posted 07-11-2008 04:03 PM            

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1214606661

Someone had mentioned a post on anti-p about me, but I never saw it till today. At first, I was a little pissed at being called a 'bottom-feeder' which I don't think I've ever been accused of, however, I noticed something else. Every person posting is one of George's 'very senior' or 'especially senior' users.

To me, this seems like a systematic way to try and attack and bait individual examiners into a fight. Of course this post was during our anti blackout time.

My point. I think it is really working to ignore them....now they have to try and make up stuff about us. I don't really follow anti, but is anyone else getting baited?

I say we ignore him indefinitely, but if that doesn't work for everyone, maybe at least another month.

My other idea is that after the grogan debacle is over, which is consuming way more of my life that I desire to give him, I'm thinking of starting a continuing website about how George is full of *&(&(*&.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 07-11-2008 05:47 PM         

This is not only working, it is working DAMN GOOD ! George is posting and then responding to ads about DoDPI buildings for sale. Lethe is currently posting on "skin cancer". These "Senior Users" are nothing more than "Senior Losers" with nobody left to play with.

Sackett, I know this is killing you but hang in there! Go harrass the hookers on the strip tonight and that should releive some of your stress.

posted 07-12-2008 05:05 AM            

Just has a thought what do you all think about creating a new user under a yahell account and sharing the screen name and email address among ourselves using a single screen name to respond his rantings? If so upon what rules or restrictions would we need to agree to make it work?

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

PS LETHE misses us (Posted this am)
"And, anyway, why is it so quiet around here lately? Is it always slow in the summer, or did I scare off all the polies? Maybe the Guild told them not to come around anymore on account of how stupid I was making them all look? In any event, hopefully they return soon!"

posted 07-12-2008 10:54 AM            

------------------
"Truth Seekers"

posted 07-12-2008 11:38 AM            

the problem with that idea is that george researches everyone who posts via original server, etc. If I posted, then you, under the same name but from different origins, he would know it and subsequently use that to make great hay and self promote his great ability to sniff out examiners trying to debunk him and his purpose (hense the reason I post under my true name). Less hiding = more credibility.

chaz/ckieso,

as I have stated before, it was a tough decision whether to post or not. My purpose is singular in nature; provide some accurate/non-distorted, pro-polygraph information in a non-confrontational manner. Most readers never post, and they do not know what to believe, either.

Most people find "anti" anything sexier than the scientific or positive application of the topics. Many will go directly to george's site, simply because it is more interesting than we, who provide simple and basic information.

If we ignore AP then we allow the potential that an otherwise decent and honest examinee will be conned by george's minions. This will no doubt cause problems for many and I would rather try to reach some of the good and dissuade them from screwing around than ignore that possibility and present a silent voice to truthful seekers of information.

BTW, I have no elusion that any of us will change the 4 or 5 anti-posters and their opinions, but if we, as a profession, can reach a few honest examinee's without insulting or attacking them, then I think it is worth the effort to try.

Jim

posted 07-12-2008 04:56 PM         

God... that was beautiful man! Can I have a hug.... and a hankie? (LMAO)

OK I agree with you but I am enjoying watching the silence eat Gerorge, TM and Lethe alive right now. August 10th and not a monent sooner James !

All my love,

Ted

posted 07-12-2008 11:20 PM            

tissues are in the mail.... tick-toc-tick, 29 days and counting!

posted 07-13-2008 12:08 AM            

They buy into GK and follow his advice to lie when if they are the kind of folks Law Enforcement really wants,they have the integrity to know that lying is the wrong way to get a job.

I mean, If we really need to tell them that lying and cheating is wrong why would we want them to begin with?

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-13-2008 06:35 PM            

I agree in theory, but not in reality.

When asked or told they would need to take a polygraph, most people know absolutely nothing about it (except Meet the Parents, etc) when they begin to research it.
TLBTLD is extremely well written and articulate and if one did not know better could appear to be completely true and supported by research and content.

We, on the other hand, present nothing in opposition except periodic opinion offered on this site and response to questions. Therefore, in our postings we seem to the average poster to be responsive and appear professionally reactive and self-protective.

Falling victim to propaganda, for the reasons I previously suggested, would be easy, even for an honest examinee who might simply rationalize the system is potentially against them and they neeed to protect themself. Especially if they know someone who had problems and professes their innocence. Also, it is easy to understand this way, i.e. read something well written, long enough and often enough and you will begin to believe it (just listen to Obama's themes if you need further proof of blind emotional followship).

My only suggestion is, that if we examiners, present a rational, logical, non-opinionated argument to FOG's, it may be enough to prevent those honest people from screwing themselves during our testing. The guilty and liars will do whatever they can and I don't see them as that big of a threat, if we stay informed and educated in their ways.

My thoughts,

Jim

posted 07-15-2008 09:18 AM            

I think you mean Psychology...

BTW, we know the affect this is having on GM if he is calling examiners to get them to post. We don't need an analysis to know he misses examiners. He just makes up more personalities because he needs someone to listen to his gibberish.

posted 07-15-2008 02:28 PM            

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 07-15-2008 05:22 PM            

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim and I wholeheartedly agree with ignoring anti completely.

Jim is talking about being concerned with people...individuals and I so appreciate that, even if Ted really enjoys ragging those of us who have a heart

The other half of the coin is that I think complete avoidance at anti will help our profession as a whole in the long run.

I tend to lean towards 'the other half of the coin' only because a sincere searcher for information will seek out all sources of info...not just anti and they will be able to find a balance if they really want it and make their best decision prior to their polygraph.

However, Jim makes another great point and that is, we aren't presenting those opposite views nearly as well as George is making his. We need to be pushing a positive face with good solid, well written material that is easily accessible to those who are honestly seeking to simply be informed about their upcoming test.

In the mean time, I would consider letting just Jim post and the rest of us put our efforts together to get good solid, easily readable information together to offer as a good counter to what they will read in TLBTLD.

Is anyone up for the challenge of ripping apart the TLBTLD point by point and writing an expose on that...or at the least writing their own TTBTLD (truth)?

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com