- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Curious?
- Mar 16, 2004, 02:49 AMExcuse me, but is anyone planning on answering the question from which this thread was started?
Posted by dre2142
- Mar 14, 2004, 05:54 PMQuote from: jconleymo on Mar 11, 2004, 09:52 PMIt really disturbs me that you want to be a police officer, a position of integrity and responsibility and yet here you are asking for help on cheating and lying to get the job. What would you do to convict a suspect? I can understand wanting something so bad, yet is this really the way to start off trying to get it, maybe it would be better to try a dept or agency that did not do the polygraph for applicants then after you prove your integrity and responsibility, you could advance to a diferent postion somewhere else. Just a thought.
When it gets to the point that you are being totally honest, yet still fail the test, there are steps that one has to take.
If you want to talk about integrity, honesty, lets talk about the examiners themselves.
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 14, 2004, 05:55 AMA-mused,
Each and every time a polygraph examinee lies during his polygraph exam, he is the second person to lie. The first is the polygraph operator. Be concerned about the first lie before you worry yourself with the second...
Each and every time a polygraph examinee lies during his polygraph exam, he is the second person to lie. The first is the polygraph operator. Be concerned about the first lie before you worry yourself with the second...
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 14, 2004, 12:24 AMA-mused,
Even as "George's Sycophant-in-Chief" I will respond to you that I absolutely disagree with lying or misrepresenting one's background in order to gain consideration for a job, law enforcement or not. No, I did not respond to the original message that started this thread but I had my feelings as I read it.
I will also agree that the information available on this site (although and once again, information that is available via NUMEROUS other sources) provides the potential for various unsavories to find themselves falling into positions of authority (law enforcement and otherwise) and even back into society where they may not belong. No doubt about it, we have a dilemma.
However, I am a-mused and a-mazed that a process, with this inherent weakness, is still being used despite the fact that it loses any effective ability to detect deception with each passing day. Blame this site all you want, you know antipolygraph.org IS NOT the problem. My personal concern is with the use of the polygraph in any type of screening environment, specifically for pre-employment purposes. This practice needs to be stopped.
Even as "George's Sycophant-in-Chief" I will respond to you that I absolutely disagree with lying or misrepresenting one's background in order to gain consideration for a job, law enforcement or not. No, I did not respond to the original message that started this thread but I had my feelings as I read it.
I will also agree that the information available on this site (although and once again, information that is available via NUMEROUS other sources) provides the potential for various unsavories to find themselves falling into positions of authority (law enforcement and otherwise) and even back into society where they may not belong. No doubt about it, we have a dilemma.
However, I am a-mused and a-mazed that a process, with this inherent weakness, is still being used despite the fact that it loses any effective ability to detect deception with each passing day. Blame this site all you want, you know antipolygraph.org IS NOT the problem. My personal concern is with the use of the polygraph in any type of screening environment, specifically for pre-employment purposes. This practice needs to be stopped.
Posted by A-mused
- Mar 13, 2004, 10:08 PMQuote from: beech trees on Mar 13, 2004, 06:11 PMI'll have a go: there is more integrity in manipulating the charts during an unscientific interrogation such as a polygraph than in being paid a salary to lie to potential employee candidates. How's that, slappy?
You know that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether a person should lie about his/her background, ie thefts, drug use, and other criminal activity in order to get a job in LE.
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 13, 2004, 06:11 PMI'll have a go: there is more integrity in manipulating the charts during an unscientific interrogation such as a polygraph than in being paid a salary to lie to potential employee candidates. How's that, slappy?
Quote from: A-mused on Mar 13, 2004, 05:15 PM
I see that none of the 20 Anonymous posters, George, or anyone else has spoken to the issue raised in this post. No integrity here is there George & Company?
Posted by A-mused
- Mar 13, 2004, 05:15 PMQuote from: jconleymo on Mar 11, 2004, 09:52 PMIt really disturbs me that you want to be a police officer, a position of integrity and responsibility and yet here you are asking for help on cheating and lying to get the job. What would you do to convict a suspect? I can understand wanting something so bad, yet is this really the way to start off trying to get it, maybe it would be better to try a dept or agency that did not do the polygraph for applicants then after you prove your integrity and responsibility, you could advance to a diferent postion somewhere else. Just a thought.
I see that none of the 20 Anonymous posters, George, or anyone else has spoken to the issue raised in this post. No integrity here is there George & Company?
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 13, 2004, 02:47 AMGuest,
How many times do I have to explain this one to you? THERE ARE ABOUT 20 PEOPLE HERE WHO ALL POST USING THE NAME 'ANONYMOUS.'
It amazes me that you still respond to anyone posting with that name as if it is always the same person (e.g. 'John, don't worry about Anonymous. He has always been an asshole and he has never answered a question when it concerns the integrity'). How do you even know if I am a 'he'?
Yes, I am the person that posted the definition of 'diction.' I'm also the person that debated with Twoblock quite awhile back regarding legal recourse, which seems to be the discussion that really cultured your severe hatred of all posters named 'Anonymous' (a discussion, which I might add, that you COMPLETELY pussied out of GUEST).
Surprise - I am not the same person that you've been describing in this thread. Wake up, asshole. There are also lots of people that post here under 'guest.' You know how I tell it is always you (aside from the ridiculous usage of profanity)? You ALWAYS use the email address guest@who.com. Of course I know it isn't your real address. But for the sake of identifying you on this message board, it might as well be. You'll also notice that I always use the address anonymous@anonymous.com. That's right GUEST, that isn't my real email address either. You're catching on.
Take the time to look at the details before you go and dish out the obscenity-filled insults GUEST-style. I really hope you don't investigate for a living.
How many times do I have to explain this one to you? THERE ARE ABOUT 20 PEOPLE HERE WHO ALL POST USING THE NAME 'ANONYMOUS.'
It amazes me that you still respond to anyone posting with that name as if it is always the same person (e.g. 'John, don't worry about Anonymous. He has always been an asshole and he has never answered a question when it concerns the integrity'). How do you even know if I am a 'he'?
Yes, I am the person that posted the definition of 'diction.' I'm also the person that debated with Twoblock quite awhile back regarding legal recourse, which seems to be the discussion that really cultured your severe hatred of all posters named 'Anonymous' (a discussion, which I might add, that you COMPLETELY pussied out of GUEST).
Surprise - I am not the same person that you've been describing in this thread. Wake up, asshole. There are also lots of people that post here under 'guest.' You know how I tell it is always you (aside from the ridiculous usage of profanity)? You ALWAYS use the email address guest@who.com. Of course I know it isn't your real address. But for the sake of identifying you on this message board, it might as well be. You'll also notice that I always use the address anonymous@anonymous.com. That's right GUEST, that isn't my real email address either. You're catching on.
Take the time to look at the details before you go and dish out the obscenity-filled insults GUEST-style. I really hope you don't investigate for a living.
Posted by guest
- Mar 12, 2004, 10:40 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Mar 12, 2004, 08:59 PMJohn,
I am sorry to disagree with you and although in a more perfect world i would likely agree with you, for the one in which we exist in, these applicants have a right to both self-defense (a concept you have ignored so far) and due process. When denied fair play and jeopardized in the process, these examinees have a right to do that which is necessary to protect themselves from the random error and serious harm caused by this non-valid instrument.
Annie, I have never seen such a poorly constucted, convoluted, pair of complex sentences in my life. As one who continually criticizes other people's "diction" you should be ashamed.
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 12, 2004, 08:59 PMJohn,
I am sorry to disagree with you and although in a more perfect world i would likely agree with you, for the one in which we exist in, these applicants have a right to both self-defense (a concept you have ignored so far) and due process. When denied fair play and jeopardized in the process, these examinees have a right to do that which is necessary to protect themselves from the random error and serious harm caused by this non-valid instrument.
I am sorry to disagree with you and although in a more perfect world i would likely agree with you, for the one in which we exist in, these applicants have a right to both self-defense (a concept you have ignored so far) and due process. When denied fair play and jeopardized in the process, these examinees have a right to do that which is necessary to protect themselves from the random error and serious harm caused by this non-valid instrument.
Posted by jconleymo
- Mar 12, 2004, 08:45 PM Anonymous, this is part of the problem. You are trying to take two issuse and make them one to justify something that is not right. The issue is not who is worse, it is about integrity. The issue is the integrity of the person that is lying and cheating to pass an exam to enter a profession where honesty, integrity, and standards are of utmost importance. The issue of the lie detector person or test is moot here, whatever your feelings on that subject. I am talking about a person that feels any means necessary to obtain that type of position are ok. People have cited cases of incidnets where somebody has passed many test and gone on to be a very bad person and dangerous but were not weeded out by the polygraph and its possible they used some of the counter measures offered from this site. Do you think they ever told anybody that they were a bad person or that they never did anything wrong. They most proably did claim innocence at many times during their life, did that make them innnocent? So what does that say about the person that claims they are innocent but they have to lie and cheat to pass the polygraph so they can get to a position that in its essence is all about intetrigty and honesty? It says to me that that person believes they are more important than the job they are applying for and that if they ever hit a stumbling block they will look at whatever means necesary to surpass it wether it be legal or not. I do not want that type of person protecting me or accusing me of something. That is scary and should make everybody uncomfortable. The issue of the polygraph is seperate from this issue. If you want to fight the validity and use of the polygraph do so, but don;t do so by means that stain the standards of that profession. There are enough issues out there already that give professional law enforcement officials a bad reputation.
John Conley
jconleymo@earthlink.net
aka: where is the integrity
John Conley
jconleymo@earthlink.net
aka: where is the integrity
Posted by guest
- Mar 12, 2004, 08:43 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Mar 12, 2004, 08:22 PMJohn,
in an effort to protect him/herself from the harm caused by a completeless worthless and non-valid "test"?
OK Annie, you hold yourself up as the Mr Grammer of this site. What in the hell is this lexical abortion supposed to mean?
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 12, 2004, 08:22 PMJohn,
Ok... to the substance of things then...who is worse or more blameworthy...the polygraph examiner who lies each and every time he/she administers an exam (look at the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph document (see the antipolygraph.org home page for the link) if you doubt the truth of this assertion) or the innocent examinee who utilizes countermeasures and lies about his knowledge of same in an effort to protect him/herself from the harm caused by a completeless worthless and non-valid "test"?
Ok... to the substance of things then...who is worse or more blameworthy...the polygraph examiner who lies each and every time he/she administers an exam (look at the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph document (see the antipolygraph.org home page for the link) if you doubt the truth of this assertion) or the innocent examinee who utilizes countermeasures and lies about his knowledge of same in an effort to protect him/herself from the harm caused by a completeless worthless and non-valid "test"?
Posted by guest
- Mar 12, 2004, 06:39 PMQuote from: where is the integrity on Mar 12, 2004, 06:25 PMI did not intentionally post under the "where is the integrity" id the first time. It was a response to a post and I did not log in so I chose this id. Each post by me has the same email address and if that is confusing to somebody, I can see why they might have trouble w/ a lie detector test. I am not going to argue w/ you any further on such a pettty and childish issue though. If you would like to have a converstaion on the real issue as opposed to my shortcomings on posting etiquette I would be interested in that. I find it interesting that when somebody is criticized they start attacking anything they can find instead of looking at their own actions. I am curious to find out what happens next, will people want to talk about integrity or attack the person that brought integrity to the table. Please dont send any corrections on misspelling or grammer. I am not writting this for a grade.
Thank you,
John Conley
jconleymo@earthlink.net
aka: where is the integrity
John, don't worry about Anonymous. He has always been an asshole and he has never answered a question when it concerns the integrity, (or lack thereof) of George or anyone else on this site simply because niether George nor Anonymous, (George's Sycophant-in-Chief) have any.
Posted by where is the integrity
- Mar 12, 2004, 06:25 PMI did not intentionally post under the "where is the integrity" id the first time. It was a response to a post and I did not log in so I chose this id. Each post by me has the same email address and if that is confusing to somebody, I can see why they might have trouble w/ a lie detector test. I am not going to argue w/ you any further on such a pettty and childish issue though. If you would like to have a converstaion on the real issue as opposed to my shortcomings on posting etiquette I would be interested in that. I find it interesting that when somebody is criticized they start attacking anything they can find instead of looking at their own actions. I am curious to find out what happens next, will people want to talk about integrity or attack the person that brought integrity to the table. Please dont send any corrections on misspelling or grammer. I am not writting this for a grade.
Thank you,
John Conley
jconleymo@earthlink.net
aka: where is the integrity
Thank you,
John Conley
jconleymo@earthlink.net
aka: where is the integrity