posted 10-31-2007 10:26 AM
Great job Barry,You've taken on the "sarge," in a way that none of use could.
Persistent and reasonable logic.
It was good to see you point out that many of the readers are probably polygraph examiners. (looking for cheap entertainment.) That will certainly get the attention of other readers.
I could not help myself from challenging the "sarge" personally. You have managed to float the challenge to his credibility, without making it personal or about you.
I still have a very hard time believing he is in LE. I could be wrong, but he's just not cop-like. To be sure, mature, seasoned, LE professionals regularly come to broaden their capacity for multi-dimensional ethical complexities (that may be a difference between people who succeed at a long career and those who get a bit toasted after a few years). But the "sarge" has a one-dimensional deontological edge that is more consistent with individual liberties dialog of attorneys, or the potential harm to individuals expressions of therapists. He has stopped whining so much about his personal experience since we started to challenge that, but he's
Not all forms of ad hominem attacks are improper, and sometimes it is appropropriate in argument to point out that a person "would say" what they said - because of personal or financial interests. In debate, I believe, concerns about circumstantial positions are allowed to weight a judgement - when the assertions rest on simple authority. At anti, they use circumstantial attacks all the time when they point out that we earn a living in polygraph. Their form is not legitimate when they offer circumstantial objections to the person in response to data, not simple appeal to authority.
There are plenty of trustworthy sworn LE folks at anti, who could authenticate the "sarge" with much better independence than the anti admins. The trick will be to pursue this while remaining well-mannered or civil (I'm starting to dislike that word), so that sarge's objections begin to look gamey and ridiculous. I predict that the admins (and 1904) will swarm in to protect the "sarge" if he is challenged to directly.
1904 is an in-house troll. He's dangerous, and unscrupulous. He was reportedly successful in business, for a long time, in a notoriously corrupt economic environment. At least until something changed. His proclamation of "sarge's" credentials is basically worthless. He's there to grind his axe. The anti-admins allow his presence because is behavior is consistent with their mission. His form of hatred is fueled by his own enjoyment of being right, winning, and appearing self-righteous. In actuality, he cares little for righteousness or what is right or wrong - and is after something else. He spends some time at anti, so it seems like the possibilities are simple enjoyment (possible), personal meaning (nah - unless you factor in grandiosity), money (probably not), or revenge (could be).
The user 'nopoly4me' is getting annoying. His persistence in distorting information suggests his inquiry is not based in any academic interest, but a personal agenda. Its become obvious he's a shill, like Lethe, and PailRyder. A huge tell is the complete lack of anything personal from any of those characters. The pattern is becoming predictable: a lawyer-like vague teaser question, followed by a steady ramp up of questions built around fixed ideas. They ignore feedback and data. They will respond with indignation to taunts, and then get back on-message immediately.
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 10-31-2007 10:26 AM
