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
posted 04-26-2008 08:38 PM
Sure...what the Hell- Let poor old Joe join in. If not, we may all be named as co-defendants in his next law suit! Hey just for shits and giggles, let's give George and Doug a password too!
Don't you all know trouble when you see it?
Stat- after your diagnosis of Joe, I am surprised at your willingness to welcome him here????
posted 04-26-2008 09:04 PM
Good points Taylor and Ted. Screw'em. I said in my last thread "I haven't the foggiest." ---and I meant that. I do feel that he needs some guidance and stability-----and I have a soft spot for people who seem suicidal or on the brink of a mental breakdown. You have to admit----for those of you who read carefully his writings, he REALLY needs some better information----information that could ultimately give him better awareness. I simply do not put Joe in the same category of the treacherous (DEVIOUS) Clifton (1904) who was a veteran examiner with a history of unethical behavior and back stabbing. Joe is more "moron" then betrayer in my opinion.
posted 04-26-2008 09:09 PM
OK, I was just taking the trash out and it occurred to me that THE ONLY reason I would flirt with the idea of having Joe on this board is so he can see me and maybe others call him a moron----and maybe learn something about GM. Sorry I didn't see this earlier.
Maybe I'm a moron too.
I suppose because he's an examiner the same age as myself, having attended the same school as me, and struggling against a "members only" status quo----I feel a teaspoon of sympathy. That doesn't change the fact that he is an idiot though-----excuse me, MORON though.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-26-2008).]
I have no problem with "engaging" people like Joe. I love a good fight. I know you and the rest of the "trolls" do as well. It is just that when I "take off the gloves", I don't like to do it in my own house.
posted 04-26-2008 09:22 PM
I see the rationale clearly. If I had a private phone number for him, I'd give him a hollar. I do believe that someone contacted him, as his posting has stopped (to his credit.)
posted 04-26-2008 10:16 PM
Ok..in my opinion from this thread on McCarthy we can hopefully bring forward what came out of this for further discussion the core issue at hand. "Fair Play". I too thought about this today, not while taking out the trash, but when I was freezing my butt off chasing kids around outside. Wisconsin Weather! I should move to someplace warmer at my age. Anyhow check out the new topic "Fair Play". Its a spin off I hope of this topic but more to the issue of ethics.
Joe's poor professional and personal judgement, venom, and recklessness are not needed in this forum.
On the other hand, I'll question Mr. Holden's ethics too (sorry Bill, gotta do it).
Mr. Holden is presently chair of the PCSOT committe which I volunteered to participate in, but was not included. I am one of the most educated and experience persons in the area (sorry if that sounds like boasting, but I've been a consumer of polygraph result, I've run intensive sex offender treatment programs for juveniles and adults, and I have a science/math background also, I have an advance degree which I earned and I'm still paying for, and a national counselor certificate). I work cheap and I work hard. I create understanding, I make committees smarter (even if its painful) and I don't cause division. Why wouldn't he want me on a PCSOT committee??? Mr. Holden is one faction of a field of differing opinions. He's also what we call "no-shrinking-violet." The most ethical thing for him to do would have been not to assume the role of referee in this conflict - he's one of the participants. So now we have a bully-pulpit condition in PCSOT. Couple that with his grossly inaccurate and misleading self-reference (Holden, 1971) in the Holden (2000) PCSOT publication - in which he justifies the construct of the "situational relevant question" by referring to a study that has almost nothing to do with actual polygraph testing (it was an EDA activity study with prisoners viewing 20 minutes of film content) - and I'll say that he is far from an unbiased and objective participant, and begins to look a bit self-serving.
Joe has positioned himself at odds with his professional peers. I say we table his entry until the resolution of those other matters. The evaluate whether or not he's capable of being reformed.
.02
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
No offense, I left Texas prior to all the new regulations and rules. I had known Erick Holden and Company while I was in Texas, I left in 2000 and retained my lsn. for a few more years. No longer work in Texas and have dropped my lsn there.
I agree that McCarthy should not be included on the professional portion of this site, I don't trust his ethics in this respect and don't want information given to George and Friends.
His email that is posted does not work for me and I will not call him, I have no dog in this fight.
posted 04-28-2008 08:26 AM
Joe has written that he is recently been made aware of "nasty" remarks being made at Poly Place----and that Joe expressed disappointment that he can't be here to "defend" his remarks/rebute our remarks.
I myself am glad that he knows that there are many "thumbs down" over his choce of venue. He should know that his suit is fine, but his campaign is misinformed.
His email address does not work-----perhaps if I get a certain important call over with today, I'll have time to give him a ring.
p.s. The boys and I fired off rockets all day yesterday. Big fun.
posted 04-29-2008 11:28 AM
Joe's recent post on the public side reeks of abandonment rage and paranoia, and begins to get just a bit loose and disorganized. He'll have a very difficult time steering himself around to an attitude of reasonableness, or ever sustaining any such posture, because he feels safe, entitled, and armored in his self-righteous anger. If he weren't so busy being a victim he'd have more energy to pursue an actual solution to his concerns.
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 04-29-2008).]
posted 04-29-2008 01:30 PM
I don't know how to address this guy. Barry's right----he's irate. The more immature side of me wants to blast him----but I know better than to go there.
The guy is losing his grip on something he never held in the first place. Scary stuff eh, y'all?
Sorry I was so harsh with him----I'm afraid I pissed on a bee hive here gang. I was so close to not submitting that post originally without deleting the "monkey throwing feces" remark. That was pure flame baiting----and I kinda regret it now.
For whomever is providing him with these conversations - if you are a real friend of his you wont antagonize him further by running to him and tattling with our comments. He is in self destruct mode and needs to chill out. Be a friend and let him know the harm he is causing himself.
posted 04-29-2008 09:23 PM
I believe Donna has brought out some pacifying feelings from Joe. He began to soothe a little only to end his post with a most insulting remark about Utah. This guy is hilariously unaware of himself.
posted 04-29-2008 11:55 PM
Stat, His latest post confirms all of our suspicions. There is way too much going on here in this guys head for us to try to ever have any productive dialogue with him.
Got meds? Apparently not!
Ted
[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 04-29-2008).]
posted 04-30-2008 01:26 AM
Perhaps we should address business practices with him,not polygraph. That appears to be his main concern. I believe he is an ardent supporter of polygraph, he is not a good business person. I have no idea how real his statements are regarding inconclusive calls, I have them and expect them. Might check with the Backster School and see how he did with the course on sex offender testing. Might be revealing information there. He does appear to be very proud and controlling, so divert the conversation to business practices and give advise on getting more business. Now that is at least a .25 cent one, I'm going broke on this board.
posted 04-30-2008 06:37 PM
Lieguytoo just appeared at AP and posted this:
Fighting Irish Wrote:
Because I know polygraph the way that I do, yes i would. As long as the examiner has no ties with the defendants, and the rules I layed out are followed.
I think this is day 3 of my challange. Still no takers from the "good polgraph examiners". I guess they are not as sure as I am. huh? I wonder why?
Come on McCarthy, be serious! All can see what you are clearly doing.
What do you plan to do whe this suit gets dismissed?
Did you tell everyone that your wife lost her job at the Law Firm over alleging this outrageous suit?
Did you tell everyone that one of your Polygraph School's co-instructor didnt want to graduate you?
Did you tell everyone that you were dismissed from your last job as a polygraph examiner with Don Ramsey of TEXAS (DALHOUSEY) and deemed incompetent by your employer?...that's why you started this business and that's why your wife is working with you.
Did you tell everyone about your reception at The Texas Assoc. of Polygraph Examiners?
Why arent you posting "Daily" as promised?
What are you going to do when this fraudulent lawsuit gets dismissed and the MULTIPLE countersuits come in to play?
Fighting Irish name is as close as you'll ever be to Notre Dame..
You are sooo outrageous that you even make AP persons embarrassed to side with you...
Maybe we should just install a diving board on the Golden Gate bridge for poor old Joe.
All kidding aside, I think the man in in serious trouble mentally. He is starting to make Michael Douglas (in "Falling Down") look like Mother Theresa.
posted 05-01-2008 08:41 AM
I agree Ted. This guy seems to be far more on the "nutjob spectrum" than on the "moron spectrum."
This story is beginning to take the shape of a campfire spook tale---where the mentally shakey guy starts to slowly lose his grip with reality through failure, shame and eventually paranoia. Next week is when he tries to purchase explosives wearing a miniskirt and a rain cap.
posted 05-01-2008 09:10 AM
You tube rules! Here is a security video (be careful what you say aloud in hotel lobbies) of a businessman LOSING HIS MIND. Watch the buildup.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 05-01-2008).]
posted 05-02-2008 12:42 PM
Folks, We have to stop any and all discussion with this guy both here and on the AP site. He's about a sandwich short of a picnic lunch and getting worse!
He's certainly doing nothing for himself or his "cause" and he's making polygraph look really bad.
Once a child is in the middle of the store on the floor kicking and screaming, the only thing you can do is take him outside. You can't beat his ass in public and you can't stop the screaming by screaming back at him.
[This message has been edited by skipwebb (edited 05-02-2008).]
posted 05-02-2008 01:56 PM
I agree with Skip. Once again we come to the 'wrestling with a pig' idea. He is enjoying it and is encouraged to post and we (polygraph examiners in general) are just not advancing our cause. If he is ignored he will probably fade away from much of the public eye and just go about his law suit.
Sorry I posted a response to his public post before reading and being able to heed your advice. I will cease and desist. I don't mean to anger him, wanted to sooth him so he will slow down a stroke or two.
posted 05-02-2008 06:33 PM
I have a few more questions first. We're missing something - and it's more than he's a nut or moron or whatever the original question was.
posted 05-03-2008 06:46 AM
He appears to be calming down on our board now, and hope that lasts. I think he needed someone to say I understand your plight. It will be interesting to hear the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey says. We are only getting one side of a story and if the anger does subside, maybe we can make some sense out of it. He may in fact be a victim of some bad trade practices, lets wait and see. Possibly the examiners involved will chime in with more information.
Thanks for pulling McCarthy off the ceiling. I think we can all agree when this is something of interest (Issue) to the polygraph community, we should at least listen. Of course it was hard to listen with all the yelling!
I haven't posted as many posts on this forum as others have during the years that I've been a member, in fact based on my calculations 36 posts in 75 months 01/02 and of the 36 I believe 17-20 have been during the last two weeks.
I'm impressed though with most of the members that carry the polygraph professionalism the way that they do, in responding to the topics without inciting contempt or hard feelings.
Good Job!
Also Skip! nice hearing from you on this subject as well. Hope you are doing Well. I'm still burning those damn weeds!
Tony
[This message has been edited by Toneill (edited 05-03-2008).]
posted 05-03-2008 09:00 PM
I don't expect others involved to chime in - unless they're not that bright. Anybody who talks during a lawsuit of any type is generally unwise.
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 04-26-2008 08:32 PM
posted 04-29-2008 12:32 PM
posted 05-03-2008 08:28 PM
