|
Author
|
Topic: playing on the anti site
|
ebvan
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 08:07 AM
  
Everytime I get the urge to warm up the keyboard and mess with George and his intellectually incestuous progeny, I try to remember some simple rules given to me by a wise man. 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. Thus far I have been able to satisfy my need for conflict by merely observing the work of others. I can easily imagine George tortured and squinty-eyed, slaving over his computer long into the night, day after day, all for the simple satisfaction of saying AHA! I figured out who you are. He goes to such ridiculous lengths just so he can declare himself "WINNER" of any argument. I'd be willing to bet that when he was in grade school he lost his lunch money every day. ------------------
Ex scientia veritas [This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 12-01-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 11:10 AM
Oh, now you tell us.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 12-01-2007 01:54 PM
I disagree completely. The point is not to win an argument. The point is to not appear to be running----an act that emboldens our enemies. The antipolygraph search priority is far more powerful than any other polygraph website----as I have stated before----antipolygraph.org is the front window to the field of polygraph. We can't afford to ignore such epic forms of character and professional assasination. Luckily for us, George Maschke allows dissenting views on the message board---and as long as that continues, I will opine. There should be 20 more examiners on there at all times-----examiners that are far better spoken and more scientifically equiped than myself.[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-01-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 02:22 PM
You are, of course, correct stat.Simply increasing the content on this site, or APA would help a bit. How about a blog, with an RSS feed. That could help with rankings and visibility in news searches. A blog to support actual discussion of polygraph research - the way they're not interested at anti. I'll be back there shortly, but I've enjoyed a break from the toxicity and irrationality.
Perhaps that could be a new project when we replace this antiquated forum software. Propeller headed discussions could possibly be limited to members but threaded to a blog with an RSS feed - as long as the content is suitable for public consumption. I don't see why a number of the more thoughtful discussions we've had wouldn't be impressive or useful to informing the public that there is sometimes much more intelligent poly-talk than goes on in the emotional-appeals and andectodal drama at anti.
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 12-01-2007).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 07:12 PM
STAT pleae don't construe my comments as some kind of an attack on the efforts of certain intelligent Anti Site Posters who have chosen to rebut the anti drivel (and who may or may not be members of this site or part of an ongoing government conspiracy against poor little ol' George). My comments were kind of a "tongue in cheek" overview of the ongoing battle. My point was and is, that no matter how well you clobber him in an argument, he will always declare himself the winner. If you really want to mess with George, I suggest that the very next time one of us gets an admission to counter-measures in a criminal case from someone who has read his book, let's see if we can find a friendly prosecutor who will file a "Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice" charge against him turning him instantly into an international fugitive. He's never coming back, so it will never come to court but he could be reminded on his forum every day that "BTW george isn't there a warrant for your arrest?" We might even be able to rattle his webhost a bit by pointing out their tacit participation in the conspiracy. IMHO you cannot defeat an idiot with logic. Don Quixote: [about to attack the windmill] Ho, there, foul monster! Cease the knocking at thy craven knees and prepare to do battle!
Sancho Panza: Your Grace, I swear by my wife's little black moustache that's not a giant, it's only a windmill. I agree that a blog and RSS feed could move this site up in the search engines. It might even force Georgy to spend the proceeds from his mug and refrigerator magnet business to raise his position on Google. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 07:22 PM
Could someone please rebut Georges comments to my thread today (12-1) on anti---my wife will wring me if I spend anymore time on that site tonight. Please? It's a slam dunk---he is really slipping and my last post was stronger than usual. Anyone?Disagree with my post---so as to show polygraph community individuality (we don't NEED to have just one voice, but many)---than blast George's 2-d argument. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-02-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 08:31 PM
That is definetly food for thought ebvan----although something deep inside me says that George would love the attention---and furthermore he would get plenty of press---press that would label him as being dangerous----thereby giving his countermeasures and polygraph's weakeness credibility/authenticity. He probably doesn't need anything more than his ultra gigabyte web site. It might be more likely that he suffer a disease than be stopped by US Justice system----being in the Netherlands. IP: Logged |
Buster
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 08:47 PM
I didn't know he was in the Netherlands. Similar, but off topic -- Wikipedia which is a rising star (already huge actually) gives a very unfavorable polygraph description. It also suggests to use countermeasures. I think one of us should amend that with some of our good data. It lists all the spies who beat the test. I wonder if George was involved in writing that description. IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 08:56 PM
You may be right but any coverage of his arrest would need to include the backstory the he:
#1 provided information on how to defeat a polygraph examination.
#2 His countermeasures don't work because his method was detected.
#3 the fellow he conspired with gave him up and will probably testify against him.
This places him in the interesting position of either acknowledging that he attempted to obstruct justice by teaching countermeasures to a criminal or admitting that his methods are presented "solely for entertainment purposes"------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-01-2007 09:16 PM
I've updated Wiki whatever before, and as soon as I do, it gets changed. I've always believed George was the author.You'll never get a conspiracy case. There's way too much to prove, and George has covered it already. Doing so would make us look foolish. Solicitation is much easier, but I don't see it flying with what he's got up there. There are some here who believe George really believes CMs are necessary to ensure the truthful pass, so we don't even have universal agreement in the polygraph community that his intent is for people to commit crimes. I don't think he cares one way or the other. IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 10:13 AM
Let me get this straight-----
1. The antipolygraph website is the billboard of polygraph. (we agree here right?)
2. Our field is slowly being whittled away by this antipolygraph organization by virtue of them keeping score of all known errors (some are downright aweful)and all past and soon to be --research that discredits polygraph.
3. This organization has moles, ex-pats, and abundant manhour resources for the above.
4. This organization has a media campaign that is unyielding----a letter campaign that spans from Better Homes to Newsweek---and every television program and web blog in between.
5. This organization has an opportunity for Examiners to defend and represent various aspects of polygraph, but in the last 2 months only 2 or 3 examiners out of 2000 or more have posted. I am seriously disappointed. Damage control is important----because damage destroys things.
The addage that "if you wrestle with a pig..." is not applicable when the pig is tracking feces through your living room and kitchen. At some point, you wrestle----and you don't ever stop.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 10:24 AM
stat,I had a day or more of a break, so I've not yet responded to his post. I have to run a test in a bit, and a bunch of errands today. I'll get to that though. We could be doing more to increase the visibility of this site. - Adding and improving content.
- an RSS feed, discussing interesting research.
- every examiner in the country liking to PP from his or her own website. more. Skip Webb's research discussion campaign was interesting at anti. It might be worth hashing the idea of doing that here on the public side, and feeding the discussing an RSS feed that shows up on Google searches. Maschke pushes some of his forum content to his blog, which shows up almost daily in Google news feeds. A steady and thoughtful discussion, with good moderation, might be an enlightening juxtaposition against the imbalance at anti. Just today - Sergeant1107 is criticizing someone, Barry perhaps, for making absolutist statements - while he makes absolutist and anecdotal conclusions all the time. 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 12-03-2007 11:12 AM
Ray, I was not meaning to include you or Barry or even Skip----I speak to the remaining 1,997 examiners who don't fancy being called an entrail reader on the polygraph subject's most prevailent website---but do nothing about it.
I am quitting this profession with every passing day. Not because of anti, but because of our collective apathy, and our collective sure-footed clumsiness.[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 02:35 PM
Wrestle with the pig if that is what you feel you need to do, but the only place that our particular pig seems willing to wrestle is in his own pigpen surrounded by his little piggy brothers and sisters. He only wants to wrestle when he gets to make the rules AND gets to decide who wins. If the pig enjoys wrestling, why would wrestling make him quit defecating on your floor? If you want to clobber this guy, figure out a way to bait him into another scientific forum online that is not directed at polygraph. Perhaps a subterfuge in which he was invited to provide "scientific" information about polygraph to curious posters. Tease him into a postion of self importance by allowing him to spout a bunch of garbage relatively uncontested and then begin to dismantle him with facts until he retreats in embarrasment back to the safety of his own pigpen. Then wait awhile and do it again. I think this guy can be beaten anywhere but on his own web site. There he is invincible. Make it and excercise in operant conditioning and soon the little piggy will learn that every time he gets out of the pen, he is going to get his flat little nose smacked. ------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 03:20 PM
Ebvan wrote;
Quote----------------------------------
Wrestle with the pig if that is what you feel you need to do, but the only place that our particular pig seems willing to wrestle is in his own pigpen surrounded by his little piggy brothers and sisters.
------------------------------------------
Be that as it may---I don't care where he wants to blather---the fact remains that he has a smear campaign on several fronts. You can ignore him if you want ebvan. His site can either contain (as you say) a squad of George worshippers, or a mixure of people who create some friction---enough that one undecided might think twice before worshipping George. Feel free to grab another nacho and pretend that Polygraph isn't beseiged in ways that make Ted Kennedy look like a picketeer.
qoute-----------------------------------
If you want to clobber this guy, figure out a way to bait him into another scientific forum online that is not directed at polygraph. Perhaps a subterfuge in which he was invited to provide "scientific" information about polygraph to curious posters.
--------------------------------------------
Seems like a grandiose idea, eh---"bait him" into a non-polygraph forum? Seriously? Next time I am on the "Official Embittered Lisping Dork (OELD)web forum", I'll give him an invite.
No one should be afraid to debate him in his own yard. All one has to do is not call him names (I know, this is hard) and you are in the mix. Why not debate him in the very realm that has come to be the front page of polygraph?
qoute------------------------------------
I think this guy can be beaten anywhere but on his own web site. There he is invincible.
------------------------------------------
Again, why must we frame this delima in terms of the old west? Ya russle'em up and "beat him." I don't don't give a rat's fart if he is beaten---that won't happen---not because he has his own sandbox, but because polygraph science has too much art, and too many variables, period. Debate isn't "won" or "lost." It is only percieved to have a victor.
qoute--------------------------------------
Make it and excercise in operant conditioning and soon the little piggy will learn that every time he gets out of the pen, he is going to get his flat little nose smacked.
------------------------------------------ This is yet more "head'em off at the pass" cowboy stuff. If other examiners expect to be victorious over a global PR campaign to extinguish polygraph---than no wonder no one wants to fight.
It's about fighting back, not winning. If I expected to "win" the fight against poverty, I would have never helped build those Habitat for Humanity homes last year with such grand expectations. To Ebvan's deserved credit, he is at least spit- balling strategies. Keep'em coming---although an honest head-on debate on his forum is quite obviously the only option unless we as a profession want to spend big money for a state-of-the art website (paid membership)---an idea I had in 2004. $20 a year---slick graphics--loads of reasearch and links----LOTS of DATA and FORUMS. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 04:15 PM
Does anyone no whether or not Georgy has a real Phd.? According to http://www.georgemaschke.net/about-myself/
He says he has a doctoral degree in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, but on the anti-P site I don't see any PHD appearing after his name. Odd that someone of his enormous ego would omit that detail. Going to the UCLA Web site http://www.international.ucla.edu/cnes/degrees/ they don't appear to offer a doctorate titled "Near Eastern Languages and Cultures" Does anyone have the resources to determine if this is a misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation?
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 05:13 PM
George's dissertation is listed in the ProQuest UMI online catalog quote:
Proverbial and idiomatic language in a modern Persian novel: A contextual analysis based on Iraj Pezeshkzad's 'Da'i Jan Napel'on' (Iran). Maschke, George W., PhD. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, 2006. 199 pp. Advisor: Ziai, Hossein
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dxweb/details?doc_no=1110673 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 12-03-2007).] IP: Logged |
LouRovner
Administrator
|
posted 12-03-2007 05:21 PM
EbvanAll you have to do is call the Registrar's office at UCLA. They will confirm that he has (or doesn't have) a Ph.D. If he was awarded a Ph.D., it doesn't seem as though he's using it. Maybe nobody hired Dr. George. He seems to have lots of time to spend on his silly website, more time than someone with a job. Lou IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 05:31 PM
In searching for cites for Maschke's dissertation, I came across references from him using an email address WTLefercus@aol.com Google search of "Lefercus" brings other posts from "Willi Lefercus" in discussions about the Panama Canal transfer and other rants on the freerepublic.com forums. look at this one: quote:
Polygraph tests don't work. They have a built-in bias against truthful persons, but they are easily defeated by deceptive persons (like convicted spy Aldirch Ames).To find out precisely how to beat the polygraph, download AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (503 kb PDF):
http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf 100 Posted on 02/22/2001 05:16:22 PST by Willi Lefercus
It seems Mr. Maschke himself dons a cloak of anonymity from time to time - even if only to shill for his primary purpose.
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 12-03-2007 05:47 PM
Don't forget to call him by that name now an then. (Perhaps you can throw them out one at a time.)IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 06:14 PM
I was thinking about registering that name at his site.r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964) IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 12-03-2007 06:19 PM
Now THAT would be funny!Jim IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 06:54 PM
Oh yeah. That's even better. I like the way you think.IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 07:02 PM
Does anyone know anything about Lefercus.I found a google reference to a Lieferkus - along with Shostakovitz (wonderful loud russian stuff), so I guess Lieferkus is a musician. But no Lefercus other than Willi T. Lefercus (WTLefercus@aol.com) AKA George Maschke.
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 12-03-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-03-2007 09:34 PM
I, like others have always been curious of George the man. Who pays for the site? Is he committed in a relationship? Who does he work for--what precisely does he do for a living? All good questions.
However, I think what matters is what he says and promotes----and that there is no reason why we should let that little deuche bag be the spokesperson for polygraph. Thanks to Ted, Donna, Ray, Lou, Barry, Skip, Nonombre, LBCB----a paltry number compared to the "2000 strong"----there is hope for balance. Perhaps Skip's (2006?)notion of PR was the answer all along---albeit a slightly less traditional type of PR. The research will continue without formal initiatives----but the "fight" for public perception is (IMO) where the fight is raging. All we need is some slow news cycles for an explosive interest in the CQT, George---or worse yet---an OJ level of Press coverage with an horrific false positive---with nowhere/way to spin. This is inevitable but with forethought could be prepared for. George, like a mature fisherman, is waiting for just that flap. Our only good fortune is that he is a powerful, yet totally uncharismatic man. Lucky for us he is not sexy.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-03-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 08:06 AM
Well well, veeery interesting. Barry C did a brave thing and called out Cliff (1904) whi appears to be so angry he has quit the forum at anti. I doubt we have seen the last of him----but it goes to show the power of words. Barry dispatched Cliff with love----simple words without venom while sustaining Barry's gentleman-ness. Thank you Barry. Thousands of people will hopefully no longer read ongoing disinformation from that man----thanks to you.----------------------------------------- "...you see, a pimp's love is greater than the love from a square.." ----Idiocracy IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 11:20 AM
Barry,GREAT JOB ! Hitting these clowns square in the groin with truth and fact is like splashing water on the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.......they simply melt down a go away! Ted IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 03:10 PM
I suppose I'm going to have to go look over there now.I only wish he were gone. I doubt it though. In a way, it would be bitter-sweet. If he's one of the best the anti crowd has, it isn't saying much, and I think most people (who only read and run) see that clearly. IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 05:07 PM
Barry, I also had a laugh when you addressed Cliff. Do you know Bill Crider? He posts on the public side of Poly Place as Dan Williams. He has toned down the posts after Ralph kicked him off the first time.Did anyone else get an email from AntiPolygraph.org Message Board (donotreply@vps4.idig.net) ??
They sent me the Ralph Bazell MSNBC.com article and asked me to 'please let MSNBC know what I think'.
Taylor
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 12-04-2007 05:22 PM
stat,I'm not sure that the lack of posting at the anti board is due to apathy. I for one would love to invest the time, effort and research to bring george to his knees in the eyes of the world. The problem is ability. If you look at most of his posts, they are articulate and well written, however disinformative they are. As I have said repeatedly in this board, I am a practitioner, not a researcher or academic. And, the last thing I want to do is represent polygraph on an open and hostile board, in a "less-than" manner. There are many, many people who read both anti and PP sites. The difference is we have many more (I think) people posting and at last count, I don't think george had more than a handful posting (by himself with multiple names, I'm sure) With that said, those who clearly have the ability should post. Those of us who don't, and get frustrated or confused and probably retreat to, "oh yeah?" "click", dial... "Delta can I have a round trip ticket to The Hague...and, uh, can I bring a steel pipe in my carry on...?" probably, shouldn't... Regards, Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 12-04-2007).] IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 05:53 PM
Good post Sackett. I know during my time posting at AP there were times when I really had to bite my tongue (no pun intended). There are those better to deal with the AP folks than me. I have thought about just posting every time I catch CM's but I don't want one of them to make up a story about beating me and I wouldn't be able debate due to confidentiality issues. Plus if you state you caught another one they want the name and copies of your exam to prove you caught one....OR...they allege the dumb examinee just didn't follow AP's instructions. I remember Ted mentioning names and the baloney that followed that post. I don't want a PR firm educating the movie producers for $100,000 a year. But a PR firm to deal with AP isn't a bad idea. I wish the APA and AAPP higher ups (or an appointed position) could spend just 10-15 minutes over there every day. I gotta give credit to Eric and Barry for continuing to knock heads over there every day. Taylor IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 06:02 PM
quote:
Do you know Bill Crider? He posts on the public side of Poly Place as Dan Williams. He has toned down the posts after Ralph kicked him off the first time.
I only know him from here (and a few emails). He's opposed to pre-employment polygraphs, but I've always found him cordial (passionate, but cordial). He even defended me somewhere here (public forums) or at the anti site as as honest but wrong. I disagree (with the wrong part - before I'm quoted over there by some leak), but I can agree to disagree with our opponents as long as we can have a civil discussion. Clifton wasn't interested in any real discussions. IP: Logged |
rcgilford
Member
|
posted 12-04-2007 07:41 PM
I don't know that posting on the anti site does much good. I've posted a few times. George and his minions argue CMs work. I say they do not. He says they do...I say they do not. And that is about all that gets accomplished. I have thought about providing statistical information I have collected over the last 11+ years of doing pre-employment tests, but I expect it would just turn into another did so....did not...did so....did not, debate. I don't have time for his twaddle. George just doesn’t understand that sometimes life isn’t very fair and sometimes we all get served a stack of crap instead of a taco salad. He strikes me as a very articulate writer, but tremendously immature for an adult. I frequent his site on a daily basis just to have his playbook. IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 12-04-2007 08:34 PM
Bob,you're right with the strategy. You can never disway a hard core anti-poly minion. But, those who are more articlate and smarter than I can make the pro-polygraph argument better, and should. Because? Others that haven't made up their mind or are trying to genuinely look for honest infomation, get sucked up into the propaganda of that board and we as a community should be defending ourselves (agreeing with stat and others). Every examiner should be reading george's site and knowing what the other side's game plan is. This counts in our preparation with a good defense. Problem is, we have a lesser number of those who are afraid of being manipulated and beaten in a polygraph suite, than there are those who think they're unbeatable. Every time we can honestly say we caught one trying to cheat, there will be one who beat a lazy, ego-maniac examiner and their myths will become truths. We need someone on that side of the fence to help defeat the garabage disinformative flow and assist the honest examinee. In time, george and the FOG's of the world will be seen for what their site is...manipulative, misinformative cr@p!
Jim
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 11:30 AM
I am an idiot. I get stuff wrong. I am no scientist, and I am no spokesperson. I reject anyone who thinks you have to be Ray, Barry, or Skip to battle faulty reasoning at anti. We need the above guys and more--that is for sure. Anyone can do some healthy shoving over there.ps I laughed repeatedly over Sackett's remark about asking about taking a steel pipe on a flight to The Hague. Jim, your obviously demonstrated good sense of humor mixed with polygraph experience is all one needs to do very well over there. Must I taunt you by calling you a p***y if you abstain? lol [This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-05-2007).] IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 11:41 AM
Jim,Stat has thrown down the gauntlet here! If Ray gets hold of this post and the name Stat threatened to refer to you as, well you can just imagine what the photoshop chop job of you will look like. Me? I am content with the rogue priate. Good luck my friend.....tee hee Ted IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 11:46 AM
It looks like one of Barry's former examinee's is claimng a false confession today. His username is bigmainer I think.
Situations like this are at first trouble---but when you take a little time to think about it, this shmuck is easy to address.IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 12:19 PM
.....and Barry handled it perfectly.He made no remarks as to the likelihood of the "failed" question as being a control question. He remarked of a "philosophical debate" in Maine----probably a debate as to interrogating on control issues----either way, it was the perfect response. Hell, he even offered to help the lad. You can't ask for better response. I imagine George or someone will respond and in this case a seperate examiner should opine---tag team works well when you are backed against a corner of sorts. This is like handling children.IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 12-05-2007 12:40 PM
I wish it were a CQ, but we, for the most part, use an R/I test. We're supposed to use a successive hurdles approach, but many think that CQs aren't possible after "opening the floodgates" in the pretest, as if we can get every lie the guy's ever told.This will help me make my argument - and I've been in the midst of one for the past could weeks - that we need to do things correctly. The examiner who would have run the test is a friend of mine whom I have used as a back-up of some big cases. He's a CPC trained examiner. They do great criminal tests, but they say they were trained to be fearful of pre-employments. They pretty much just look for the biggest EDA on the chart and interrogate on that question. Then, they divine that any admissions they get were the cause of the "reaction." That is, no follow-up testing to make sure of anything. They play right into George's hands. IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 12-05-2007 02:41 PM
p***y, huh?!So stat, since we're getting all personal and stuff; where EXACTLY in Indiana do you live.....? signed, Jimbo
(your newest, bestest, closest friend) [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 12-05-2007).] IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
