|
Author
|
Topic: outed at anti
|
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 08:25 AM
  
We've been outed at anti polygraph.It seems possible the leak or mole was present at the recent CAPE meeting. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 10-22-2007 09:07 AM
Ray,Perhaps we should get some "I've been outed by George" lapel pins. I'd certainly wear mine proudly. Lou [This message has been edited by LouRovner (edited 10-22-2007).] IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 09:20 AM
It was either at CAPE or someone that logs into this web site. My internet source said GM couldn't trace my IP unless he had a subpoena. I have long suspected EOS Jup is on this site as well as Grogans buddies. Just think about it, Stat was not revealed and he has a hidden identity on this page!Lou, please put in my order for the pin! lol Funny thing is yesterday, I almost tried to log in under my name and call GM a coward for banning us and then posting questions. I may try later today, kind of depends if we are on the front page! IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 10:33 AM
They'll keep it on the front page for a day or two.Lapel pin. How about this for a background.
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4092/hookedkz0.png but that's how they play the game. We do appear to have a mole.
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 10-22-2007 10:52 AM
What if we changed the name of this site to "Action Polygraph" then when people search the internet this site would come up first? Would that work or help?I really miss giving George a bad time but unfortunately the only computer I have internet access is this one at work. Since I was dumb enough to open an e-mail from George a few years ago and got a virus I have been banned from e-mailing or posting on that site. I can still read it but that is all. Sorry I missed the fun. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 10:56 AM
So, how about that mole hunt?IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 10-22-2007 05:15 PM
Maybe we should conduct a discussion about antipolygraph.org...George, Drew, at al... on the public section of this board.What do you think? Lou IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 05:50 PM
I am up for that.IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 10-22-2007 05:58 PM
OK. It's started. Take a look and go for it. (General Polygraph Q&A board) Lou [This message has been edited by LouRovner (edited 10-22-2007).] IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 07:12 PM
So is Ralph going to take the GM position and delete posts from the anti crowd when they become obnoxious?IP: Logged |
detector
Administrator
|
posted 10-22-2007 07:22 PM
Hey Donna,I have been banning FOG's for many years now. No one can even register on this board unless they agree not to trash polygraph. In fact, George used to criticize me for banning those folks and now he is doing the same. I really need to dig up his original post where he stated that he was banned from polygraphplace.com. that would be nice to put back in his face at this point. ------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 10-22-2007 07:34 PM
Way to go Ralph!IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 08:13 PM
According to my limited knowledge of the internet, search preference is based on a few different factors.
1. Pay money for web preference---it won't eliminate anti-poly's preferences, but it will be alongside them. This costs $100 or more a month.
2. Gigabytes. The more info on a website, the more terms, names, and citations will flag searches with key words. That is the strength of antipoly, you type in the words "Cleve Backster", and you get antipoly in the top 3 searches---due to the numerous references to Cleve Backster on the antisite. A competing site must have a massive library that is not pdf format so that search engines have much to identify. Our problem as a profession is that we have a history of being so damn secretive that we get our asses kicked on the internet due to our tight grip on data.
3. I forgot what the third factor was , but it was probably good. I am on Vicadin from a vasectomy---so I'm a little spacey.stat IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 08:20 PM
Search bots will scour .pdf files that are text/font based, but cannot read pdf text that is composed of graphic images.------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 10-22-2007 09:06 PM
Ralph, I know you screen for FOGS and you do a great job at it. Its too bad we have an examiner on this forum that is a mole. I just wanted to make sure someone was going to notify you of the plan so you could be quick with the delete button as I expect several posts from AP guys. You were right on top of 1904's posts as Gizmo..aka Samuel..aka namcush.Thanks for all you do and having this site. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-23-2007 01:00 PM
So I have been outed. My name is Eric Johnson. I am a nobody who lives nowhere, and I have no particularly impressive college degree, and I have never been in the media to my knowledge. I have proven to my state government and various contractors that I am a fine, ethical, experienced, and effective polygraph examiner. I chose anonymity for the most ironic reasons. I chose it so that other examiners in my state would not use my postings against me in the realm of contract negotiations i.e. "he said that he suspects false positives on drug questions" or "he bad mouths/criticizes the APA---boohoohoo" while amongst my peers. I still have "98%ers" in my state doing applicant screening and SO testing---and I refuse to tout such accuracy---or even be accomplice to it. So, I will post at anti under my name---and I will remain the same deeply sarcastic bastard that I am in real life. I am retired from polygraph anyway, and the jury is out on if I feel like returning full time again. The war stinks and I won't be interrogating Arabs, domestics are a tregedy waiting to happen, I have no desire to inquire cops of whether they smoked weed 15 times or 150 times before their tox screen. And the sex offender testing is so fraught with financial costs and traveling that I really am not interested in getting anymore exema from cheap hotel sheets, nor getting in the long distance telephone arguments with my wife. I do respect the profession and will help all I can.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-23-2007 02:50 PM
Welcome Eric.You are now a defacto spokesperson for polygraph. You have quite a lot to offer, in terms of insight and your ability to express yourself. Its good to know you. 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 10-23-2007).] IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 10-23-2007 07:15 PM
Good to finally know who you are Eric but I wish it would not have come out in the way that it did.I am a little perplexed by Gino and Gerorge’s move (or the G&G or Gstringed). They have long touted that they respect the anonimity of those who so chose to post that way. I have a feeling that it was Gino who moved on this. Article about Gino. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED91E3AF933A0 5754C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print Not quite sure if this is Gino’s mom but they are listed as related. She is 45 and he is 33, so the math would likely place him as an odd mix in any scenario that I can think of in this day and age. 1. Joanna Scalabrini MS MA RNC CHES www.sunywcc.edu/LEARNING/FACUL - [Cached]
Published on: 9/25/2002 Last Visited: 9/25/2002
Joanna Scalabrini Professor Nursing Curriculum Chair Practical Nursing Health Science Room # 21 914 785 6891 Email joanna.scalabrini@sunywcc.edu 2. Press Release WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER SENIOR VEEP RECOGNIZED AS NURSING MENTOR BY WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY
Virginia Heaney of Valhalla Receives Community Leadership Award www.worldclassmedicine.com/hom - [Cached]
Published on: 5/5/2001 Last Visited: 10/5/2004
"Ginni is the first mentor in our Leadership Program, an honors option in our nursing program," says Joanna Scalabrini, professor and chairperson of nursing at WCC, who presented the award. "When we called upon her, she was the first to volunteer. The experience for the student that she mentored has transformed that student's life." 3. Name of Program www.sunywcc.edu/LEARNING/Progr - [Cached]
Published on: 4/21/2002 Last Visited: 1/3/2003
Curriculum Chair Prof. Joanna Scalabrini, HSC-21 x6891 In New York State, the practice of licensed practical nursing is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding, health teaching and health counseling, and providing supportive and restorative care under the direction of a registered professional nurse, physician, dentist, or other licensed health care provider. PN students prepare for entry-level positions as licensed practical nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and the community. Practical nurses focus on administration of direct care in a holistic manner, with sensitivity to community and cultural needs. Nursing theory and skills are taught in the classroom and labs. Clinical experience in area institutions provides nursing practice in a variety of settings. [This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 10-23-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-23-2007 09:52 PM
Gino is still the enigma of the G-string (good one) pair.Donna nailed him on his incredulous lie about needing to out the anonymous users to preserve the site admins' credibility. BS. Good call. Gino is not looking so smart right now. But he's still very arrogant, less controlled, and more aggressive than GM. He's also got more of enjoyment about this than the calculating and humorless GM. Just look at his "who's the Rat?" taunt - twice - in humongou bold letter, plus the war-time graphic. He also makes more lame excuses, and apparently tells more lies in public. Those are his weaknesses. He does have GM, and perhaps other forces, helping to regulate himself. One of the other posters called it well. It is commonplace to out people whenever possible. It was apparently possible. It is also a good way to regain control over their site. So, its not really surprising. There is a user named Mr. Truth (at anti) who is from Colorado and spent some time on the anti site today. He's a sex offender. I may have the opportunity to find out his ID. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 10-24-2007 08:56 AM
I noticed GMs response to JB today:J.B.,
I indicated that we have a well-informed source for the information regarding Eric Johnson, Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd, and Lou Rovner's coordinated effort to debase the level of discourse on this message board. This is entirely consistent with what Gino has stated. Neither of us has claimed, as Mr. Johnson wrongly suggested in the initial post of this message thread, that this source has any connection with PolygraphPlace.com.
1. In his statment he didn't deny it - it is vague, non-commital attempt to avoid lying
2. He cannot deny it because the converse is true. 3. He should say the sourse has no connections to PP but he didn't. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-24-2007 10:08 AM
On the antisite, through deciphering GM's code I have descovered the rat. It is none other than Christopher Walken. I never trusted that googley-eyed guy!IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 10-24-2007 12:25 PM
FYI, I just received an email asking me to authenticate the secure message and my computer told me viruses were detected. This could be completely unrelated but it is interesting that I received it after I logged onto AP yesterday. IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 10-24-2007 07:26 PM
Taylor,You're just the latest in a group of us who have been graced by George's viruses. Welcome to the club. Honestly, how slimy can a person get? Lou IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-25-2007 08:12 AM
Now don't keep picking on George, Gino, and Drew, they are what they are. (Whatever that is) The discussions are circular on that site and I have enjoyed watching the manner in which all examiners have explained polygraph, only to see the subject diverted and always, always, always they return to the same old tactic of circling the conversation backwards and having the same points explained again. Good job examiners that post there, I don't waste my time on them. I do appreciate the examiners that have the intestinal fortitude to continue the dialogs. I just laugh at the logic or lack there of that continues. I do believe that site visitors are starting to see the fallacy of the anti stance. The response of posting on this site in the open forum is excellent and again I think it is one of the more effective ways of defeating the anti group. The combination of both is dynamic. IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 10-25-2007 02:15 PM
Lou, luckily I have a good virus/spy sweeper. I didn't open the message and immediately deleted the threat. I actually believe someone like Two Block would have sent me the present vs GM. I wish I saved my virus to have it traced because I saw on AP that GM has sent a greivance to APA on your comment in the Ohio v Sharma case about GM sending you a virus. You know GM must have really been picked on when he was a young boy. IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 10-25-2007 03:30 PM
OK,Its probably time to slow down, but at least we didn't simply go away. Interesting how we can still have a presence over there. We've now bumped Georgie's complaint off the top 10. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964) IP: Logged |
Polybob
Member
|
posted 10-25-2007 03:42 PM
This whole thing reminds me of the old saying 'When you wrestle with a pig two things happen: you get covered with mud and the pig has a good time'IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-25-2007 11:08 PM
Polybob,
Please don't ever forget that sometimes, you need a few people with stones that are willing to get dirty and take on the pigs.
Otherwise, the pigs would be in control.Ted IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 10-26-2007 07:10 AM
I know for a fact that there were several pigs that did not have a good time at all. IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 11-04-2007 05:03 PM
For the record:I was banned from the anti site after posting the following: "Sarge:
OOPS you did it again....you opened your mouth...and nothing intellegent came out Regards," Geroge sent me an email telling me he had deleated the post. He said "a good rule of thumb" is to not post anything that would embarrass me if my true identity was revealed. ( CLUE ! ) I emailed George back and asked him if he felt Bill Cridder's last prison sex slave post was appropriate. I was H I S T O R Y in one key stroke! George has proven that he is able to alter, edit and deleate other people's posts. He is also quite willing to do so. What he did to us is blatant sensorship. I admire those of you who have posted under your own names. Until I am retired from law enforcement, I can't take a chance on George editing one of my posts and putting my name to it. I am not saying I won't be back on the anti site, I am just saying you won't see my name ! tee-hee! Keep up the good work! Ted IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 11-04-2007 08:30 PM
Ted, you don't have to be in LE to be a little nervous about being outed. If a previous client were to step forward---or in my case, a pcsot client---to challenge a call you/I made---in the pcsot arena, I wouldn't even be able to aknowledge having the client for confidentiality reasons---so in effect, a pcsot examiner would be a whipping boy from heresay on antipoly. Needless to say, most of us have a few shall we say "disgruntled" types. I have at least 10 (out of over 800 repeat clients in my career) that come to mind who if they weren't so ashamed of being sex offenders, would be very threatening to me if I couldn't defend myself with the facts. Aside from owing the IRS a prearranged 4 figure amount---an embarrassing debt but relatively small----I can't think of anything that could be used against me. I don't much appreciate the treachery of polygraph work---the heresay, the despotism, the ego's-----and that's just the examiners themselves (badum ba.) [This message has been edited by stat (edited 11-05-2007).] IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
