|
Author
|
Topic: George Maschke lives in a world of make-believe friends
|
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-06-2007 10:02 AM
  
Its interesting what you notice when you start to get up close and personal with the folks at anti.The place is full of fakes (and some really bitter people). I'm increasingly convinced that much of the content is unreal. George seems to be attempting to wrestle back control of the anti-forum content by increasing the rate of conversations with shills (possibly himself). Lethe is not real. He's probably GM himself. Pailryder is an obsequious twit who claims to be a polygraph examiner, but says only what is useful to GM. He occassionaly tries, inauthentically, to promote some form of polygraph, just to preserve impressions. He's really a disgusting fake. I'm also suspicious of his origin - with a registration date during 2006, pre-dating Palerider, though not a single post until recently. It would be quite easy for an Administrator to create a user, and then manually alter the registration date in the MySQL database upon which YABB runs. Pailryder's written voice has the same emasculated need for testosterone replacement as the GM and Lethe character. You'll notice this voice emerge whenever GM's characters are attempting to be sincere, thoughtful and intelligent. rice80 is no cop - he's claims to have failed three polygraphs while telling the truth. Problem is no cop that whiny would make it through academy or POST training let alone field training. and the respected Sergeant1107 - is a dimensionless character. he's a one-note-song, who's carefully crafted mantra is remarkably similar to that of GM himself. He claims to work at the Pentagon (BS), and claims to have failed three polygraphs while telling the truth. There are probably others. These us simply the current roster. There is a rather constant/daily stream of new users registering with witty names, but then not posting anything. This is suspicious to me. If someone is going to register a witty name, they've probably got something to say. Its possible that a number of the thousands of registered users are not real. So many of them have the same voice and same mantra - its almost comical to watch them heap compliments on each other. observe: quote:
Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Procedure / Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
on: Today at 7:10am
Started by Lethe | Post by pailryder
Lethe
I am sorry that I my answers have not been helpful. You come at this from an intellectual position with valid thoughtful questions and I can only offer answers based on my observations and experience. Some time ago, I decided to see how an open approach might effect my practice. The other examiners who post here will be horrified when they read this, but I fully discuss with my subjects the role of the CQ, how and why I developed the CQ, and how I expect it to use it to evaluate their response to the RQ. I no longer lie to my subjects and I have observed only positive effects from this change. I have not seen any evidence that this knowledge helps the guilty or hinders the truthful or adversly effects my ability to discriminate between the two. True knowledge, I think, seldom works that way. I know this is not what you want, but it is all that I have. I am not a reseacher, not a scientist, not a logician. Just a guy with a job that goes to the office each day and tries to treat others as I would have them treat me and mine if our roles were reversed.
Thank you for your question and for our discussion.
If it weren't so disruptive, it would be sad. ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-07-2007 10:31 AM
I share in Ray's cyniscisms over the varacity and "realness" of various members and posters at anti. So often the internet gives grand illusions of largess and gravity---when there is only a few who flood the medium with megabytes and web search priority. I am reminded of a hot rod builder in Michigan, which is actually a one man operation that if taken at internet face value, you'd think he had a Boyd Coddington multi-bay manufacturing operation---but instead, he has a cunning web designer. The greater problem with such grandiose Wizard of Oz'ness is that the appearence is that of a grand consensis, not a booger-eating little activist with 3 or 4 minions (at best).
Regardless, the site poses a threat as ---like I have repeated before (too much I think) the antipolygraph site is unfortunately the front window of our profession---and the decore is being done by a man who at times, I believe is being paid to do what he does----by whom I won't theorize as I don't want to fall prey to hyper-paranoia here. I am not naive to the fact that there are many elements in the federal government that would like an end to the practice of risk polygraph, and it suffices to assume that there would be backlash from those well-placed negativists through various channels. Going back to what Ray has indicated, there is something truly fishy with that "antipolygraph organization"----and although I do not mirror Rays opinions on individual posters per se, I also have felt a sense of danger and/or core suspicion that I cannot quantify at this time. The antisite, when you become a poster, becomes a source for targeted close analysis---in that when you post, you find yourself engaged on a deeper level of wariness than if you were merely spectating. I have wondered which perspective is the most distorted, the spectator perspective, or the hyper-vigileant insider combatant perspective-----the old tree for the woods anecdote may or may not fit.
I swear I am not on drugs----but there have been times when I have often wondered if George Maschke actually exists in the way that he claims-----in that I have on occasion gotten the feeling that he is not really in charge or even "all there" so to speak. Perhaps that oft fleeting impression is based from his various implied priorities and his near round the clock presence----along with other posters who seem to have limitless time on the site. 1904 is the only exception as he posts at the same mid-morning times, and then maybe a revisit in the afternoon (he is on a different continent and posts at night when we are in mid morning.)
I have recently taken a break from the site to get some perspective. For a poster, it is a dark and very negative place----a place where the seams of ethics are understitched in such a way that it is difficult to see distinctions----a place where German Philosophers would have sipped
tea and argued ethics----a place where individuals cloud the line between victimology and criminology like I have never seen-------a place where nothing is as it first, second,or third --seems and at times you feel like you are being offered a distraction while someone slips behind you and takes something of value. Perhaps the value they are after doesn't exist, because "they" do not exist.
p.s. There is nearly always 19 guests on the site, regardless of time or day. This fixed number does not coincide with how internet websites and thier nebulous populations work.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 10-07-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 10-07-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-07-2007 11:55 AM
Stat,Those guests at anti are probably Georgie's handful of computers, logged off of course, along with a cadre of spiders and bots from various search engines. My teenage son has noticed a guest user count issues with his own forum, and I believe he said he's heard from others that it is difficult to get some forum software to accurately count unregistered users. The number might not be anywhere near correct, it could be double the number of actual users and bots, or incremented in some unknown way. George might even change the default value to a preset minimum. Regardless, the atmosphere at anti is toxic, unhealthy, and at times unreal. 1904 is a real user. So too is digithead. Some of the others are probably real too. Many of the regulars are not. Jupiter is probably a different user, as is 2block. Its almost sad to witness George having whole conversations with himself. Its like a lonely child's tea-party, with make believe friends - only he's a grown up, and he's probably a lot more lonely. I don't believe GM is on the site as much as he's logged in. He does however never seem to miss an opportunity to state his cause, and has access to a very real network of supporters somewhere. All in all, its a house of mirrors. Its like one of those old radio shows, in which the host is a voice impressionist who makes up stupid characters for comic fodder, except it's not funny. 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 10-07-2007).] IP: Logged |
Gordon H. Barland
Member
|
posted 10-07-2007 04:33 PM
I think Stat's strategy of saturating APg with our replies is bearing fruit. When there were only one or two examiners posting at a time, they descended upon us like wolves upon lambs, and had everything their way, with nobody to hassle them. They could twist our thoughts to their liking and get away with it.Now, they're definitely on the defensive, and when the public looks in, they see more of us than them. George has even called in the reclusive Gino to help defend their fiefdom. I do think Stat has the right strategy. Let's keep it up! Peace, Gordon ------------------
IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 10-07-2007 05:51 PM
Ray,Excellent obervations. Your review of the number of examinations failed by a couple of the "posters" on the anti site reminded me of the following experiences. One of our other polygraph examiners and I just love it when we see our applicant's say that they have only used MJ "3" times. Most of the time, by the time our examinations are completed (either from pre or post test interviews) with these particular applicants, we find some high numbers with regards to the number of times marijuana has actually been used as well as the number of different types of illegal drugs used in their lifetimes. That "3" number seems to be a quick response at an attempt to conjure up a seemingly credible quantification. Just like the following common exchange from a motorist pulled over: OFFICER: "Sir, how many drinks have you had this evening." MOTORIST: "2." Now, what would be interesting is to have some software that can identify "writing prints" in an attempt to identify who particular posters are by the words, phrases, commom typos and mis-spellings, etc. I have heard of word print analysis done in ancient texts in an attempt to identify the authenticity of those texts as well as who possible authors may have been... Ben [This message has been edited by blalock (edited 10-07-2007).] [This message has been edited by blalock (edited 10-07-2007).] IP: Logged |
chaz
Member
|
posted 10-11-2007 08:50 PM
Refering to Stats's comments about anti..with all the investigators we have amongst us..why has not anyone commissioned a pi to really check our gm?It would be a great assignemt for a pi would it not? IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-11-2007 09:04 PM
OK chaz, if you have some money and a credit card----try these guys, they're the best in the nor-western European region;
http://www.theabi.org/private-investigator/netherlands.htm
p.s.--this is a real link. Certified by the Brits, based in the Netherlands. I will personally send you a worthwhile gift if you dare to hire them and show me the report.
IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 09:19 AM
Stat or Ray, I just read one of Dr. Hont's latest studies which he did with Wendy R. Alloway and published in "Legal and Criminological Pshchology", Volume 12, pages 311-320 (The British Psychological Society, 2007) In this study, they took 40 participants divided into guilty and innocent for a mock crime. The groups were sub-divided into guilty informed and guilty naive as was the innocent group. The informed group (guilty and innocent)received a copy of GM's book and were given a week to study the book and told that the book could help them to pass the polygraph regardless of condition. The naive group was not given the manual.The result...the book did not assist the guilty group to pass but did cause more of the innocent group to fail. In other words, the exact opposite of what George preaches. Studying the countermeasures actually caused more innocents to fail without helping guilty to pass. This would be a great study to get onto the site as it directly opposes what George and his munchkins preach. IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 12:29 PM
Honts and Alloway are good, but right now we're distracted by important things like baseball.r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 01:16 PM
10 Favorite Sports Movies in color;1. The Natural
2. Hoosiers (of course)
3. Rudy
4. The Replacements
5. Miracle
6. Seabisquit
7. Prefontagne
8. Dodgeball
9. Major League
10.Caddyshack
IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 01:42 PM
See latest post on Georgie's site- Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty
Today at 2:40pm Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test
Authors: Honts, Charles R.1; Alloway, Wendy R.1
Source: Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320(10)
Publisher: British Psychological Society
Abstract:
Purpose: Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.
Method: Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behavior and perceptions during their examination.
Results: There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to support predictions made by the theory of the CQT.
Conclusions: Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the CQT critics.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1348/135532506X123770
Submitter's note:
The participants were given the downloadable manual “The lie Behind the Lie Detector" from this site and told to study the book as it could help them to pass the polygraph test. After having the book for a week, the guilty subjects with the book were no better at passing the test than were the guilty group without the book. However, the innocent group with the book failed the test at a higher rate (false positives) than the innocent group without the book. Makes one wonder if this site is doing more harm than good. If it doesn't help the guilty to pass and it causes the innocent to fail the test at a higher rate then why would one use the book? This study indicates the exact opposite from what this web site predicts will happen!
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 02:13 PM
You'll note that George has yet to post his reply to this study, which he's know about for some time. Immediately after it came out, he said there were serious methodological problems with it, but he didn't cite a single one - which can only mean he's still thinking of how he can spin this one.IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 02:21 PM
The fact that we will have to reply will drive him up the wall and it will scare the hell out a few applicants in the process.IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 02:36 PM
You're right, but I suspect it'll be "wait and see" response. If you've got it, you might want to post the abstract of Lou Rovner's study. It may not be peer-reviewed in the traditional sense, but he defended it in front of a dissertation committee that was persuaded he did it well. This study - which was peer-reviewed - essentially replicated Lou's work.While you're at it, you might want to let them know that Hont's doesn't believe what they state he does. (They keep citing the study in which Honts taught CMs in less than a half-hour, but they fail to mention the caveats Honts pointed out, and they fail to mention his more recent publications that make clear he doesn't put much faith in that study.) I've enjoyed watching them squirm, and this ought to have them seeing red. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-15-2007 06:07 PM
I'd like to personally thank Skip and others for posting on the antisite----it takes moxy---and you won't regret it. Tell a friend how easy it was, and remember that we can better control the future of our field with fierce unity, self awareness and self evaluation. There is no reason why we can't police our own and not need deucheboy in the Netherlands to do it for us. Thanks Skip and other Kymo Brigadeers and don't forget to show them some tough love.IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 10-16-2007 12:04 PM
Skip,Two things. First, I wrote a column about the Honts and Alloway study that appeared in the March/April, 2007 issue of the APA magazine. Feel free to post quotes from that article. Second, my own countermeasures study was published in the APA journal "Polygraph" in 1986. Although it wasn't a peer-reviewed journal, I felt that the information would be far more interesting and valuable to examiners than it would be to the average reader of "Psychophysiology". FYI, the study and its results were presented at a meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) and an abstract of the study appeared in SPR's journal (Psychophysiology). The issue of the research not being peer-reviewed is a straw man set up by a blatherskite. Lou [This message has been edited by LouRovner (edited 10-16-2007).] IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 12:13 PM
Thanks lou, I see my post pulled Gino Scalibrini out of hiding.[This message has been edited by skipwebb (edited 10-16-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 01:50 PM
I predict that Gino will tire easily, and go back into hiding. All that is necessary is to be persistent with him.He's either busy, lacks stomach for constant bickering, or has a thin line of logic. His repeated attempt is to attempt to disembowel his opponent with the "soft science" allegations. Real scientists have mostly lost interest in that distinction.
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
CHSBOY
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 04:57 PM
Skip, et al.,I can’t sit by and watch this without commenting. Good job getting under George’s skin and putting his feet to the fire regarding the facts! I’ve often wondered why no one has challenged George on the fact you raise and one that examiners can use when the time is right - in discussions with examinees; that is: employment of Cms by truthtellers tends to skew their exam toward a FP. This was cited in one of George’s favorite documents years ago but it's not one of the facts that he will use from that report. The NRC (2003) report specifically indicated that innocent subjects who opt to use Cms do so at their own risk, citing research data from two projects which made that apparent. With Honts & Alloway’s recent publication, there are now three (to my knowledge) in print that address this issue. As you and others have pointed out, the recent work also replicates the previous work by Lou regarding the impact of ‘polygraph knowledge’ on an exam. This must be driving George around the bend. I wrote an article for the APA Newsletter a few years back (Jul/Aug 2004) wherein I provided the two (previous) research citations for the point made in the NRC paper (Dawson - 1980 & Honts, et al., 2001), if anyone needs them. Keep up the good work. Paradiddle and Wonder-Woman have truly made things interesting. I see you even got my mentor and friend, Gordon Barland, out to comment! I'm going to have to stay more closely tuned to the action on the boards. Paul M. Menges
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 07:39 PM
At last the "sarge" is under fire.I've suspected that guy for a fake for some time. His story is remarkably like GM's, and his ethical paradigm is not at all cop-like. He never misses an opportunity to whine about his polygraph experience, and is eager to substitute his anecdotal experience for data. Now what we need is more insight into digithead's vulnerabilities. He claims to be a researcher/program evaluator in sex offender treatment. Its possible that he's overplaying his expertise with mathematical matters. Program evaluators often use case-study methods, single-systems research approaches, and rely heavily on survey type statistics. D-Head's ranting about polygraph seems to come rather directly from the NRC report, and not from any biostatistics text. I'm beginning to doubt his expertise too. The compactness of his point, and consistency with NRC, seems to suggest he has got the majority of his info from that source. Like most of the posters at anti, he too readily interchanges discusssion about empirical matters with discussion about ethical matters. 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 10-16-2007 08:37 PM
Stat, Your advocacy of flooding the anti site is having some great results. I would be hesitant to use any countermeasures after reading the polygraph examiners postings. You are truly a thinker and planner. Thanks. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 09:20 PM
Thanks Paul and Bill. Paradiddle is not supposed to be a representative of the polygraph profession per se ---he is a representative of the men and women who have been dragged through the mud on the worldwide web for far too many years. We should give thanks to Nonombre, LieBabyCryBaby and a few others who endured being swamped from all sides in public for trying to speak rationally about our peculiar little field of work---to a group of repetitive circle jerks (those that use circular logic repetitively and are jerks---ha!.)
Polygraph examiners are in fact a varying group of individuals---left leaning, right-leaning----tight lipped, loose lipped----restrained and profane----male and female---grad degree'd and associate degree'd. So why can't we represent such diversity to the public on their big site? We can, we will, and we will never again let them have the last word on OUR PROFESSION. We will no doubt be faced with flaps---poly scandals---whatever-----but we will have voices that reach beyond obscurity. I am proud to be a polygraph examiner when I stand with others who want self-determination, dignity, professional scope-awareness, and common goals. Ain't it cool when we all firmly agree on something for a change?
p-diddle
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 09:35 PM
stat,I was thinking about starting a thread on the anti admin's repeated violation of their own posting policy - with the claims of no evidence of any ability to detect CMs - just to rattle GM's cage a little more directly. r IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 09:54 PM
Sounds great Ray. Has anyone ever suspected that George suffers from undiagnosed Asberger's Autism? I am quite serious. IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 10:16 PM
I understand why you ask that, but I think its doubtful.Asperger's is not exactly the same as autism, but similar. It includes social learning deficits, without the common gross cognitive deficits of more classic autism. You have to be a little careful, because Asperger's is becoming a bit of the diagnosis du jour. Like bipolar disorder was just a short time ago (and of course we all know that ADD stands for "Any Diagnosis 'll Do.") Asperger's is thought by some to be in part a right-side, parietal, deficit. Parietal skills are non-verbal, conceptual, and social. They are big picture and subtlty skills. A little like NVLD, but more obvious. People will perseverate, and fail to take social and interactive cues. They will struggle a lot to understand other people's perspectives or feelings. One obvious thing will be that they will tend to not integrate conceptual information into rote-learned information. They have verbal skills, without substance. George doesn't seem to have conceptual difficulties, or perspective taking difficulties. His form of pathology is probably not neuro-cognitive. Its personality based. (Both personality disorders and developmental disorders can be coded on Axis II.) The thing about narcissists is that they can actually understand other people's persectives, feelings, and social cues (that's why they cab be effective manipulators). They simply don't like to do so for long. It also appears that he may need attention, so you have to wonder if he's not somewhat histrionic in addition to being narcissistic and grandiose. Aside from all that, some would simply say he's a dork. r IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 10:25 PM
George suffers from Rectal/Cranial Inversion. Tragic, really.Ted IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-16-2007 10:40 PM
I am afraid I have some bad news;I just spoke with Mysterymeat. MM drew two penatly flags today from Maschke for "ad hom" attacks against Sarge and Cridder. MM was permanently banished from the site by Maschke. A trust fund has been established for Mrs. Meat and all the little Meats. Contributions may be sent to this site care of P-Diddle. A moment of silence please....... IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-17-2007 07:08 AM
Paradiddle has informed me that George was very unhappy with certain "time travel" remarks regarding George's record use of double negatives in one clumsy sentence. Paradiddle has stated that Mrs. Meat will be covered under the spousel loss of wages by the Kymo Brigade's Platinum Insurance Plan section D titled "If Brigade Member were to Step Over the edge Of Aggresive Pursuit and Loss Poster Status." I am afraid however, that the little Meats will no longer be able to attend pricey private school.IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-17-2007 08:05 AM
quote:
I was thinking about starting a thread on the anti admin's repeated violation of their own posting policy - with the claims of no evidence of any ability to detect CMs - just to rattle GM's cage a little more directly.
If you do that, I'll add a few posts here and there. I'm busy, but if we can start pointing out the holes and inconsistencies in their arguments, then I'll give it whirl. IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-17-2007 08:26 AM
Barry is on track here.We have shown that we can dance with the best of them. We have exchanged fire and sufferred few loses.(R.I.P. Palerider and MM!) Skip actually was the first, or at least the most recent poster to drop a Scud and boy did that one hurt! Now it it time to continue our assault with fact and logic. It is time to take George out at the knees! Gentlemen,
Let the games begin! Ted IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-17-2007 08:31 AM
OK,be aware though that not all proxies are anonymous. Download and use TOR for the Firefox browser. Proxyway (which GM recommends) will most often connect to a non-anonymous server. r IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-17-2007 08:40 AM
Barry,If you post on Anti using your own name - which I suspect you might because you are straightforward like that. You should know in advance that the user 1904 has a strong dislike for you from the public side of this site. He posts as Gizmo and possibly recently Sammuel. I believe he's been banned. He was very aggressive with me, even more so after I hooked him into feeling stupid when he looked up gullible in the dictionary - and explained that he thought I was you. I took that as a compliment, but its surprising because I was abusively sarcastic to the point of nearly getting banned and getting some abusive name calling in private messages (esp after photoshopping the drag-queen pic behind Lethe's avatar image). 1904 was recently banned from anti for hassling a new user whom I believe is actively schizophrenic. He could of course return. Be armed. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-17-2007 09:08 AM
Yes, I do plan on using my own name, and I don't expect to be liked. I tried the proxy stuff, but kept getting error messages. I'm out there enough, that anybody can find me at work, and probably even home, without much effort, so I'm not going to spend too much time trying to find what I was doing wrong for what would be a futile attempt at "hiding."I see 1904 used my "you lose" line from my exchanges (which have since been deleted) with Gizmo. IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
