- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 03, 2007, 05:19 AMQuote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Oct 22, 2007, 10:52 PMThe polygraph "professionals" recently exposed for the "anonymous" fusillade of personal insults and attempts at fear mongering here on this forum have apparently retreated to the safety of a pro-polygraph message board.
Instead of addressing the challenge I posed to them--namely that they use polygraphy to determine who betrayed their identity to us and to publicly identify this person--they have chosen to unleash a new barrage of personal attacks.
...
Gino,
The thread you linked to, which was started by Lou Rovner and includes contributions from Raymond Nelson, Eric Johnson (whom I understand posts as "stat" at PolygraphPlace.com) and Donna Taylor, has been deleted from PolygraphPlace.com. However, a copy was saved, and I've attached a PDF file of the deleted thread.
Posted by raymond.nelson
- Oct 25, 2007, 09:21 PMIt has been interesting.
I don't think anyone can deny the tension that exists between polygraph professionals and people who have been subject to them.
Whether things change or not, there is tremendous value in studying human behavior and the complex/obvious/predictable/surprising things that occur when we decide the think and act in some form of concerted community.
I think it was the famed psychoanalyst Karen Horney (thats "horn-"I" like eye - so cleanse your minds folks) who talked about people in movement - towards, against, away, or with each other.
There is obviously much to learn yet.
Thanks again Mr. Mallah, for providing that.
r
I don't think anyone can deny the tension that exists between polygraph professionals and people who have been subject to them.
Whether things change or not, there is tremendous value in studying human behavior and the complex/obvious/predictable/surprising things that occur when we decide the think and act in some form of concerted community.
I think it was the famed psychoanalyst Karen Horney (thats "horn-"I" like eye - so cleanse your minds folks) who talked about people in movement - towards, against, away, or with each other.
There is obviously much to learn yet.
Thanks again Mr. Mallah, for providing that.
r
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Oct 25, 2007, 07:02 PMI think that there are good reasons for being anonymous under certain circumstances.
The point of linking to the article is to highlight the need to curb certain natural human tendencies toward rudeness and obnoxiousness when posting anonymously.
And frankly, I really don't understand why the professional polygraphers felt the need to post anonymously. Are they professionals or not? If so, why not make their assertions and stand behind those assertions by name? Their names are already out there in the polygraph community. They don't need to hide the fact that they are polygraph examiners who firmly believe in the test and believe that the test is supported by solid scientific research and their own experience, right?
I can't think of any reason for their anonymity other than the fact that they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or somehow uncomfortable to associate themselves with what they have written.
From my limited scan of these posts, it seems like the level of discourse has improved dramatically since they have ceased posting anonymously, which is some evidence of the truth of what Dennis Prager wrote about in that article. On a related note, thank you to Ray Nelson for reading the article and commenting favorably on it.
The point of linking to the article is to highlight the need to curb certain natural human tendencies toward rudeness and obnoxiousness when posting anonymously.
And frankly, I really don't understand why the professional polygraphers felt the need to post anonymously. Are they professionals or not? If so, why not make their assertions and stand behind those assertions by name? Their names are already out there in the polygraph community. They don't need to hide the fact that they are polygraph examiners who firmly believe in the test and believe that the test is supported by solid scientific research and their own experience, right?
I can't think of any reason for their anonymity other than the fact that they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or somehow uncomfortable to associate themselves with what they have written.
From my limited scan of these posts, it seems like the level of discourse has improved dramatically since they have ceased posting anonymously, which is some evidence of the truth of what Dennis Prager wrote about in that article. On a related note, thank you to Ray Nelson for reading the article and commenting favorably on it.
Posted by nopolycop
- Oct 25, 2007, 04:56 PMI agree in principle with the read too, which is why I have been overly polite and cautious in all my postings. What is lost though, is the concept that anyone could simply choose a name out of the phone book, or even worse, do a google search for "polygraph" and choose a name to operate under here. This would be unfortunate.
And, given the nature of several people's posts when revealing their polygraph experience, I can understand the rationale for staying anonymous.
And, given the nature of several people's posts when revealing their polygraph experience, I can understand the rationale for staying anonymous.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 25, 2007, 04:12 PMInteresting read---although I disagree with the author's complete dismissal of people being liberated as anonymous posters. I do however question the precise reason for Mark's link. Are you suggesting that everyone be outed? Are you suggesting that perhaps George should have merely banned myself and others rather than being "outed"----keep in mind that as Palerider, I was far more satirical and sardonic than as my later Paradiddle writings---as when I was banned as Palerider, I corrected a great deal of my attitudes as I did not want to be banned further. Unfortunately, I was banned for an innocent thread poll on whether any posters experienced computer problems---my theory was that no such problems existed. I was banned within 10 minutes of writing that very innocent thread, and I defy George and co. to repost it so others can judge for themselves.
Posted by raymond.nelson
- Oct 25, 2007, 04:11 PMThank you Mr. Mallah.
Its a good commentary.
r
Its a good commentary.
r
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Oct 25, 2007, 03:48 PMOf particular interest here is Dennis Prager's article about the destructive effects of internet anonymity:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/10/23/internet_anonymity_is_as_destructive_as_internet_porn
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/10/23/internet_anonymity_is_as_destructive_as_internet_porn
Posted by nopolycop
- Oct 24, 2007, 03:00 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 02:37 PMI didn't give nor contribute to that or any similar lecture. I am not the only Eric Johnson polygraph examiner. There are a number of Eric S Johnsons---noticeably criminal defense attornies. There are even 2 other ESJ's as renters at my local Blockbuster Video store.
Thanks for the clarification. I will delete my post.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 24, 2007, 02:37 PMI didn't give nor contribute to that or any similar lecture. I am not the only Eric Johnson polygraph examiner. There are a number of Eric S Johnsons---noticeably criminal defense attornies. There are even 2 other ESJ's as renters at my local Blockbuster Video store.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 24, 2007, 02:00 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 24, 2007, 12:26 PMMr. Johnson:
I will give an example of why I feel it prudent to keep my identity a secret. Just a moment ago, I googled your name Eric S. Johnson polygraph. I found 4 listings for an Eric S. Johnson with a connection to polygraphy. The first two linked to this website and the fact that you were outed for being a troll. (Not good for reputation, I would submit). The third showed you were a member in good standing of the Indiana Polygraph Association, and the fourth hit produced the following:
----------------------------------------------
"The Effects of Room Color on Polygraph Testing"
Emily Antonides and Eric S. Johnson
Augustana College, Dr. Donald Shaw.
Polygraph tests are not administered in court because of their unreliability. Often the stress of being implicated in a crime is enough to throw off the results. To test this theory we changed the environment in which the test is administered. We hypothesize that by altering the environment, by means of changing the room color to red, the heart rate will be increased and the GSR (galvanic skin response) will be decreased.
----------------------------------
Assuming that this link was actually referring to you, (please set the record straight if this assumption is incorrect) an individual might make the claim that in 2004, you yourself said that "polygraphs were unreliable." Additionally, one might make the claim that in 2004, you yourself stated that the mere "stress of being implicated in a crime is enough to throw off the results."
Please understand that I personally would not make these claims, because I do not have confirmed information that you are the Eric S. Johnson who apparently was a presenter at the 2004 John Deere Chapter of Sigma XI, and made these statements, and these internet statements are in fact contributed to your work product.
So, Mr. Johnson, now you have an example of why I respectfully decline to reveal my identity. Unsubstantiated internet information could result in reputational harm, which concerns me.
ah yes, the ole John Deere Lecture. I also demostrated alongside Emily how to artificailly insiminate a cow----ok, wrong Eric Johnson. By the way, there are thousands of us EJ's and I did not give such a lecture. Incidentally, I wasn't actually attempting to get your identity-----google "sarcasm." Also, I no longer run polygraph testing and haven't done so since September '07. I am retired from polygraph and a stay at home Dad and a student as my wife returns to work after being the stay at home for over 5 years. So, if anyone tries to argue that I am turf protective, forget it.
Posted by nopolycop
- Oct 24, 2007, 11:44 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:33 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 23, 2007, 09:40 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 06:19 PM. No intelectual discussion on the study----
Mr. Johnson:
Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.
Ah shucks, come on nopoly4me, please call me Eric!---not that "Mr. Johnson" formal stuff! And may I ask what your name is and where you reside?
You certainly may ask, and I respectfully decline to answer, which the last time I checked, was within the rules for using this discussion board.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 24, 2007, 10:33 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 23, 2007, 09:40 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 06:19 PM. No intelectual discussion on the study----
Mr. Johnson:
Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.
Ah shucks, come on nopoly4me, please call me Eric!---not that "Mr. Johnson" formal stuff! And may I ask what your name is and where you reside?
thought not
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Oct 23, 2007, 09:55 PMGino,
Your posting of names and information on a site that has long touted that it respects the anonymity of those who so choose to post that way shows poor ethics on your part.
Regardless of the disposition of those that posted, the fact of the matter is that they could have simply been banned, as has been done with anti polygraph posters whom have done the same in the past.
I would gather to say that this was not the type of ethical debating nor political strategy taught to you in college. This type of thing amounts to nothing more than mudslinging or negative propaganda based on ad hominem attacks. I would have thought that someone of your intelligence and specific education would not stoop to such a game.
I know that there are anonymous anti polygraph posters who have participated in personal attacks on this site and of which you know the real names of. Will you now post their names and information? Although it might be thought by some to be fair, I do not think it would be any more ethical than aforementioned.
Your posting of names and information on a site that has long touted that it respects the anonymity of those who so choose to post that way shows poor ethics on your part.
Regardless of the disposition of those that posted, the fact of the matter is that they could have simply been banned, as has been done with anti polygraph posters whom have done the same in the past.
I would gather to say that this was not the type of ethical debating nor political strategy taught to you in college. This type of thing amounts to nothing more than mudslinging or negative propaganda based on ad hominem attacks. I would have thought that someone of your intelligence and specific education would not stoop to such a game.
I know that there are anonymous anti polygraph posters who have participated in personal attacks on this site and of which you know the real names of. Will you now post their names and information? Although it might be thought by some to be fair, I do not think it would be any more ethical than aforementioned.
Posted by nopolycop
- Oct 23, 2007, 09:40 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 06:19 PM. No intelectual discussion on the study----
Mr. Johnson:
Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.
Posted by Twoblock
- Oct 23, 2007, 09:09 PMDonna.Taylor
I lowered myself to respond to your flame-bait statement about "my goat". George admonished me for it because he upholds standards for the site and I asked him to delete that post. Yes, we all hear from him to when we get out of line. Once is enough for the AP's however.
My latest post was to the Sargeant not you.
Don't ever get the mistaken idea that you people could run me off the site. I plan to never again be drawn into your type of flaming. I hope to hold myself above that.
Also, don't get the mistaken idea that I'm against SO monitoring. I am for what ever it takes.
I lowered myself to respond to your flame-bait statement about "my goat". George admonished me for it because he upholds standards for the site and I asked him to delete that post. Yes, we all hear from him to when we get out of line. Once is enough for the AP's however.
My latest post was to the Sargeant not you.
Don't ever get the mistaken idea that you people could run me off the site. I plan to never again be drawn into your type of flaming. I hope to hold myself above that.
Also, don't get the mistaken idea that I'm against SO monitoring. I am for what ever it takes.