posted 08-17-2007 10:54 PM         

We were all pretty tuff on Dan Mangan with the "hair jokes" recently and he has vanished from our board. I just finished a carton of milk and I am pretty sure I saw Dan's picture on the side of the carton when I threw it out.

If he is at APA, please try to bring him back to the "flock". I miss his input.

I won't be at APA but I would be happy to staff a command post here at home in the search effort.

posted 08-18-2007 12:12 AM            

I miss him too, and I sincerely hope he is at APA.

I should learn.

Funny pictures are not funny.

I'm swearing off photoshop forever. Well, maybe not forever. But I won't do it again. I promise. For a while, anyway. Oh wait, I shouldn't promise like that, because maybe someday I'll find a good reason... OK, I'll definitely photoshop less, and never late at night, or is that early in the morning.

The really funny thing is, his add pic is a good pic. A lot of us have had to get used to photos with the blasted spectacle flare - or we get to squint into the photo or look warmly in the wrong direction.

So, N'walins, hide yer wimmen.

Safe travels everyone.

r

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

posted 08-18-2007 06:53 AM         

I won't be at APA----so could someone please take Dan Sosnowski to task on his new "PCSOT Best Model Practices" section on the APA website. Does Dan EVER actually have to appear in court? What does "sufficient" time for examinee to understand the questions mean....really, the whole damn thing seems phoned in. Let me get this straight, an APA "accredited" school has to have an attorney teach the law, but clearly no attorney was required to review the very policy that we PCSOT examiners will be held against when before a triar of fact. Opposing attornies were just given a fantastic stalling tool-----like they needed more ways of dragging out the process. I will write later about the 5 or 6 real crummy sections of that document. I wish I was there. If Dan Sosnowski does not address the APA doc and entertain changes, than I will start making fun of his extremely menacing eye brows.

PS If anyone wants to see a "tight and legally sound" doc on pcsot, look at the jpcot document of best practices----a Texas joint committee that was ahead of its time.

PSS. Ray, funny pictures ARE funny. Dan M. is a handsome, smart, successful examiner that shouldn't be anything but flattered by the attention in this realm.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-18-2007).]

posted 08-18-2007 08:29 AM            

But I will maintain that it is the result that matters most, not the intent. And there is apparently something we missed or do not understand about Dan.

Its a lot of fun to bug someone who will bug you right back. Bugging someone who gets hurt isn't fun, and feels mean. Think about it, wouldn't you rather spar with someone who blocks and counterattacks? I photoshopped my kid's pic onto that same Marylin photo and put it on his website. Then I found a whole bunch of spiders in my car one day (that was not funny - driving down the block with a bunch of creeches on me - felt like I had DTs).

I don't always agree with Dan, but that's the fun of it. We all learn something, and we're all smarter for having the conversation. This board and our little community was better with his input.
-----

Here a couple funny pics.

I once made fun of my kid for getting his hair caught in the brush while we were out hiking.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/nicktree.jpg

and had to pay the price
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/strike.jpg

ouch.

I was hassling him to cut his crop of hair
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/nick1006.jpg

but then my folks sent this, and the cause was lost.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/ray1981.jpg

Blasted grandparents. Whose side are they on?

-----

But its still not OK to hassle someone to the point they disappear, and I wish we had had a better sense of Dan's breaking point. I would not have guessed him to be that sensitive. It would be more fun if he would just stick around and strike back.

r

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

posted 08-18-2007 09:42 AM         

on the APA summit.

Prediction; The pcsot buzz at APA is going to be the PCSOT model for best practices. I believe that Dan Sosnowski's work on that doc will be under direct criticism. An example is that many of us spend the same amount of time on sex history tests as any other test (2.5-3hrs) and to limit the number of disclosure tests to 3 per day is arbitrary. Why is the sex hist test more expensive anyway----a good thorough test is a good thorough test---be it assessment or supervision(which are allowed 5 per day)---we do our best. What empirical studies suggest that a supervision test is less taxing on the examiner than an assessment?
I suggest that the pscot model be removed from the website immediately ----even though many will argue that the policy is only a suggestion -----it will have legal ramifications as if it were a constitution------and to author such "suggestions", the writer needs to have plenty of courtroom and parole board trench experience. Read the document at www.polygraph.org

We need an overhaul people.

posted 08-18-2007 09:56 AM            

How about pasting those sections that trouble you here (new topic), along with your reasoning. (Just visit the how to use quotes page first. That'll make life a lot easier.) Perhaps that will start a move to make changes, or perhaps your troubles will be alleviated.

Here's where you'll find the instructions:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/ubbcode.html

posted 08-18-2007 10:13 AM            

I share your concerns about the PCSOT discussion. I got into the fray as soon as I could, but the most vigorous discussion I recall was (once again) about the length of time for an exam - as if there is nothing more important than that.

My concerns begin with the assertion that the model is based in research...

As an overview, I don't think the model appreciates the difference between a "model" policy and "standards" of practice.

I think we should start a thread on that.

r

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

posted 08-18-2007 10:14 AM         

Instrument manufacturers specifications
Time and # limitations mantc/ vs sex history
The use of the word "surveilance" regarding polygraph
The use of the words "...directly OR indirectly" regarding testing subjects by supervision and/or therapists' clients.
The open ended referances to environments (prisons and jails)
........and several more. gotta go

posted 08-22-2007 03:50 PM         

I am told that little was provided in the way of empirical evidence regarding several of the documents' proclamations/recomendations. By second hand rumor only, it appears that some of the recommendations are guided by the anecdotal experiences of the authors. sigh