|
Author
|
Topic: Ogilvie's Friends
|
Capstun
Member
|
posted 03-21-2005 06:50 PM
 
Well, sounds like Jack has a friend in Phoenix. He even gets mentioned by name on Georgie' site.
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc;action=display;num=1110689967;start=5#5 IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 03-21-2005 08:26 PM
You're right. I've been trying to teach Jack how to obtain and keep a low profile, but I don't think it's sinking in!! (:-) Jim IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 03-22-2005 12:06 PM
I don't even have a low profile when I lay down. So forget that.I believe I was mis-quoted, surprise. I have in the past explained to different groups that in the hiring process we seem to lose about half of the applicants at each step in the process. I would like to know where this particular applicant got their information. I was waiting for George to jab me, again. Jack IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 03-22-2005 12:35 PM
Hey Jack, don't even bother trying to clarify your statement. It won't matter to those people and it will somehow be miconstrued even worse. If you really feel it necessary, start an open response thread about misinformation on "I have to take an exam"... Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 03-22-2005).] IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 03-22-2005 05:47 PM
Would that be the statement about a low profile or the 50% failure rate?Just kidding. I wouldn't bother to try. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
Capstun
Member
|
posted 03-23-2005 09:20 AM
50% is not bad. We just calculated our wash out rate for the past 12 months and put it at 70% (SR's and disqualifying admissions).Is there anyone out there who can keep a low horizontal profile in this business? I keep meaning to use the gym across the hallway on my lunch break, but by the time I finish the chile cheese dog and fries, lunch time is over  IP: Logged |
Capstun
Member
|
posted 03-23-2005 09:20 AM
50% is not bad. We just calculated our wash out rate for the past 12 months and put it at 70% (SR's and disqualifying admissions).Is there anyone out there who can keep a low horizontal profile in this business? I keep meaning to use the gym across the hallway on my lunch break, but by the time I finish the chile cheese dog and fries, lunch time is over IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 03-23-2005 10:54 AM
Capstun,Try doing what Jack did and use half as much whipped cream on the chili dog. It may help! Ted IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 03-23-2005 11:23 AM
Hey, do I resemble that remark?Actually we used to be about 50% DI rate. That does not count pre-test admissions that disqualify an applicant. We seem to be considerably lower in the last couple years. Better pre-test and the use of the new format seem to have helped with that. We have a N.O. percentage that is to high, 12 to 15% but we feel many of those are D.I. and we missed it. Still working on that. Intentional counter measures, which we here are now calling "Purposeful Non-compliance" or PNC has accounted for some of the lower D.I. rate as we usually report it as N.O. but know they are lying. I am surprised that some of the things we discuss here and other places seems to be showing up in places where it shouldn't. Like George's place. It seems to me that we are seeing more and more disgruntled examiners giving valuable info to the dark side. Just as the thread on the anti-site where George is supposedly quoting a "senior member of the federal polygraph community". Obviously the opinion attributed to this examiner is BS but makes us look bad. To see this look on the bulletin board under; polygraph and cvsa forums/polygrapg procedure/breathing reaction and big trouble for polygraph Sorry I don't know how to post a direct link. I hope George was misquoting or making it up. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
polyops
Member
|
posted 03-23-2005 11:34 AM
Jack,Remember the antis read The Relevant Issue (formerly The Polygraph Chronicles) too. It took me a while to find it, but I think the 50% they're prattling about is taken from this article you wrote a while back:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/pre_employment_polygraph_testing.htm
IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 03-23-2005 01:34 PM
You may be right. I forgot about that. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
polyops
Member
|
posted 03-23-2005 03:43 PM
Well, it's not as if I have a photgraphic memory, either! I only thought of it because, as I recall, someone (Maschke?) in the past few weeks posted a link to it while pissing and moaning about false positive rates. Come to think of it, I think it was during his war of words with "Anal Sphincter."------------------
John 8:32
IP: Logged |
William Tuey
unregistered
|
posted 04-02-2005 02:07 PM
Shame on you Jack LOL IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 04-06-2005 02:25 PM
Bite me Bill.Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
