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 01-24-2013).]

IP: Logged

clambrecht
Member
posted 01-25-2013 12:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for clambrecht     Edit/Delete Message
Dan- I take back my comment to you above- and regret trying to reason with you. Oh and thanks for the insult of me and my profession.

You are a member of an association that you financially support yet you denigrate them with inflammatory rhetoric and fallacious arguments. You attack those who disagree with you and your biased comments are meant to be incendiary for "effect". Confounding rape with an APA guideline is an insult to true victims. Google "straw-man arguments" sometime and then ...you know.....learn not to deploy them. Your confirmation bias blinds you and your demeaning tone is repelling.

Nevertheless, I concede and you "win" - I am taking a sabbatical from this forum and will return when it becomes educational again. The negativity you spew is toxic.....

The gentleman below had the most eloquent and rational response in this entire thread :

"You may be right Dan and I certainly do understand your concern. A credibility examination on a child does provoke thoughtful consideration.
My humble opinion is that our profession has much bigger fish to fry.
Respectfully,
JB"

[This message has been edited by clambrecht (edited 01-25-2013).]

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 01-25-2013 07:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E   Click Here to Email Bill2E     Edit/Delete Message
Dan, your going on a tangent again, please don't do that. Some of your points are valid, many are not. I'm commenting on personal beliefs, not statistical facts with back up studies. I just have a personal problem with establishing a policy that extends this far.

I have, in the past, required individuals to obtain a doctors release to take an examination due to physical problems or mental problems. I do try to obtain this information from a qualified MD or PHD that is treating the individual. Many times I have not tested due to the limitations, others have been given the exam when their doctor states they are suitable subjects.

With medications, if the subject has been on a specific medication for a long period of time and have acclimated to that medication, the MD will occasionally say it should not affect the result. I am always cautious when conducting these examinations and state my concerns in the report i type to the requesting party.

In one case an examiner conducted a test on a subject the PHD stated he would pass because he believed his own lies and demonstrated this over a two year period. Another examiner tested him and found him NDI, a court case continued and the polygraph was not admitted due to the subjects mental condition.

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-25-2013 07:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
Corey,

As an Okie, I'm sure you're familiar with the old joke about the farmer, his mule, and a 2x4.

The farmer's punch line: Well first, I have to get his attention!

Now, Corey, get over the shock of how I said what I said, and look at what I said.

Break it down. Parse it out. And then tell me what's inaccurate.

These model policies are designed, in fact, crafted, to add to polygraph's imprimatur of imaginary legitimacy.

More on that later.

I ask you: Is hooking a 12-year-old kid up to a "lie detector" good policy?

Further, should it be model policy?

Again, the only groups that take polygraph seriously are those with a vested interest in it -- and poorly educated people who watch a lot of morning television shows.

Stick with me here...

Does the American Psychological Association take polygraph seriously?

No.

Does the American Medical Association take polygraph seriously?

No.

Generally speaking, does the scientific community take polygraph seriously?

No.

Generally speaking, do the courts take polygraph seriously?

No.

Does the American Polygraph Association take polygraph seriously?

Yes, of course.

Does the American Polygraph Association take polygraph -- and itself -- a little too seriously?

Absolutely.

The APA's hard work crafting model policies is basically for naught because polygraph's legitimacy is make-believe.

Can't you see that?

Get the buy-in from the psychological, medical, scientific, academic and legal communities, and I'll sing a different tune.

Until then, let's get real.

Dan

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 01-26-2013 08:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson   Click Here to Email rnelson     Edit/Delete Message
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

The real issue here is whether the APA and the polygraph profession will benefit from improved guidelines around examinee suitability.

At present, examiners are often criticized, from outside and from within the profession, for testing people of certain agaes, or who take medications, or have been diagnosed with any the wide variety of presently known medical or mental health disorders or have any form of identified disability or exceptionality.

Accusations of unethical conduct and invalid examination results are all too easy whenever it is time to defend an exam - and without with constructed guidelines the words "ethical" and "valid" tend to wielded like cudgels. Examinee suitability is a common area for this.

Part of the problem is this: 1) examiners have routinely written everyone as "fit" for the polygraph if they completed a test, no matter how many medications or what kind of problem, and 2) standard practice guidelines in the past said simply that we were to determine each examinee's suitability prior to testing - with little to no actual guidance or standards about how to do that. Suitability decisions eventually came down a simple matter of "that's the way I saw it in my professional opinion," and contests came down to a matter of professional vanity and who has the better resume, instead of referencing any actual standardized guidelines or evidence.

In fact, examiners have been unnecessarily vulnerable to criticism around many exams.

Criminals, including sex offenders, are often not healthy normal-functioning persons. They sometimes have a variety of mental health and physical health problems, and (if you can imagine) co-occurring substance use problems.

So what is the best thing to do? Wait and do nothing until a big case or a big lawsuit occurs. We could do that? Suitability discussions probably occur around every legal discussion of the polygraph. Its only a matter of time before attorneys hone their arguments and attacks.

How man criminal suspects, for example, smoke a little tiny bit of medicine before a polygraph - just to help them stay calm? Should we test them. How many of them have a beer or two with lunch before a polygraph? Should we send them home and politely ask them to return when they are completely sober?

Its only a matter of time before we start to see a bit of an increase in the visibility of PSTD in our culture. 80% of those cases can be expected to have a co-occurring mental disorder and 40 to 60 can be expected to have a co-occurring substance use disorder. Some of them will find themselves in the kind of trouble for which they may get referred for a polygrapht test.

We could wait until it happens, and then try to figure out how to navigate all the issues. Or we an try to think ahead.

What the APA has done - if you read it carefully - is to provide examiners with a Model Suitability Policy that will help defend many reasonable decisions to proceed with testing - based on a thoughtful understanding of the ethics and science involved.

Now some people will find it challenging: anyone who wants a black and white solution may find it not completely black and white enough - there are still some areas of judgement and ambiguity, and that is unavoidable when dealing with humans. We'll just have to continue to use our expert judgment.

Others may find it far too grey, and therefor far to complicated. There is no way around that unless we draw lines that are completely arbitrary. While that would make some people feel good - that we're all doing it the same and if we're wrong at least we're all wrong together. But that would not make us smarter - in fact it might make us feel smarter (better) while actually functioning less intelligently.

So...

Why age 12?

Now I'm just guessing that Dan will not be satisfied unless a completely independent researcher who cares nothing about the polygraph completes and replicates a double-blind control-group field study (which is just darn near impossible) - but that is his concern not ours.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with Dan or anyone asking the hard questions. If we continue to avoid reacting personally then we can continue to benefit from those challenging questions.

Our concern is practical - whether there should or should not be an age limit? Personally I would be fine with not having any age limit and having a guideline around the level of functioning. But that will be difficult for many to understand and make use of and - though imperfect - age boundaries are more easy for agencies and the community to perceive and administrate. Voting - age 18. Drinking - age 21 (though some mental health folks and college administrators would suggest lowering it to 18. Driving - age 16. And so on. Now think about this - there is actually no mistaken assumptions that all 16 year-olds are created equally. We all know that some are more functionally mature than others.

There are other complications. In Colorado, for example, a 17 year-old CHILD can legally consent to sexually contact with an adult - as long as the adult is not 10 or more years older. Wow - the age of the adult determines the capacity of the child to consent.

In Arizona 17 year-old children cannot legally consent to sexual contact and 18 year-old dating partners are at risk for serious legal consequences. Maybe this is a case of unequal levels of functional maturity, or maybe the issue of consent is not entirely a legal issue. Maybe consent is actually a sociological and developmental issue, and an ethical issue, just as much, or more, than it is a legal issue. And maybe the lines are not completely black and white.

Maybe the lines are different in different jurisdictions. That already causes problems. More of that will cause more problems. Do nothing to create order, and we can expect more chaos.

In reality the APA cannot solve or impose soluations for all the different jurisdications. But APA has got to put a recommendation line somewhere because if not then somebody is going to get excoriated for testing a juvenile. And, if the APA says we cannot test juveniles then it will prevent any examiner from attempting to be helpful - or face accusations of unethical work. Or the APA can do nothing and make no effort to provide any guidelines to examiners - that way each examiner can argue their own decisions based on their own resume, their own work/expertise, and the strength of their own personality - which would set the stage for a lot of narcissitic professional aggression.

Best thing to do is to look at the literature and do what the evidence. What we know from Stan Abrams - and from experience - is that the polygraph can work with children as young as 11. Abrams actually said that functional maturity is more important than chronological age, and the APA Model Policy give guidance on how to determine this in some convenient ways.

There is a convergence of evidence in psychology and developmental neurology suggesting that normal functioning children of age 12 should be reasonably testable. There is not a complete absence of evidence or information on this.

In the end the APA has simple options: make a model policy that is more conservative but not based on the evidence and information, or make a policy based on the available, albiet limited, evidence and information.

As for medications, the suitability model policy does NOT say that people are not testable due to medications. There is no real basis for such a statement. The policy does give guidance about to be professionally accountable when their are obvious indicators (and often documentation from other professionals) that an examinee may not be functioning completely normally.

Which brings us to the point about normative data - and how confident we are that the examinee is represented by the published empirical evidence.

Read the suitability policy carefully. Ask quesitons. What you will find is that it can help us to account for why we are able to conclude it is correct and ethical to proceed with testing under the variety of circumstances under which we do so.

The purpose of the policy is simply to clarify what are presently thought to be the outside limits of suitability, and to provide guidance about how to evaluate and handle the predictable types of complication that we routinely encounter. Ultimately, the model policy will reduce our vulnerability by clarifying the circumstances and rationale under which we are able to conclude that it is ethical to test the people we test.

When an examinee is not suitable, when there is no benefit to conducting the test - when it is not ethical to do the test - then we don't do the test.

- more later

In the meantime, read the suitability policy carefully. And remember that it is only a model policy based on what we think we know right now and what we think are the compications across varying jurisdictions. There is obviously more to learn on this - and it will be important to remember Dan's continual message around thinking critically and not getting into a mindless zombie shuffle around the important and complex issue of examinee suitability.

It's also important not to get too reactive about any of this - else we extinguish the opportunity to learn from the conversation.

r


------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 01-26-2013).]

IP: Logged

Dan Mangan
Member
posted 01-26-2013 09:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Mangan     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
Personally I would be fine with not having any age limit and having a guideline around the level of functioning.

That sounds like something one would expect to find in NAMBLA literature.

Disturbing.

What are you, some kind of polygraph perv? Or would eliminating the age threshold be more about expanding bu$ine$$ opportunities?

Yeah, maybe that's it -- more te$t$.

Hey, it's a good angle. Just about every yuppie couple who are parents think their kid is a freakin' genius. Perhaps you could lobby the chain of "Little Einsteins" daycare centers to make polygraph "testing" part of their services.

But the problem there is, you'd have to convince the yuppie couple that polygraph "works."

Good luck with that. Better stick to the Jerry Springer fans and other daytime TV addicts.

No worries there, though. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit. To paraphrase one of your role models, Dr. Stangelove, They reproduce prodigiously.

Back to the main point...

It's bad enough that the APA foists this half-baked pseudoscience unto (ostensibly) consenting adults. But to victimize children who are incapable of giving consent is nothing short of depraved.

A child simply cannot comprehend the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing" -- let alone appreciate the possible psychological damage that could stem from a false-positive result.

Once more, with feeling:

A child cannot -- I repeat, CANNOT -- consent to a polygraph "test."

The age-12 threshold of the APA's model policy for suitability is irresponsible, reckless, and potentially dangerous.

Dan


[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 01-27-2013).]

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 01-27-2013 01:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E   Click Here to Email Bill2E     Edit/Delete Message
Ray,
Thanks for the comments. I am old and don't like some of the "Policy" statements offered by organizations and committees within organizations. I would like to discuss all the pros and cons in-house before we get to the publishing. Committees are great for suggesting to the membership, but should not publish without a vote from the membership. I don't disagree with the entire concept, but do question many parts of it. These type Model Policy publications gives credence to them and it can be argued that the Model Policy is the Policy of the APA.

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 01-27-2013 06:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson   Click Here to Email rnelson     Edit/Delete Message
B2E

I understand.

It is important to remember that the APA is a large national and international organization. Only a fraction of the membership participate, and among those that do we can sometime have some strong differences of opinion. So the work gets done by committees. The committees argue until they come to agreement, then submit it to the board, who argue some more until they come to agreement.

Nobody is comfortale with new rules or guidelines.

Please send us any concerns about the detailed content. Of course, suggestions for improvement are always just as helpful - or more helpful - than simply identifying potential problems.

This model policy is one for which we are already negatively impacted by its absence, so it is overdue.

It is also a point of needed learning and training for many.

So the publication of a model policy - even though it is un-enforcable, and even though there is a risk for over-interpretation as law - is actually part of the process you are describing. It's out there for polygraph professionals and others to look at, react to, comment, criticize, use, change, improve or offer whatever violent reaction they feel they must.

In the end we will all continue to learn about this important topic. How to help examiners make good decisions about when to proceed with testing and when not to - and how to help examiners explain their decisions when criticized for doing things in attempt to be helpful to their referring professionals.

I think we'll find with this policy is that although the language is a little detailed, it doesn't really change the types of decisions that will get made in the field. It may change whether or not we can point to any reference material to anchor and support those decisions.

As always,

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)


IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 01-28-2013 09:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E   Click Here to Email Bill2E     Edit/Delete Message
Ray, I will go through the Model Policy and email you my suggestions with comments. Thanks for the suggestion and look forward to your reply and concerns. Again I disagree with a few portions but I am guilty of not being involved in many APA decisions. All members should become more involved, many just don't have time to devote to the APA.

[This message has been edited by Bill2E (edited 01-28-2013).]

[This message has been edited by Bill2E (edited 01-28-2013).]

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 01-30-2013 01:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E   Click Here to Email Bill2E     Edit/Delete Message
Ray, sent you an email at raymond.nelson@gmail.com, is this still an active email?

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 01-30-2013 09:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
That's still a good address, Bill. I think he's travelling.

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 01-30-2013 10:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E   Click Here to Email Bill2E     Edit/Delete Message
Thanks Barry

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

Copyright 1999-2012. WordNet Solutions Inc. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.