posted 12-16-2007 01:19 PM            

nopoly4me (at anti):

quote:

---

Okay, someone who has had polygraph training please confirm or discredit the following information. In TLBLD, George states:

"The dirty little secret behind the polygraph “test” is that while the
polygrapher admonishes the examinee to answer all questions truthfully,he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions—called “control” questions—will be less than truthful."

He also states:

"The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses
(breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates)
to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant
questions such as, “Did you ever use an illegal drug?” If the former
reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater,
he fails. If responses to both “control” and relevant questions are
about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive."

Are these statements true?

---

One of things we know about persistent problem behaviors is that they are rewarding for the actor - even if the initial reaction is negative. Sometimes, as in the case of provocative behavior, it is not the immediate negative response but some secondary pay-off that is sought.

He already knows the answer.

He's simply comfortable being beyond reach, with his pseudo-intellectual curiosity and pseudo-objectivity. He's completely inhuman, and has not made one personal gesture or statement - but enjoys provoking polygraph examiners at all opportunities.

He also puts time into it, so its evident that he enjoys it or it means something personal to him.

Extinction is a behavior-modification tactic (b-mod therapy) - based on the idea that we can't always manage or anticipate the secondary rewards from a behavior.

Its sometimes useful with autistics and highly-traumatized children - because it recognizes that children would rather be loved than mistreated, but they'd rather be mistreated than ignored completely.

Extinction is to completely ignore a behavior.

So, when children act out for attention, we sometimes ignore it until they request attention in the correct way - even if they engage in problem or disruptive behavior in attempt to gain attention.

To be effective, Extinction require commitment - to ignore the behavior.

The first thing that happens when we ignore a problem behavior - for which the actor is seeking a secondary, not primary, reward - is that the problem behavior escalated. That is because the behavior is the best strategy the actor can come with quickly, so they keep trying, only harder. Disruptive children who put their hand right in front of your face for attention will begin to tap you on the forehead, before they decide to sit quietly with their hand raised properly when you simply ignore them.

After the initial escalation, the actor will be more open to searching for alternative strategies.

-------

I propose we treat nopoly4me with Extinction, and respond with complete silence - refuse even to notice his presence.

He might escalate a bit. Then he'll conclude he scared us off, and beat his own chest like the ape that he is.

But it will surely take the fun out of his provocation, in a way that interacting with him could never accomplish.

r

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

posted 12-16-2007 02:11 PM            

I'm willing to give it a try. Besides I see no reason to correct any of his erroneous assumptions about comparison questions.

I think it will really drive him batty if we continue to respond to everyone else

I'm in.

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

posted 12-16-2007 04:17 PM            

I like nonombre too.

But he may not realize that nope' is like a puppy with a boner - pay him any attention, and you won't get him off your leg.

r

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

posted 12-17-2007 08:48 AM            

ebvan:

quote:

---

I think it will really drive him batty if we continue to respond to everyone else

---

sounds fun.

Nope' is eager to escalate, and began the day with an assertion that the polygraph has error rates of 80-90 percent.

It may help that Nonombre lead him into expecting some more active dialog than he'll receive today.

If he gets too out of hand, someone might need to jump in and fact-slap him.

However, it would be great to give him enough lead to really damage his own credibility before some riducule response. He may not even notice that, as does seem rather intently focused; but he's also not completely stupid.

r

posted 12-17-2007 11:44 AM            

Be ware that GM may come back at you with Patric,k and Iacono 1991, in which the authors reported that examiners reported decisions differed from their actual scores. If he brings it up, one response could be that P & I made the obvious oversight of not adequately describing the cutscores and decision models of the original examiners, and those may have differed from their own procedures - which they also did not adequately evaluate as a source of decision bias.

BTW, great job pushing back on the sarge' - he is the biggest whiner at anti - and repeatedly replaces facts and data with his reported anecdotal experience. He claims to be a forensic investigator of sorts - in accident reconstruction - yet he doesn't seem to understand the hazzards of basing conclusions on a single case experience. I suppose its possible that he's used to reaching conclusions about a single case/accident, and not used to grappling with data (plural).

Is anyone able to authenticate any of the names or details from TheKaisho? That user may be becoming more calm and articulate over the last day or two.

posted 12-17-2007 05:05 PM         

Jul 09 by TheKaisho
To: I am worried, too.
The day before yesterday, I had unprotected sexBuccal smear

Safe sex with my fiancee. We are in a monogamous relationship (we do not swing). Yesterday, I discovered 4 very small what look to be blisters on the head of my penis
They do not hurt, but I can feel some irritation when something like my robe rubs against the head of my penis. They do not have any red or irritated on them. Just four tiny bumps, two pairs, one pair is very close together, the other pair about 2mm apart and 4mm from the other pair. It does not hurt or burn

Any ideas? By the way, I am taking amoxicillin (1000mg/TID) for an upper respiratory infection

posted 12-17-2007 06:23 PM         

I think you should cut and paste that straight to the Anti-site. The truth hurts or at least, burns when you pee!

posted 12-17-2007 07:27 PM            

You guys that are posting do yourselves proud! Grey matter wins every time----and sarcasm makes it fun (ebvan vs. Sarge).

------------------
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --G.W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

posted 12-17-2007 11:27 PM            

quote:

---

http://www.techsupportforum.com/microsoft-support/windows-xp-support/169681-please-help-me.html

07-24-2007, 03:47 PM #1 (permalink)
TheKaisho
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6
OS: Windows XP SP2

Please Help Me

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, My name is Mike and I am new to the forum. I need help really bad because the defacation has certainly assaulted the air circualting device here, let me tell you.

I was soft disconnected for non-payment of my internet service. Upon waking, I called them and paid for it with my debit card.

When my daughter went to check the connection, she did something to the cOmputer, I have no idea what. But all of my User Profile data was gone and I cannot access from the desktop my documents. It is as if the only User account that was on the machine is gone. Upon getting to the internet, it asked me to give a New Homepage (it is as if I was using Explorer for the first time!!). All of my "Favorites" are gone and so is Outlook Express.

I cannot even find that program!!

I tried two system restores, to no avail. I have been able to find my missing documents, but do not know how to link them with a new user profile.

When I try to login in at the Windows Home screen, it tells me that Windows cannot open the account because of a security issue or some other reason.

Please HELP me!!! I have over four years of work on this computer and I need to access it.

Thank you al lvery much in advance for any input you have.

Regards,

Mike

---

posted 12-18-2007 02:10 AM         

I don't post on the Anti site, I don't have the ability to put up with the crap they put out, but feel free to copy and paste it there if you wish.

posted 12-18-2007 08:20 AM            

It looks like Twoblock, TripleX and Sergeant are gonna Gang up on Sancho.
Sancho's feelings are hurt because THEY called HIM and idiot.

Jesper, I don't know what to say about him, he types with a german accent reminiscent of Sgt. Shultz and uses rodeo analogies.
Geez

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

posted 12-18-2007 08:33 AM            

I wonder if sergeant isnt Sgt Paul Liquori the Esat Haven Connetticut Sergeant who is sueing his chief for age discrimination. Evidently the Chief is citing the officer's disciplinary record as the reason he wasn't promoted.

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

posted 12-18-2007 09:40 AM            

It seems possible these are not all related.

TheKaisho at anti rants a lot, and there are some inconsistencies. He mentioned some names, but I'm beginning to doubt whether the story is real.

r

posted 12-18-2007 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

I wonder if sergeant isnt Sgt Paul Liquori the Esat Haven Connetticut Sergeant who is sueing his chief for age discrimination. Evidently the Chief is citing the officer's disciplinary record as the reason he wasn't promoted.

---

Paul Liquori -
http://www.shorepublishing.com/re.aspx?re=b96155e1-ce11-4cc1-914c-0208749bbb68

posted 12-18-2007 10:09 AM            

Mentions a previous case with a Ms. Hansen - supposedly an FP

Polygrah examiner Sgt Escalante

quote:

---

BTW, at the time of the theft, I was 5'9" tall and weighed 309lbs. I suffered from a HOST of illnesses, hypertension, type 2 diabetes (with insulin dependency), poor cholesterol, joint pain, depression and one of the worst case of severe obstructive sleep apnea the VA clinic had ever seen. In short, I was a mess.

---

theft of Projector - 12/02 at Grand Valley State Univ.

reports age as 37 at the time

says he's a combat veteran

claims to have filed appleal in Mich court of Appeals

BA in criminology

interviewed by a Det. Lyman

legal counsel Frank Carrozza

private polygraph examiner Terry Anderson - possibily former Michigan State Police

---------------

It would be fun to dispatch this guy if he's fabricating details.

Otherwise, maybe we could find out who is supervising him and contact a PO.

He's clearly enjoying the opportunity to rant and vent.

he's also a self-proclaimed expert in Jungian psychology

r

posted 12-18-2007 01:17 PM            

Unfortunately, ranting, using the Internet, and being an arse is probably not a violation of his supervision.

----------------

'nope is already feeling starved for attention, and has resorted to quoting himself and boasting

----------------

r

posted 12-18-2007 04:36 PM            

As to the incident with Ms. Hansen. I believe what is being refered to is a case where a bank deposit that was made to a night deposit box came up missing. Ms. Hansen was the bank employee that had access to to that deposit. The police investigation focussed on her and she agreed to take a polygraph exam. It was administered by Sgt. Escalante. The exam results were DI however she would not admitt to anything. Eventually she entered a plea of No Contest. She received a fine and a small amount of comunity service. Several months after that was all completed the bank was experiencing problems with their night depository and they had a service man come in. He found the missing deposit. It had been there the whole time.

posted 12-18-2007 06:40 PM            

sniff sniff

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

posted 12-18-2007 07:03 PM            

r

posted 12-18-2007 08:10 PM            

Whoops sorry y'all wrong board

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

posted 12-18-2007 08:55 PM            

"Sancho, Please refrain from taunting posters in such a way as to stifle the flow of debate via ad hominum attacks and sarcasm. I have expected as much from the likes of your fellow examiners and hoped that you wouldn't tow that line. Let this be your formal warning. This message will now destruct..."

I enjoyed your pimp slap today ebvan. Please be careful as many of us are enjoying the dialogue improvement and the respite. I may never post there again provided that men and women such as yourself take up the cause.

p.s. click and save some funny pictures (go to any "funny pictures" website for free pics)that illustrate various points and when you post at the bottom of the post screen, click "browse" and upload the pic. I would like to see more graphics (not suprising, eh?) Cut & Paste one for the Gipper!

------------------
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --G.W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

posted 12-18-2007 09:07 PM            

------------------
"Please pass me the double-headed one"---George W. Maschke

posted 12-18-2007 09:24 PM            

You should post at anti.

Just ignore 'nope.

Offer some level-headed wisdom to Geraldo re his jm use, to take the edge off his anxiety about a retest.

It'll bug 'nope both to be ignored, and because he want's to paint examiners as treacherous.

Lethe is another ignorable/untouchable - with no human warmth, and absolutely nothing personal.

posted 12-19-2007 04:07 PM            

-------

So how do we play with Jesper?

What would happen if Barry got critical with him? 1904 was highly reactive to Barry.

He'll run before he's outed, and then come back as someone else.

Lethe is another one who is so impersonal that he's suspicious. He's probably an alter. He was going after LieBabyCryBaby at one time. Then of course, PailRyder mysteriously appeared, and even more interestingly pre-dated Palerider, to engage in a confederate conversation with Lethe.

Lethe has recently displayed more arrogance and anger, and has lost some of the mannered veneer that he began with.

r

posted 12-19-2007 04:44 PM            

At Taylor's request Sancho did respond one more time to Kaisho
------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 12-19-2007 07:52 PM            

There's no question in my mind Jesper is 1904, but that's based on how dumb he is.

Okay, I quit after I read this one by Skip:

quote:

---

Mr. Maschke, I find it diffiuclt to believe that your response to "Syd123" was an error as much as it was your often quoted standard unsupported assertions. You tend to shoot from the hip more and more on this forum wihtout first aligning your target and checking your ammo. You cite Dr. Zelicoff's response to Dr. Ryan as if it were "The Gospel according to Luke" rather than merely an exchange of opinions voiced between two scientists. Your usual method...throw out something while you try to come up with something accurate. No change here.

---

That stung so bad MY backside hurt! That's a classic. I might even get that one framed for my wall if Skip will autograph it for me.

posted 12-19-2007 11:00 PM            

Ebvan --Weekdays, early mornings
Skip---weekends
Barry---staggered afternoons and evenings
RNelson---swing shift
Taylor---PT swing
Nonombre---bi-weekly pickup shift
Hunter---Monthly hammer shift
Stat----Holidays, Bar Mitzvahs and Christenings

Now Hiring

------------------
"Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program."----Peter Falk, The In-Laws

posted 12-19-2007 11:18 PM            

------------------
"Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program."----Peter Falk, The In-Laws

posted 12-20-2007 12:02 AM            

I myself am a temp staffer for a reason.

If you search posts under my name on the anti site, you will see that I had a number of exchanges with George, Gino, and Drew (to name a few) in the past.

I monitor the site every day, several times a day. However, I only comment when I feel it is necessary (e.g. gross inaccuracies) and, when I do so, I now try to keep the comments short and concise with no volleying debate. George et al need repeat commentary to help keep things lively on the board. Otherwise, the very few anti who actually post there would have nothing to debate about and would get little if no regular real (professional) information regarding polygraph.

posted 12-20-2007 12:45 AM            

------------------
"Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program."----Peter Falk, The In-Laws

posted 12-20-2007 01:38 PM            

TheKaisho seems to be gone\
Sergeant1107 hasn't posted in 2 days.

Jesper seems to have dialed back his offensive comments a bit even though george didn't respond to my complaint.

I'm not sure Nopoly knows he's being ignored yet,

Two block has eased off and he and triple X are ignoring me because of my "insults, and senseless rambling" Gee I guess I need to learn how to argue a point.

Does anyone know where I can sign up for a debate class so I can take on these MasterDebaters without looking like an unprepaired fool?

I guess I'll just watch for a bit and see what's next

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

posted 12-20-2007 03:05 PM            

I think every examiner should read the anti site at least once in awhile for the same reason I read High Times and Easy Rider when I was working drugs. Never bought one, but there were usually copies laying around in the aftermath of a good raid.

Anti-polygraph.org is not just anti polygraph, they are clearly anti research and anti examiner and they ascribe to the idea that as examiners we are against the truth and constantly accuse us of immoral, unethical, and illegal behavior.

They picked this fight and I am still not convinced the fight is winnable inside the context of their forum because all they have to do is change the rules of debate in their favor and declare themselves the winner.

I still believe that theses ideas are valid to wit:
Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

Never argue with an idiot; people watching might not be able to tell the difference.

Never resist an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.

Things are never so small that they can't be blown out of proportion.

However the main contributors to the “Anti” point of view portray themselves as performing some great public service. They contend that they are “Pro-Truth” and based on their own words these statements are false. Sancho Panza has been trying to “fact-slap” them with their own inconsistent words and demand that they support their silly claims.

Even though they deny it, they encourage people to lie. They encourage people to attempt to defeat the goals of justice by using artificially manufactured responses.

They are fully aware that the advice they give is used by murderers, robbers, child molesters, and terrorists to attempt to evade the consequences of their evil acts. I suspect that the motive behind this lies in a revenge scenario because the site’s founder was found unsuitable for Federal Employment in a position requiring a security clearance and his monumental ego has been bruised.

Some examiners may be reluctant to go to the anti site and do extended battle with some of the personalities that may lurk there. It can be very tiring especially when some of these clods will claim something in one post, deny they claimed it in the next post and claim something new in the third.

If an examiner wants to sign on and wrestle with the pig for awhile and feels comfortable with the subject matter, I say go for it. But if not, may I suggest a seat in the “Amen Pew” When 3 or 4 of these knot-heads are ganging up on Stat, Taylor, Barry, Sancho or any of the regular “Pro-posters” you could sign on with some words in support or a simple “Triple X” that is what you said before why are you changing it now?

I suggest you go ahead and get a user ID so it doesn’t look like you are “Brand New” when you comment. With a few shouts from the Amen Pew the people who go to the site to have their questions answered will learn that it’s not about clever argument or personalities. It’s about the truth. They also need to be reminded that following the “Antis” advice could lead them to break the law and possibly cause them even more trouble in the long run.

Be careful some of these guys are masters at baiting you into an argument. (insert your own pun here)

George Maschke’s constant rant, that it is justifiable to lie to examiners because examiners lie, is just a thinly disguised version of “All’s Fair in Love and War” since it is obvious that he doesn’t love us it must be equally obvious that he has declared WAR. If so, he is guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We may not win the war, but it has been proven that they can be chased off of the battlefield for short periods. As long as they are in retreat they cannot continue to convince people that they are right.

If you are an examiner and you aren't reading the Anti site YOU SHOULD BE. If you read it and want to post your thoughts I say Go For It.

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

posted 12-20-2007 03:22 PM            

NoPoly4Me
Flings his poo over the fence
Whoops he tossed his brain

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

posted 12-20-2007 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

They picked this fight and I am still not convinced the fight is winnable inside the context of their forum because all they have to do is change the rules of debate in their favor and declare themselves the winner.

---

That's the problem. We can't "win" with them. I question whether our acknowledgement of them gives them a credibility they don't deserve. I'm still convinced most viewers are examiners.

Somebody just suggested to me a history of the AP's accomplishments - or lack thereof since their 1999 start. What have they attempted since their birth? What have they accomplished? Maybe a review would be nice. They've tried for legislation, law suits, requesting bans of screening exams, keeping polygraph out of court, etc. Our polygraph schools don't seem to be slowing down when it comes to producing examiners, so somebody's using us - despite their attempts.

Maybe somebody who has been around and knows the ins and outs of their failures could make another post (Hint: Skip). They've lost, but we act, at times anyhow, as if the uninformed have something over us.