- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 04, 2006, 11:52 PMPosted by Twoblock
- Mar 31, 2006, 11:33 PMEosJupitor
If lack of cander includes being required to give a perverted polygrapher young teenage girl's bra sizes (as if Onesimus actually knew) then we have a perverted administration. I am a conservative Republican, or have been, but I agree it has gone to far. Giving one person, the polygrapher, that much power is wrong, wrong, wrong. There should be, AT LEAST, a three qualified member board to decide the fate of another. A failed government applicant polygraph record that follows him, preventing his employment in all other LE agencies, should be classified as criminal gang activity.
If lack of cander includes being required to give a perverted polygrapher young teenage girl's bra sizes (as if Onesimus actually knew) then we have a perverted administration. I am a conservative Republican, or have been, but I agree it has gone to far. Giving one person, the polygrapher, that much power is wrong, wrong, wrong. There should be, AT LEAST, a three qualified member board to decide the fate of another. A failed government applicant polygraph record that follows him, preventing his employment in all other LE agencies, should be classified as criminal gang activity.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 31, 2006, 09:39 PMTo all concerned:
Found this article online about the new rules for adjudication of clearances, these new rules are probably what did in Onesimus.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/U.S._quietly_tightens_access_to_classified_0313_af.html
Article text follows (actual document link to the rules is at the bottom of the document, off of the link).
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. quietly tightens access to classified information
John Byrne and Larisa Alexandrovna
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley quietly revised the guidelines for determining access to classified government information last year, increasing emphasis on allegiance to the United States and allowing the government broader latitude in rejecting candidates without a clearly articulated cause, RAW STORY has found. In a December 2005 revision of the "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information," Hadley made semantic but substantial changes which seem to mirror a broader shift in Bush Administration policy. The document, found online, shows numerous variations from a previous copy of the guidelines published in 1997. Both are linked at the bottom of this article.
Many of the changes were minor or involved updates to catch up with technological advances. For example, the guidelines expand on certain areas with regard to storing or transferring classified information in electronic form.
But taken in sum, the changes seem to indicate an increased emphasis on eliminating leaks of classified information, and a stronger emphasis on loyalty to the United States and its agents. The changes also allow those determining whether an individual is granted a security clearance to rely on a conflation of various "suspect" factors rather than a clear violation of a single rule.
Moreover, the new guidelines are posed as recommendations for other agencies that are not privy to high-level classified information, suggesting a blanket emphasis on secrecy across all theaters of government.
Loyalty to the United States
Security clearance guidelines have always required strict allegiance to the United States. Both the 1997 and 2005 guidelines require that individuals seeking clearances not "act in such a way as to indicate preference for a foreign country over the United States."
But Hadley's 2005 guidelines go further. In addition to requiring that individuals not engage in material breaches of U.S. allegiance – including voting in a foreign election or expressing a desire to renounce citizenship – the 2005 guidelines assert that simply the vocalization of allegiance to another country is grounds for denial.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying now include "any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States."
Broadening cause for denying clearances
The 2005 revision also allows those reviewing security clearances broader latitude in rejecting candidates without citing a specific violation of the guidelines.
Under the section "Personal Conduct," Hadley added the following.
"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information."
The section also adds "deliberately providing false or misleading information" to an employer "or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information" as grounds for denial.
Further changes to a second section of the document suggest that the decision to broaden the ability of the government to restrict access to classified information was deliberate. The section "Psychological Conditions" suggests individuals could be rejected for undefined adverse "behavior."
"Behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment... that is not covered under any other guideline" is now a condition that could render an individual unfit for approval.
Hadley's revision does, however, remove a vague line in the 1997 document which suggests that "reliable, unfavorable information" from neighbors or coworkers could torpedo an individual's chance for clearances.
Leaks and the media
Not surprisingly, Hadley's revision places far greater emphasis on protecting classified information than its predecessor. The 2005 version significantly expands on the ability for the government to disqualify or revoke clearances based on the improper handling of secrets.
Where the 1995 version had one item under "conditions that could raise a security concern" surrounding security violations, the 2005 version has nine. Many of these items deal with recent advances in computer technology.
Some, however, may raise flags among those already concerned about the ability of the government to keep information from the media. Individuals can now be denied clearances for "deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences."
Individuals can also be denied access to classified information for prying.
Hadley adds "inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know" to a list of potentially disqualifying factors. Also added: "Viewing or downloading information from a secure information when the information is beyond the individual's need to know."
Sexual 'behavior'
The 2005 guidelines also allow the government greater ability to use sexual orientation against applicants.
Whereas the 1997 revision declared that sexual orientation "may not be used" as a basis for disqualifying applicants, Hadley's revisions declare that clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."
The 2005 guidelines also add a curious revision under the "Sexual Behavior" section. While the 1995 version said adverse sexual behavior could be eliminated from consideration if it were "not recent," the 2005 version expands this, saying "the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, and under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur."
Criminal conduct revisions
Another striking change in Hadley's revision is the removal of the word "acquittal" from a list of mitigating factors in considering whether clearances should be granted. The 2005 document removes the word "acquittal" without explanation or replacement.
The Hadley revision also adds discharge from the military under "dishonorable conditions" to a list of conditions that could warrant denial. While the intent cannot be divined, it's worth noting that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military.
Also of note: The abuse of prescription drugs after a "prolonged illness," once ended, can now be used a mitigating factor in determining whether an individual is granted clearances.
2005 Hadley version
1997 version
Muriel Kane provided research for this article.
No comments
Originally published on Monday March 13, 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Anyone think we have swung to far to the right yet ??
Regards ...
Found this article online about the new rules for adjudication of clearances, these new rules are probably what did in Onesimus.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/U.S._quietly_tightens_access_to_classified_0313_af.html
Article text follows (actual document link to the rules is at the bottom of the document, off of the link).
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. quietly tightens access to classified information
John Byrne and Larisa Alexandrovna
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley quietly revised the guidelines for determining access to classified government information last year, increasing emphasis on allegiance to the United States and allowing the government broader latitude in rejecting candidates without a clearly articulated cause, RAW STORY has found. In a December 2005 revision of the "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information," Hadley made semantic but substantial changes which seem to mirror a broader shift in Bush Administration policy. The document, found online, shows numerous variations from a previous copy of the guidelines published in 1997. Both are linked at the bottom of this article.
Many of the changes were minor or involved updates to catch up with technological advances. For example, the guidelines expand on certain areas with regard to storing or transferring classified information in electronic form.
But taken in sum, the changes seem to indicate an increased emphasis on eliminating leaks of classified information, and a stronger emphasis on loyalty to the United States and its agents. The changes also allow those determining whether an individual is granted a security clearance to rely on a conflation of various "suspect" factors rather than a clear violation of a single rule.
Moreover, the new guidelines are posed as recommendations for other agencies that are not privy to high-level classified information, suggesting a blanket emphasis on secrecy across all theaters of government.
Loyalty to the United States
Security clearance guidelines have always required strict allegiance to the United States. Both the 1997 and 2005 guidelines require that individuals seeking clearances not "act in such a way as to indicate preference for a foreign country over the United States."
But Hadley's 2005 guidelines go further. In addition to requiring that individuals not engage in material breaches of U.S. allegiance – including voting in a foreign election or expressing a desire to renounce citizenship – the 2005 guidelines assert that simply the vocalization of allegiance to another country is grounds for denial.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying now include "any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States."
Broadening cause for denying clearances
The 2005 revision also allows those reviewing security clearances broader latitude in rejecting candidates without citing a specific violation of the guidelines.
Under the section "Personal Conduct," Hadley added the following.
"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information."
The section also adds "deliberately providing false or misleading information" to an employer "or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information" as grounds for denial.
Further changes to a second section of the document suggest that the decision to broaden the ability of the government to restrict access to classified information was deliberate. The section "Psychological Conditions" suggests individuals could be rejected for undefined adverse "behavior."
"Behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment... that is not covered under any other guideline" is now a condition that could render an individual unfit for approval.
Hadley's revision does, however, remove a vague line in the 1997 document which suggests that "reliable, unfavorable information" from neighbors or coworkers could torpedo an individual's chance for clearances.
Leaks and the media
Not surprisingly, Hadley's revision places far greater emphasis on protecting classified information than its predecessor. The 2005 version significantly expands on the ability for the government to disqualify or revoke clearances based on the improper handling of secrets.
Where the 1995 version had one item under "conditions that could raise a security concern" surrounding security violations, the 2005 version has nine. Many of these items deal with recent advances in computer technology.
Some, however, may raise flags among those already concerned about the ability of the government to keep information from the media. Individuals can now be denied clearances for "deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences."
Individuals can also be denied access to classified information for prying.
Hadley adds "inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know" to a list of potentially disqualifying factors. Also added: "Viewing or downloading information from a secure information when the information is beyond the individual's need to know."
Sexual 'behavior'
The 2005 guidelines also allow the government greater ability to use sexual orientation against applicants.
Whereas the 1997 revision declared that sexual orientation "may not be used" as a basis for disqualifying applicants, Hadley's revisions declare that clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."
The 2005 guidelines also add a curious revision under the "Sexual Behavior" section. While the 1995 version said adverse sexual behavior could be eliminated from consideration if it were "not recent," the 2005 version expands this, saying "the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, and under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur."
Criminal conduct revisions
Another striking change in Hadley's revision is the removal of the word "acquittal" from a list of mitigating factors in considering whether clearances should be granted. The 2005 document removes the word "acquittal" without explanation or replacement.
The Hadley revision also adds discharge from the military under "dishonorable conditions" to a list of conditions that could warrant denial. While the intent cannot be divined, it's worth noting that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military.
Also of note: The abuse of prescription drugs after a "prolonged illness," once ended, can now be used a mitigating factor in determining whether an individual is granted clearances.
2005 Hadley version
1997 version
Muriel Kane provided research for this article.
No comments
Originally published on Monday March 13, 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Anyone think we have swung to far to the right yet ??
Regards ...
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 31, 2006, 02:43 AMMarty,
Good Observations, and there is always 2 sides to everything. But for those that wish to question, a great movie is currently playing here in the US. Its title is:
V for Vendetta
Well worth the time to watch, as it is a warning to tyrannts & associated mindless bureaucrats, that they need to fear the people, not the people fear the government. And as one who does question, the movie really hits home. Hence the reason we have the right to bear arms. The first thing a police state does is remove arms from the population and suppress freedoms of speech and press. Then isolate those that will not follow mindlessly with the program.
Remember Remember the 5th of November ....
Gunpowder Rebellion 1605 ..
Regards ....
Good Observations, and there is always 2 sides to everything. But for those that wish to question, a great movie is currently playing here in the US. Its title is:
V for Vendetta
Well worth the time to watch, as it is a warning to tyrannts & associated mindless bureaucrats, that they need to fear the people, not the people fear the government. And as one who does question, the movie really hits home. Hence the reason we have the right to bear arms. The first thing a police state does is remove arms from the population and suppress freedoms of speech and press. Then isolate those that will not follow mindlessly with the program.
Remember Remember the 5th of November ....
Gunpowder Rebellion 1605 ..
Regards ....
Posted by Marty
- Mar 30, 2006, 08:48 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 30, 2006, 04:29 PMRetcopper,
You write in part:
Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced. But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol
It's worth keeping in mind that the patriots of the Revolutionary war were in fact traitors. They were engaging in armed revolt against their sovereign. Further, while of course we take great pride in the fledgling democracy that came from that revolt, Britain outlawed slavery throughout their empire not long after. Some 3 decades or so before the States did.
Sounds harsh to call our founders traitors. Well, here's another surprise. At one time the word "loyal" had a rather bad odor for a simple reason. Just as the revolutionaries were called patriots (by fellow patriots of course) supporters of the Crown were called loyalists by everyone - hence the negative association.
My favorite personage from those days. A man who believed in good relations with the French. Actually lots of them. Still, he wanted to avoid being well hanged.
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Mar 30, 2006, 04:29 PMRetcopper,
You write in part:
Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced. But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol
You write in part:
Quote
...Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current establishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?...
Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced. But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 30, 2006, 03:50 PMThe following was emailed to me, but I'm not very good at cut and paste. So am typing it.
It started me thinking which is dangerous. Could the polygraph, FIRSTFRUITS, etc., etc., be applied here. The evasiveness of some direct pertinent questions to some government employees, here and in return letters of our elected officials (if any letters are answered) appears so. Only my thoughts, of coarse.
What is a fascist? Henry Wallace, 1944
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascist have we? How dangerous are they.
Wallace's answer to these questions was published in the Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against Axis powers Germany and Japan. See how you think his statements apply to our society today.
"The really dangerous American fascist", Wallace wrote, is the man who really wants to do in the United States, in an American way, what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to decieve the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power".
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, "they claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the constitution. They demand free interprise, but are spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection".
It started me thinking which is dangerous. Could the polygraph, FIRSTFRUITS, etc., etc., be applied here. The evasiveness of some direct pertinent questions to some government employees, here and in return letters of our elected officials (if any letters are answered) appears so. Only my thoughts, of coarse.
What is a fascist? Henry Wallace, 1944
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascist have we? How dangerous are they.
Wallace's answer to these questions was published in the Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against Axis powers Germany and Japan. See how you think his statements apply to our society today.
"The really dangerous American fascist", Wallace wrote, is the man who really wants to do in the United States, in an American way, what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to decieve the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power".
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, "they claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the constitution. They demand free interprise, but are spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection".
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 30, 2006, 03:14 PMPentaFed came to this discussion maintaining that "When requesting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself." However, when I brought to his attention Stephen J. MacKellar's letter conceding that Onesimus had in fact been asked inappropriate questions, PentaFed fell back to the argument that, "If [Onesimus] had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints." It seems that this remains the crux of PentaFed's position.
I could agree with PentaFed that if an applicant's number one priority is to get a security clearance and job at any cost, then it is probably in his best interest to answer any question asked, no matter how inappropriate. And polygraphers for such agencies as the CIA and NSA do routinely ask very inappropriate questions. One CIA applicant reports regarding his pre-employment polygraph interrogation:
And as noted in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, another CIA applicant was asked, among other things, the following questions:
To those who think such questions are appropriate, or that anyone seeking a security clearance should willingly answer them, I suggest that you consider whether you might not make a happy cog in the machinery of a police state.
I could agree with PentaFed that if an applicant's number one priority is to get a security clearance and job at any cost, then it is probably in his best interest to answer any question asked, no matter how inappropriate. And polygraphers for such agencies as the CIA and NSA do routinely ask very inappropriate questions. One CIA applicant reports regarding his pre-employment polygraph interrogation:
QuoteDuring this series of questions I really lose it. The interrogation focuses on deviant sexual behavior. I'm unsure what he's fishing for and ask him to clarify. He explains deviant sexual behavior as any sex acts other than what is known as the missionary position. That strikes me as ridiculous and I ask him if he's kidding. Of course, he's not. The interrogator wants to know how many sex partners I have had; how many of them are married; if I have ever contracted sexually transmitted diseases, if so, how often, where, when. Have I ever paid for sex, when, where. Have I ever participated in sm., bondage, bestiality. What sort of positions. You name it, he wants to know.
And as noted in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, another CIA applicant was asked, among other things, the following questions:
- Do you masturbate?
- What do you think about while masturbating?
- Have you ever had sex with another man?
- Have you ever thought about having sex with another man?
- Why did your wife leave you?
- Couldn't you satisfy your wife sexually?
- Has she or any other woman accused you of being unable
- Have you ever thought about having sex with your mother?
To those who think such questions are appropriate, or that anyone seeking a security clearance should willingly answer them, I suggest that you consider whether you might not make a happy cog in the machinery of a police state.
Posted by retcopper
- Mar 30, 2006, 03:13 PMDrew:
Sometimes questioning authority just for the hell of it can label you as a smart ass and/or parasnoid, depending how and why you do it. If you do it for no reason then you are going to be resented, which is human nature. Then you have to face the consequences. I may be wrong but my opinion is that if he asnswered the questions and cooperated he may have been cleared.
Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current estabishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?
Sometimes questioning authority just for the hell of it can label you as a smart ass and/or parasnoid, depending how and why you do it. If you do it for no reason then you are going to be resented, which is human nature. Then you have to face the consequences. I may be wrong but my opinion is that if he asnswered the questions and cooperated he may have been cleared.
Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current estabishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Mar 30, 2006, 02:16 PMEosJupiter/Wallerstein,
I am not sure what PentaFed is suggesting with regard to and to what extremes he would go with his notions of deference to authority and working within a system, but I am glad we have the examples of George Washington and friends who did not act as slaves to either a mindless or tyrannical bureaucracy at the time of the American Revolution and Mark Felt and company who did not at the time of Watergate (as well as the host of other examples of those in between and since who have likewise chosen not to). His linking of your various defense(s) (whether right, wrong, completely or incompletely substantiated) of Onesimus and your separate but valid opposition to polygraphy does not hold water.
I am not sure what PentaFed is suggesting with regard to and to what extremes he would go with his notions of deference to authority and working within a system, but I am glad we have the examples of George Washington and friends who did not act as slaves to either a mindless or tyrannical bureaucracy at the time of the American Revolution and Mark Felt and company who did not at the time of Watergate (as well as the host of other examples of those in between and since who have likewise chosen not to). His linking of your various defense(s) (whether right, wrong, completely or incompletely substantiated) of Onesimus and your separate but valid opposition to polygraphy does not hold water.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 30, 2006, 01:00 PMWallerstein,
Arguing with PentaFed always comes back to the same bureaucratic dogma, and self righteous BS. But I guess being a liar and having no integrity then I can do just what I want to then.
KEY POINTS
He works for the Government and he's here to help.
The government is always right
He is always right.
Which point here sounds like the words that would come from an orwellian novel. ANd just think he never knows who might be traveling next to ...
Question Authority !!!
And the Moral Majority is Neither !!!
Regards
Arguing with PentaFed always comes back to the same bureaucratic dogma, and self righteous BS. But I guess being a liar and having no integrity then I can do just what I want to then.
KEY POINTS
He works for the Government and he's here to help.
The government is always right
He is always right.
Which point here sounds like the words that would come from an orwellian novel. ANd just think he never knows who might be traveling next to ...
Question Authority !!!
And the Moral Majority is Neither !!!
Regards
Posted by Wallerstein
- Mar 30, 2006, 11:38 AMQuote from: PentaFed on Mar 30, 2006, 08:23 AM
The one thing worse than a dishonest polygrapher is a guy who just invents things and apes other people fact, when he doesn't know what the truth is. You have no clue as to what the questions were going to be. And the letter does NOT say 'as much." By the way, the very last time I responsed to you is when I said I would ignore you until you had something substantive to say. Apparently the only subtance you have is to "lie." It's always good to expose a liar, but it really gets boring arguing with intellectual lightweights like you and antrella who need to stoop to lying, fabricating, and diverting attention to anything you can lay your hands on if it avoids the FACTS in front of you. lol
Now I am a liar
. This is Kafka-esque. 
I wish I could type in simple symbols to make this easier. :-/
You made a claim that Onesimus deserved to get rejected because he did not answer questions regarding his personal life. True or false?
If true*, answer the following: explain how the questions asked to Onesimus concerned his "personal life."
*If instead you are now claiming that Onesimus is a liar and is not telling the whole truth then fine. That makes this whole argument pointless.
Posted by PentaFed
- Mar 30, 2006, 08:38 AMQuote from: EosJupiter on Mar 29, 2006, 05:38 AM
PentaFed,
I will tone down the rhetoric, in return all I ask is that you try and understand why I believe that Onesimus got a raw deal. The question in point is why do you think the polygraph system exists? and the point is if something so flawed is relied on to judge people then anything less than 100% accuracy is wrong. A flawed system is a flawed system. If I delivered systems that were that flawed I would be fired. I just don't accept every tale of woe. as we have had many on this board that are highly suspect. I don't disregard your need to defend what you believe to be correct and right. But I do object to the fact of you branding me and the other antipolygraph supporters as lying, dishonest, and that we have no integrity, as you know very little about me and what I am beyond this medium. I support my stance because I have been through the false positives and the anguish that comes with it. Empathy is something that comes from understanding. I hope you never have to be subjected to a polygraph and a false positive. But we will be waiting because if you have a clearance you will be sitting on the box, one day. We do allow opinion changes. And this board is open to all opinions. Unlike the pro polygraph board that tolerates no counter views what so ever.
Regards ...
Any accusations I've made against you Ive been specific and have backed them up with references to what you, yourself, have written. There is no need to try and create the illusion that I've called you dishonest merely becuase you dont support polygraphs. I haven't come here and made blanket attacks on your integrity....and any attempts by you to do that would be pure intellectual dishonesty. You know that's a blatant perversion of reality, and so do most readers. If I questioned your integrity it was in the way you reason. When you say things like using countermeaures to beat the system, that involves a level if dishonesty. You've made other statements that also put youre integirty into question in my opinion. Where those statements were made, I've pointed them out. As for your argument about 'systems' not working. If everyone refused to cooperate with, tried to beat or tried to get around every rule system that doesn't work to my standards, where would that leave the world. Here's the point, nobody will ever be able to have a credible debate with people who are decidely opposed to all or most forms of authority. When you begin your discussion about these issues from your standpoint, it's a non-discussable topic from the start because you basically fundamantelly disagree with doing what most people think is right and that is, use our existing SYSTEMS to correct those that aren't working properly. When the applicants refused to answer any furture questions regarding topics he he didn't want to discuss, he declined his own clearance. Period. Neither you, nor wallterstein know what5 those questions would have been because the guy never got the chance to ask them. The inappriopriate polygrapher was from a PREVIOUS clearnace and you two keep trying to morph them, and the rest of the polygraphers on the planet, into the one bad polygrapher identified in the authentic, but vague, letter. Now if you want to take issue with the POINTS I have made here they are as written in the sentences above this one. Nothing more has really been said by me opn this topic. It boils down to what I believe is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. I'll compare that position to your posituion of blinddly defending anyone who comes here (even when its clear you know nothing about them) with a tale of woe around their background process. To me, the latter is just plain ridiculous, and doesn nothing to add to the credibility of polygraph opponents. It would seem that you and wallerstein dont have the abilty to make presuasive arguments with adding a whole bunch of hype, drama, and half-truths in your posting to steer attention away from the fact that you will back EVERYTHING about Onesimus's side of the story because you are more interested in advancing your cause against, than you are in worrying about any facts or truths. It's very simple. Never let facts or truth get in the way of a good drama, right?
Posted by PentaFed
- Mar 30, 2006, 08:23 AMQuote from: Wallerstein on Mar 29, 2006, 01:03 PM
I see how you've really been ignoring me. Keep up the good work, champ.
Since your "responses" to my simple question has yielded now myriad retreats (first, "I already answered that question...see above", then "this is a strawman question" to now "i never made such a claim") I will try to reconstruct this entire bullshit argument. Please let me know where i have gone wrong.
On this web site we have a man who was challenged by a polygrapher to answer absurd questions regarding teenage girls because he "admitted" to the polygrapher that he played checkers once online with a 13 year old. His rejection letter says as much. The questions posed to him were lewd, sick and absurdly inappropriate. They were not "yes/no" questions that could simply be deflected by a "yes/no" answer. Instead, these questions required the applicant to offer guesses about completely inappropriate subjects. This made applicant uneasy, nervous and disgusted. He refused to answer. He got his clearance denied.
Now you have a man who has lost his clearance, yet had the cojones to detail the whole sordid affair online here, complete with copies of the letters he's received. Yet you pop in and are in disbelief that he could be surprised because he did not "answer questions about his personal life" when asked.
Given that this is the central defense of your argument that applicant was justly rejected (namely, he did not answer questions about his personal life) I have *repeatedly* asked you how the questions that were posed to applicant concern his private life.
That's it. Please tell me how these questions concern his private life.
The one thing worse than a dishonest polygrapher is a guy who just invents things and apes other people fact, when he doesn't know what the truth is. You have no clue as to what the questions were going to be. And the letter does NOT say 'as much." By the way, the very last time I responsed to you is when I said I would ignore you until you had something substantive to say. Apparently the only subtance you have is to "lie." It's always good to expose a liar, but it really gets boring arguing with intellectual lightweights like you and antrella who need to stoop to lying, fabricating, and diverting attention to anything you can lay your hands on if it avoids the FACTS in front of you. lol
Posted by Wallerstein
- Mar 29, 2006, 01:03 PMQuote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 07:31 PM
I never made any claims that it did. As far as I can see, nobody here claimed it did. So what is the basis of that question? How many eggs does a female salamander lay and what is their relationship to the rotation of earth? When you have something substantive to say, I might respond to you. Until then you;ll be ignored because you dont seem to have any ability to debate.
I see how you've really been ignoring me. Keep up the good work, champ.
Since your "responses" to my simple question has yielded now myriad retreats (first, "I already answered that question...see above", then "this is a strawman question" to now "i never made such a claim") I will try to reconstruct this entire bullshit argument. Please let me know where i have gone wrong.
On this web site we have a man who was challenged by a polygrapher to answer absurd questions regarding teenage girls because he "admitted" to the polygrapher that he played checkers once online with a 13 year old. His rejection letter says as much. The questions posed to him were lewd, sick and absurdly inappropriate. They were not "yes/no" questions that could simply be deflected by a "yes/no" answer. Instead, these questions required the applicant to offer guesses about completely inappropriate subjects. This made applicant uneasy, nervous and disgusted. He refused to answer. He got his clearance denied.
Now you have a man who has lost his clearance, yet had the cojones to detail the whole sordid affair online here, complete with copies of the letters he's received. Yet you pop in and are in disbelief that he could be surprised because he did not "answer questions about his personal life" when asked.
Given that this is the central defense of your argument that applicant was justly rejected (namely, he did not answer questions about his personal life) I have *repeatedly* asked you how the questions that were posed to applicant concern his private life.
That's it. Please tell me how these questions concern his private life.