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 02-18-2008 04:21 PM
What a joke...I saw the article and I would love to be the one administering the polygraph! Creeps come out of all corners just to get attention! very sad.
posted 02-18-2008 05:05 PM
Was there any doubt that this, and probably many more allegations will be developed by the Clinton machine and surfaced, the closer we get to the March 3 Democratic primaries...? It is gunna get very interesting, the farther Clinton falls behind.
posted 02-18-2008 08:53 PM
I am not a fan of ALL of the three candidates, but as people with their own social outcomes, I am proud of the pool. A decorated vet, an African American, and a female senator. All with their own particular strengths. Regardless of one's personal political spectrum-----none are unto themselves an embarrassment to our nation, and all of them quite intelligent and well-spoken. whew!
posted 02-23-2008 09:09 PM
According to Sinclair, he has stated on youtube that he "did not fail" his test----which was allegedly ran by Ed Gelb, and QC'd by G. Barland. I am astounded if this Sinclair p___k is telling the truth, as I am a fan of Barak.
sigh.
Our country doesn't need any more heartbreaker leaders who deeply disappoint the hopeful masses.
The results of the test are to be released on Monday---the day before the Texas and Ohio key primaries. I smell a rat.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-23-2008).]
So this is what it has come to? This guy claims to have given blow and blow jobs to Obama and Ron Paul-----and now he is tested by our most controversial examiner(!)----while Ed has the examinee looking away. The face value alone of this scenario stinks. Plus, the cardio and GSR on the same arm---an arguble faux pas. I'll (of course) give Ed the benefit of the doubt, but I must say I have big doubts.
Threesomes with co-eds, parties, drugs---I predict behaviors like these from a studly guy from Chi-town when he was a young man. But a blow job from this dunce? He looks like a line cook from Denny's.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-24-2008).]
I can't think of any physiological reason why EDA and cuff would be a problem on the same arm. The cuff will not restrict acetylcholine in the post-ganglionic sympathetic neurons that enervate the eccrine sweat pores on the hand.
Also, looking away is preferable to looking at the examiner. He might have a camera facing his subject. I don't think we know if the viewing angle is Mr. Gelb's camera or one from the referring agency. I prefer to have a profile view of the subject in front of me. Still, some examinees will react when I look up at them or move to inspect their eyes more carefully. Obviously, this is not good, because the recorded/measured reactions are in response to simuli other than the test qeustions. So, there is an argument for having the subject look away.
I'm not very happy about the whole thing though. All it does is provide GM fodder with which to make the whole bid'ness look stupid.
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
posted 02-24-2008 11:35 AM
A little research shows that Larry Sinclair's story has wrong dates, and that he was in a "mental institution" in 1999, much less doing blow in a limo with then state senator Obama. A modest amount of case research would show that Larry is probably unfit for a polygraph-----but then again, someone wants to make a little quick cash and publicity off of testing this deuchebag, regardless of his mental capacity.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-24-2008).]
posted 02-24-2008 01:23 PM
Here is some 11th hour comments from one poster on whithouse.com. ------------------------------------------ QUOTE: continued from post below... The Post has learned that presiding Judge Donald Wilson is dismissing the case, due to credibility on Mr.Sinclair. Stating that the complainant has an extensive record of mischievous conduct. Further more such allegations warrant sound credible standards, which are not found in matters included in this suit. Lawrence Sinclair was convicted of "fraud" two times and investigated eight times over 25 years, for trying to secure money for "black male" charges. Two of the defendants were political figures in Illinois and Indiana. Mr.Sinclair also has an extensive record of drug convictions. The Washington Post has learned."
Posted by Washington Post on 2/24/2008 12:27:17 PM
Sinclair Federal Law Suit To Be Dismissed The Washington Post Editorial pg1a2; Thursday, Feb.21 2008 In late fall of 2007 Lawrence Sinclair approached campaign officials of the Sen.Barack Obama campaign, and told them a very disturbing story. Rob Allen of the Sen. Obama campaign stated. After the meeting had concluded the campaign officials ruled it off, as "just someone trying to make a buck." The following week they received a phone call, from a man claiming to represent Mr. Sinclair, and demanding $100,000.00 as restitution for his client. Lawrence Sinclair has filed a federal suit against Barack Obama and others for harassment since the gay man released his video on YouTube***, a internet web-site for viewing homemade videos, alleging that, the Senator from Illinois and Mr.Sinclair shared oral sex and cocaine in the back of a Mr. Sinclair's limo in Gurnee, IL in 1999... Continued in next post
----------------------------------------
I hope Ed and Gordon don't make a grave mistake on this one.
quote: -----and now he is tested by our most controversial examiner(!)----
I don't know that Ed is considered controversial at all, let alone most controversial. He's an icon in the business, but a man of humility (in my experience) nonetheless.
The issue is his "degree," which apparently came from a degree mill. Since his abilities as an examiner are impeccable, it's an area for easy attack. (If you can't win the argument, attack your opponent, you know.) I think that means of attack hasn't got the AP folks that far, but it won't stop them from trying.
In any event, when I saw Ed's name, I expected a good test.
posted 02-24-2008 05:00 PM
I do not doubt Ed's abilities as an examiner one bit. It jst disturbed me a bit to see that he is listed as "Dr. Ed Gelb" on the www.whitehouse.com website----the very clients that hired him to run the test. When I saw his old "credentials" listed there, I suspected a trap from enemies. But back to being labeled a "Dr." again---knowing that he has allegedly withdrawn any trace of his former title, how is it that he is back to being "Dr. Ed Gelb" again? How can this be?
Regarding his abilities as an examiner, whitehouse.com will be issuing the entire test on video-----and so we will shall see what kind of test he ran and how he ran it.
My fingers are crossed that it will be an impressive test that compliments his experience.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-24-2008).]
posted 02-24-2008 05:06 PM
If nothing less, its cheap entertainment.
Time for some more fun speculating and second guessing this test:
How would you conduct this test if you had to do so (or were motivated by enough green stuff).
Would you use a U-Phase or ZCT. Or perhaps you'd prefer some variant of the Zone or a variant of the MGQT. With an MGQT you could test both issues at once, right?
What kind of orientation test? Blind-stim? Know-number test. CVOS?
Mostly though, how would you want the subject to answer?
This issue of conflict here is that people are inclined to disbelieve his claims that he did these things. Under normal testing circumstances, The conflict involves suspicion of involvement while the subject denies the act.
Would it be a “yes answer” test:
1) Did you use cocaine with Barak Obama during 1999?
or, try to ratchet the issue a little bit with,
2) Did you actually use cocaine with Barak Obama during 1999?
or would you want him to answer "No" in some form
1) Are you lying to me about using cocaine with Barak Obama during 1999?
2) Did you fabricate or make up that story about using cocaine with Barak Obama?
The problem with these so-called "lie tests" is that they are theoretically weak. They depend on lying to the examiner as the relevant issue, and assume that is more salient than the behavior itself. Eric Holden (2000) called these "situationally relevant" questions, but their is no other description of that term in our literature or in any related journals (nada, zero, zippo, zilch, nothing). Our profession is well past the time where we should be simply making up new things as we go along.
The real problem with the lie test is that its effectiveness rests on the premise that fear of being caught lying by the examiner causes the basis for reaction. Unless we can credibly argue that our equipment can differentiate causes and types of fear (doubtful), this sets the stage for all kinds of EXCUSES on the part of the accused (reacted because he was afraid of the examiner). It will be unwise to hang the future and validity of polygraph science on the personality of the examiner. Science is about scientific principles. Fear, is only one of many such principles for which we have to account. Its a good thing there are other explanations for polygraph reactions, because every truthful person is afraid of failing a polygraph.
So, what makes a good question:
the usual stuff:
question describes the examinee's behavior, regarding an issue in conflict
time delimited, to the extent possible or reasonable
simple and direct wording (did you do it? 'yes' or 'no')
free of jargon, legal terms and emotionally laden language
does not presuppose guilt or involvement
does not depend on motivational terminology (behavior only), including memory or intent
These are all important. There is no science in the practice of attaching polygraph components to one persons body in attempt to verify the behavior of some other person
Imagine: "Did Barak Obama use cocaine with you during 1999?"
Results would tell us nothing, whether he reacted to it or not.
Time descriptors help our mental models. Without them, we'd have open-gates for all kinds of excuses such as "I didn't do it that time, but there was once a long time ago..."
Obviously, questions which require discussion will not work in polygraph testing, due to both excessive noise in the data, and the lack of clarity surrounding the issue.
Presuppose guilt one, but its always on the list. Its not just the old question about "do you still beat your wife," but the TV attorney's question "isn't it true that you never met Barak Obama during 1999?"
Aside from the obvious problems with words like "rape" and "murder," concerns about jargon involve clinical terms like "grooming," and legal terms like "larceny," and "burglary." I'm sure no criminal ever did larceny. In our present case we have terms like "blow" and "blow job" to contend with. A lot of criminals are slippery story tellers, so describing the behavior in a neutral and factual manner is the best way to pin someone down. "Did you put your mouth on Barak Obama's penis during 1999?" or "During 1999, did you put your mouth on Barak Obama's penis?" But then we're back to the 'yes' answer problem.
Motivation, intent, memory, are “state of mind” rat-holes to avoid. “Did you mean to smash into that car?” Who cares. “Did you mean to hit him that hard?” “Do you remember touching that woman's breasts while you were intoxicated?” Oh, nooo, I would never do that. Obviously, questions about someone else's state of mind are even more troublesome (but these issues are sometimes referred for polygraph testing, as in the case of our binge-drinking college students in the Free Republic of Boulder. “Did she agree to have sex with you?” “Do you remember her as awake and conscious at that time...” “Was she physically and verbally responsive at the time you had sex with her?” Sorry people, but toxicologists will tell us that some people can appear responsive and interactive while they are in an unconscious black-out state from alcohol. Testing the perp about the victim's state of mind just stinks.
OK, after all that we're back to:
“Did you do it?”
So what causes some questions to hold greater saliency than others? Involvement in the behavior or issue creates a conditioned response potential that is evoked by the question stimulus. If the subject reacts to the stimulus, we assume, simplistically, that the cause can be no other reason besides involvement in the issue. So, absence of response simply tells us the subject has no conditioned response potential to stimuli related to that issue – and we infer that as meaning he was not involved.
Now consider what happens when a person says they were involved in an issue (gay sex with a politician, or minister). That person is essentially saying “yes, I have a conditioned response to that stimulus.”
We all know that silent answer tests work just fine, and its not because they are answering truthfully or untruthfully in their head. Silent test work because of the well known construct of conditioned response theory.
I will argue that we are far less certain about the meaning of the presence or absence of reactions in these “confirmatory” type tests.
Though I agree with some of the processes surrounding this test, (QC), this is a test that is still premised as much or more on Mr. Gelb's personality and reputation as it is on polygraph science. People always gravitate that direction when they lack an adequate ability to discuss the actual empirical constructs.
(end of rant)
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 02-24-2008).]
posted 02-24-2008 05:14 PM
Apparently the Washington Post has reported that this nut has been up on blackmail and fraud charges in the past----as well as drug convictions. I dunno---it could be rumors.
Did you ever place your mouth on Barack Obama's lil' senator?
Have you ever used Chicago booger-sugar with Barack Obama?
Confirmatory (yes) is what I would use.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-24-2008).]
quote: Though I agree with some of the processes surrounding this test, (QC), this is a test that is still premised as much or more on Mr. Gelb's personality and reputation as it is on polygraph science. People always gravitate that direction when they lack an adequate ability to discuss the actual empirical constructs.
Could if be that people outside the polygraph community have heard that polygraph accuracy depends, in large part on the competence of the examiner? Even we say that here - and often, perhaps to our demise. If that's the case (examiner is important, that is), why wouldn't the general public seek out whom they know has a good reputation? There are only a few on that list, and we should be happy Grogan didn't get the call. As incompetent as I opine he is, he could easily fool (and has) many.
posted 02-24-2008 06:01 PM
.....and his continued use of the title of "Dr."?
Barry, c'mon. Let's me reasonable. Aside from Grogan, Ed is the most controversial examiner in the US----and for reasons that have not been remedied yet---after several years now of bad press. Grogan's controversy stems from the polygraph community, whereas Ed's controversy has been broadcasted to the masses, and continues to be propogated.
As a potential Director of the APA, would you be able to take a stronger approach to such matters (if elected), or would you fall to the sweetness of a nice old examiner with an "aw shucks, he's a great examiner and a swell fella" approach?
I get the feeling that examiners might be thinking that fraudently labeling one's self as a Dr. is a little harmeless bragging. It makes us all look rediculous, not just him alone. His experience, good skills, and successes serve the profession as a beacon------only to be self-inflicted with the label of fraud in a business that has the seal of honesty on it's header.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-24-2008).]
posted 02-24-2008 06:13 PM
These words are taken directly from the cover mission statement of the American Polygraph Association.
------------------------------------- quote; Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons
Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education
Establishing and enforcing standards for admission to membership and continued membership in the Association
Governing the conduct of members of the Association by requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and a set of Standards and Principles of Practice
posted 02-24-2008 06:41 PM
Good points Barry and Eric,
I have begun to suspect that we say those things about "with a competent examiner..." not so much out of some thoughtful appreciation for what that means, but sometimes out of a confidence-building shell-game - so that we subtly market ourselves as "those competent few," and have someone to throw under the bus in the event of a problem.
It might be time for our profession to stop saying it that way (with a competent examiner...).
We polygraph professionals have tended to endorse rather magical perceptions about what makes a test "valid." Just look around and you'll here experienced examiners with strong opinions and forceful personalities readily confusing the concept of standardization with validity. We'll be better off in the long run to stick to the commonly accepted meanings of "validity" among other sciences.
It is conceivable that a person just out of polygraph school might run a text-book examination (at least sometimes).
It is also conceivable that a person with years of experience does not conduct a perfect or text-book examination every single time.
Those realities say nothing about the overall competence of the examiner/s, only those examinations.
We should be saying "with a properly conducted examination..." not "with a competent examiner..." To continue otherwise is to invite this kind of narcissistic media frenzy. Its also to invite criticism of examiners who are fully trained and fully qualified.
QC is the correct procedure, and will only help.
While we do that, its important to listen to the meta-message embedded in the common things we say.
For another example, notice that GM has already begun to criticize the process due to the lack of blindness on the part of the QC reviewer, as to the examiner's results. Keep in mind that the data do not support the notion of blind QC as valuable, but do suggest that original examiner's opinions have tended to be the most accurate. With that in mind, blindness is unimportant. What is important is objective and competent review. There is no reason (based in data) that a reviewer couldn't talk with the examiner, ask questions, get additional information, or provide feedback. It is my opinion (based on the data that says original examiner's results are more accurate than those of blind reviewers), that a QC reviewer should be reluctant to overturn the decision of an original examiner, unless some gross error has occurred. However, it would make more sense under those circumstances to set the test results aside (in the same way the legal system will set decisions aside) if a test cannot be supported.
.02
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
quote: .....and his continued use of the title of "Dr."?
I don't think you'll find many people more outspoken than I on that topic. It's wrong. We know it's wrong, and Ed's been told by many of his friends to drop the reference. I don't know why he doesn't. If that's what you mean by "controversial" then I understand, but that's not what comes to my mind when I think of controversial as it has no bearing on what he produces.
I think Ray is right about the way we should be choosing our words. Our shorthand has slowly become dogma, and we need to rethink it all.
quote: Governing the conduct of members of the Association by requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and a set of Standards and Principles of Practice
Does anybody think it's time we better define those things? Currently, what the guy does on that new reality game show is, foolishly, within those standards and code of ethics.
you wrote: "As a potential Director of the APA, would you be able to take a stronger approach to such matters (if elected), or would you fall to the sweetness of a nice old examiner with an "aw shucks, he's a great examiner and a swell fella" approach?"
I do not think it is fair to question potential association officers regarding their positions, unless all candidates running are similarly being questioned.
Familiarity and availability should never cast a shadow over proper and due form...
posted 02-25-2008 03:14 AM
Agreed Jim. It is unfair to take advantage of access. I allowed my incredulousness over a reputed nice guy who continues to use a mail order PHD to be a sort of surregate "face" of polygraph examiners everywhere -----to get the best of me. Jim, Barry and all; What the hell good is it to use words like "valid" and "recognized" regarding exam construct when we as a profession are anemic to words like "authentic" and "integrity." We can't have it both ways.
What do you know about that issue? Let me say first, I wish he'd ditch it; however, Lasalle went through three stages: degree mill in which many students were defrauded (and the owner charged and convicted - based on his guilty plea); the new owners ran the school and prior students could continue, many of whom worked for their degrees; and finally, still new owners who ran school (supposedly) under DETC standards.
At which point did Ed receive his "degree"? I don't know, but I think it matters to some extent.
How much work did Ed do to earn the degree? Again, I don't know. Maybe he did what he should have, I - and nobody else I know - haven't asked.
I am skeptical, but I'm not going to make my decisions based on info available in large part only from the AP site.
Look at Jim Matte. He actually did a dissertation and studied at a legally run school. His degree is legal in California (and illegal in other states). He really believes he earned a good doctorate. For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I think the "degree" is worthless and he should trash it. However, the question on the other side is this: If Jim earned a legal "degree," then why is it unethical to tell the truth?
(I don't think the question is that simple, but you see the problem.)
Who's to say Ed isn't in the same position? If he graduated before mid-1997, then he was entitled to a full refund of his tuition on the condition that he return his diploma. (Almost nobody did that though.) His "degree" would still be "legal."
Again, if that's what you consider controversial, then I agree. If controversial means his work is often questionable, then I don't agree.
posted 02-25-2008 09:37 AM
It is a tough call. I went through the same thing myself, but backed out. I was ready to jump on board with Capella, but then backed out at the last second. Even though that school is accredited, I just don't think people look the same at an online Phd.
I don't want to throw away a legitimate Masters only to have someone question my Phd.
Some of these "second name" schools actually make the students work long hours. My friend got his masters at University of Phoenix (Online) and I would swear he worked harder then me--- and I had to go to class twice a week for three years.
Back on topic, if I had to make an UNEDUCATED guess it would be that neither Matte nor Gelb worked for that piece of paper. Again, I must stress uneducated. So if you two post, I apologize if I am wrong.
[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 02-25-2008).]
You all make great points. I do have a great amount of respect for Ed. He is without a doubt(with or without a PhD) one of the best.
The problem is, "You are going to keep gettin' what you are gettin'as long as you keep doin' what you are doin'".
In other words, as long as polygraph professionals continue to get involved in Larry Flynt side shows for money, media attention or any other reason, our profession will continue to be looked at as no better than the side show itself!
Ted
[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 02-25-2008).]
posted 02-25-2008 09:56 AM
Barry wrote; ------------------------------------------ quote; I don't think you'll find many people more outspoken than I on that topic. It's wrong. We know it's wrong, and Ed's been told by many of his friends to drop the reference. I don't know why he doesn't. If that's what you mean by "controversial" then I understand, but that's not what comes to my mind when I think of controversial as it has no bearing on what he produces.
------------------------------------------ That is precisely the problem. That a professional who is a ranking, respected member of the world's largest gatekeeper of polygraph has only been extended "friendly advice from friends" is classic good 'ol boy club mentality. I don't care if his tests save lives, some one needs to take him aside and say; if you continue to tell the public you are a Dr. level scientist when you are not, that makes you a first class hadi shrine clown----and since you are one of the "greats"....than that makes us commontypes 3rd rate clowns.
Such fraudelent business practices have no home at the American Polygraph Association, regardless of the talent, experience, and "other than that one thing" wisdom.
I hope he is reading this. It's not personal, it's business.
E
------------------
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-25-2008).]
quote: In other words, as long as polygraph professionals continue to get involved in Larry Flynt side shows for money, media attention or any other reason, our profession will continue to be looked at as no better than the side show itself!
If somebody good doesn't get involved and do the tests correctly, somebody will do them. Will that somebody be a chart roller with no ability to run a properly conducted test? Is that a chance we want to take?
Buster,
As far as Capella goes, I don't think you'd have any trouble with it. More and more will be going that route, and you're right, they are more work because that's the only way for the school to evaluate a person they never see. Lasalle and Columbia (and the others) are a different conversation completely.
quote: That a professional who is a ranking, respected member of the world's largest gatekeeper of polygraph has only been extended "friendly advice from friends" is classic good 'ol boy club mentality.
That's not true. He was one of the targets when Jack Consigli's administration came up with the resolution that the APA wouldn't recognize non-accredited degrees. He's also one of those ASTM has declared unethical - and I voted for that standard (which is in flux right now).
Maybe you could join ASTM and help us draft some stronger language? (That's no joke. We could use the help.)
posted 02-25-2008 10:25 AM
Interesting Barry. I was not altogether aware of any steps to correct the situation, other than the APA's limp- wristed recommendation. I must warn all that due to the resurging interest in polygraph by mainstream society and the media, reporters are snooping for stories on polygraph----perhaps stories of a more negative variety. The Wall Street Journal is just one major media source taking a renewed interest in polygraph, and just as importantly, polygraph examiners. I am sure several readers 'round here have been contacted by one of their reporters, and the story is due for release sometime in the coming days.
Time to clean house on a host of unfinished business.
quote: I must warn all that due to the resurging interest in polygraph by mainstream society and the media, reporters are snooping for stories on polygraph----perhaps stories of a more negative variety.
We share the same fears, which is why I wish the guys with the "degrees" would toss them in the trash. We can't undo the done, but it would be nice to say we're heading in the right direction from here on out.
quote: He's also one of those ASTM has declared unethical
I should probably qualify this by saying that was the intention, but the language is such that there's arguably some wiggle room - for the moment anyhow.
posted 02-25-2008 02:44 PM
While we're all enjoying the deafening silence, I'd like to point out the WH.com reports Mr. Gelb as having conducted 30,000 exams.
A little math...
30,000 / 30year = 1,000 exams per year
then, assuming he takes weekends off, like normal people, that makes
365 days per year - (52 weeks * 2 days each weekend) = 151
Then we'll give him 2 weeks of vacation,
151 - 10 = 141
and the,
1000 exams per year / 141 = 7.1 exams per day
for 30 years.
So, its official...
Ed Gelb = Superman
.02
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
posted 02-25-2008 02:59 PM
He's not alone. I'd like to know where those guys come up with those numbers - even in the pre-EPPA days of 15-minute tests.
Does anybody know if Ed boasts those numbers, or did they come from the rumor mill?
posted 02-25-2008 04:01 PM
That's still four per day or so over 51 years - if the 30K is his number.
How many tests per day were people running prior to EPPA? I've heard a lot of good people were running a lot of tests back then. How true are those stories?
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/polyheader.gif)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/bbtitle5.jpg)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/open.gif)
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/tline.gif)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/tline3.gif)
posted 02-18-2008 03:46 PM
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/profile.gif)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/email.gif)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/edit.gif)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/war_room.jpg)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/plugged_in.jpg)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/topic5.jpg)
%20-%20Polygraph%20Place%20Bulletin%20Board_files/reply5.jpg)