Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color are school buses in the United States?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Kona
 - May 27, 2004, 09:00 PM
Quote from: Rubik's Cube on May 27, 2004, 06:20 PM


I love how you place all those specifiers on everything so nothing is ambiguous (just the opposite of what control questions do in a polygraph exam) like "experimenting", "in college", "candybar" and "when you were a kid".

But when revealed indiscretions don't meet the polygraphers litmus test for "things many applicants have done" (whatever the hell THAT is supposed to mean) then the chart-gazer gets all that leeway to either minimalize or exaggerate the crime as he or she sees fit.

And heaven forbid someone to be ashamed of what he or she has done in the past, or have fear that past transgression will be held against them, such that they do what "many humans have done" and lie about it ... oh no, anyone who lies has no integrity.

"Experiment" with all the "pot" you like, dear applicant, as long as you're in "college".

But remember, at some point that polygrapher gets to decide that it went beyond "experimentation". And now, you're just a dope smoking drug addict who probably can't wait to get out of his office so you can go puff on some more weed.

Let's look at the logic again folks:

Lying = no integrity

Anyone reading this ever tell a lie? Well guess what ... you're not a morally sound individual ... imagine that ...

Rubik, Bullplop, confusing, Bunk, et al, (you're all the same person, right?)

Is the concept of personal integrity that difficult for you (all of you) to grasp?  If you are applying for a job as a police officer, the personal history statement asks you if you stole things, smoked pot, etc...they expect that you are, no demand that you are 100% honest with them.  At the end of that personal history statement, you sign your name swearing that everything on the statement is 100% true.  They give you plenty of time to think about your past, and the chance to come clean about anything you may have forgotten.THAT would be the time to admit to your indiscretions, not during the polygraph post-interview.  If during the polygraph post-test interview you admit, "yeah, I smoked a lot more dope than I put down on my personal history statement," what the hell do you expect to happen?  How do you think your personal integrity rates after swearing that the info in your personal history statement is 100% true, then a few days after signing that statement, you are caught in a bold faced lie?  I'm not even talking about the stupid polygraph charts here, I talking about admitting to lying on the history statement after the fact, when you're not even hooked up to the machine.  Any credibility you had prior to starting the interview just got flushed down the toilet.  

By the way, the differentiation between drug experimentation and drug user/abuser is normally delineated by department hiring criteria, not by the polygrapher.  

Have a nice day.

Kona
Posted by Rubik's Cube
 - May 27, 2004, 06:20 PM
Quote from: Kona on May 27, 2004, 05:22 PM

Yes, you obviously are confused.

Experimenting with pot in college or shoplifting a candybar when you were a kid are pretty much things that many applicants have done.  Admitting these indiscretions during your background investigation shows that you are man enough to admit those indiscretions, and that you can tell the TRUTH about yourself, even when it's not something good.  It's an integrity check, plain and simple.  Lying about these indiscretions on the other hand shows that you can't or won't tell the truth about yourself, and indicates a basic lack of integrity.  

Does this "insane logic" still baffle you?  Unbelievable.  

Kona


I love how you place all those specifiers on everything so nothing is ambiguous (just the opposite of what control questions do in a polygraph exam) like "experimenting", "in college", "candybar" and "when you were a kid".

But when revealed indiscretions don't meet the polygraphers litmus test for "things many applicants have done" (whatever the hell THAT is supposed to mean) then the chart-gazer gets all that leeway to either minimalize or exaggerate the crime as he or she sees fit.

And heaven forbid someone to be ashamed of what he or she has done in the past, or have fear that past transgression will be held against them, such that they do what "many humans have done" and lie about it ... oh no, anyone who lies has no integrity.

"Experiment" with all the "pot" you like, dear applicant, as long as you're in "college".

But remember, at some point that polygrapher gets to decide that it went beyond "experimentation". And now, you're just a dope smoking drug addict who probably can't wait to get out of his office so you can go puff on some more weed.

Let's look at the logic again folks:

Lying = no integrity

Anyone reading this ever tell a lie? Well guess what ... you're not a morally sound individual ... imagine that ...
Posted by Kona
 - May 27, 2004, 05:22 PM
Quote from: Confusing on May 27, 2004, 11:20 AM


So, getting high off illegal narcotics and thievery are normal behaviors that most every occasionally has engaged in, but lying about these behaviors is unacceptable?

Let's review that again:

Smoking dope = A-okay!

Shoplifting = A-okay!

Lying about smoking dope or shoplifting = Unacceptable


The insanity of this guy's logic intrigues me.

Yes, you obviously are confused.

Experimenting with pot in college or shoplifting a candybar when you were a kid are pretty much things that many applicants have done.  Admitting these indiscretions during your background investigation shows that you are man enough to admit those indiscretions, and that you can tell the TRUTH about yourself, even when it's not something good.  It's an integrity check, plain and simple.  Lying about these indiscretions on the other hand shows that you can't or won't tell the truth about yourself, and indicates a basic lack of integrity.  

Does this "insane logic" still baffle you?  Unbelievable.  

Kona
Posted by Confusing
 - May 27, 2004, 11:20 AM
Quote from: Kona on May 27, 2004, 06:35 AMI was told by my Background Investigator that smoking pot, stealing a candy bar, etc...were things that were normal...
Kona


So, getting high off illegal narcotics and thievery are normal behaviors that most every occasionally has engaged in, but lying about these behaviors is unacceptable?

Let's review that again:

Smoking dope = A-okay!

Shoplifting = A-okay!

Lying about smoking dope or shoplifting = Unacceptable


The insanity of this guy's logic intrigues me.
Posted by Bunk
 - May 27, 2004, 11:04 AM
Quote from: pillpopper on May 27, 2004, 02:09 AMill tell you why. because what pisses me off about the polygraph community is their smug self assurance that their machine is infallible when i have first hand proof that it is not.

every time some yahoo takes to the internet to complain about getting busted, you add fuel to their argument that people like me are guilty whiners instead of innocent victims.



Excuse me while I throw up...

Ok, that's better.

For the record, there are always going to be people that get duped by the box, as long as there remains boxes.

Those people are always going to complain.

Feel free to vent your pompous, self-righteous anger on them. Waste as much energy as you like.

But the war is not against them.

Get rid of the box and all complaints go away.
Posted by Kona
 - May 27, 2004, 06:35 AM
Quote from: pillpopper on May 27, 2004, 02:09 AMill tell you why. because what pisses me off about the polygraph community is their smug self assurance that their machine is infallible when i have first hand proof that it is not.

every time some yahoo takes to the internet to complain about getting busted, you add fuel to their argument that people like me are guilty whiners instead of innocent victims.


Bravo!  Pillpopper hits the nail on the head.  

Fish and Bullplop, do you now see the difference between a person that has been denied the job because of a false positive (pillpopper), and a guy that lied on his background package, and then during the post-interrogation interview got caught in his own bullshit lie (Broke Down)?    

I have the greatest empathy for a person that told the truth during the exam, and was found either deceptive or inconclusive by this pseudo-science.  That's what this website is all about; protecting honest people from a false positive result.  On the other hand, I have absolutely no empathy for a guy that lied on his background package and then gets caught in that lie during a polygraph interview..... especially when the polygrapher gets the examinee to openly admit it post test.  It tells me that the examinee has no integrity.  

Bullplop, if you don't think that candor, honesty, and integrity are the most important things when filling out a background investigation package, you are sorely mistaken.  Having committed a felony such as murder or rape is an automatic disqualifier, while I think they may let you slide on the overdue library books.  I was told by my Background Investigator that smoking pot, stealing a candy bar, etc...were things that were normal and NOT disqualifying, as long as we told the truth about it.  It was beaten into our heads that if we LIED about anything in our background info, we would be shown the door.  No second chances.  So evidently, candor, honesty, and integrity are extremely important to police agencies.  

Anything else?

Kona
Posted by Bill Crider
 - May 27, 2004, 02:09 AM
ill tell you why. because what pisses me off about the polygraph community is their smug self assurance that their machine is infallible when i have first hand proof that it is not.

every time some yahoo takes to the internet to complain about getting busted, you add fuel to their argument that people like me are guilty whiners instead of innocent victims.

Posted by Got Fish?
 - May 27, 2004, 01:18 AM
Quote from: pillpopper on May 27, 2004, 12:51 AMthere are 2 types of posters on this board typically. people who are pissed that they got busted, and people who are pissed because they are innocent.

those of us who are innocent do not suffer long the whining of people who are just mad about being "tricked into the truth" or whatever you want to call it.

for every person out there that lies and admits something post-test, and then complains about it, it ruins the credibility of those of us who complain because we were wronged.

there is no more serious offense than lack of candor when applying for law enforcement. that is my opinion from my experience and the opinion of my FBI app co-ordinator as well. Don't tell one lie then moan that they dont believe you that the lying is over.


Yeah, I don't get it. Why would someone spend so much time pointing the finger and drawing attention to people who got caught by the box and decided to complain on this website about it? It's as if you're trying to make a statment about how the efficient the procedure actually is. It sounds like you're more of an advocate of the polygraph than you let on to be. Hmmmmmm.......
Posted by Bullplop
 - May 27, 2004, 01:02 AM
Quote from: pillpopper on May 27, 2004, 12:51 AMthere are 2 types of posters on this board typically. people who are pissed that they got busted, and people who are pissed because they are innocent.

those of us who are innocent do not suffer long the whining of people who are just mad about being "tricked into the truth" or whatever you want to call it.

for every person out there that lies and admits something post-test, and then complains about it, it ruins the credibility of those of us who complain because we were wronged.

there is no more serious offense than lack of candor when applying for law enforcement. that is my opinion from my experience and the opinion of my FBI app co-ordinator as well. Don't tell one lie then moan that they dont believe you that the lying is over.


There are a lot more serious offenses than "lacking candor when applying for law enforcement". Murder, rape, and overdue library books to name a few.

You should see about getting a prescription for that OCD and while youre at it, ask the shrink for something to "take the edge off". Better living through chemistry, you know.

And if you really want to win the war against the polygraph, instead of holding this us against them mentality, you should try uniting EVERYONE whol believes he or she was wronged by this crap, not just those YOU believe were "truly wronged".

All your doing is breeding hate and discontent. It's not very productive. In fact, it's anti-productive. It's agent provocateur tactics. It appears quite intentional. It's what I'd do if I were a spook who got paid to spread disinformation and discontent on a website such as this one...
Posted by Bill Crider
 - May 27, 2004, 12:51 AM
there are 2 types of posters on this board typically. people who are pissed that they got busted, and people who are pissed because they are innocent.

those of us who are innocent do not suffer long the whining of people who are just mad about being "tricked into the truth" or whatever you want to call it.

for every person out there that lies and admits something post-test, and then complains about it, it ruins the credibility of those of us who complain because we were wronged.

there is no more serious offense than lack of candor when applying for law enforcement. that is my opinion from my experience and the opinion of my FBI app co-ordinator as well. Don't tell one lie then moan that they dont believe you that the lying is over.
Posted by Got Fish?
 - May 27, 2004, 12:45 AM
Quote from: Kona on May 26, 2004, 11:31 PM

Now that's funny!  ;D  I've been called a lot of things on these boards, but a "scum sucking polygrapher" is a first.  

For your information, I'm not a polygrapher.  In fact, I believe that the polygraph should be abolished from the pre-employment hiring process, since it has no validity.

As for you friend "Broke Down," he tells us that the examiner said: "you flunked," and then proceeds to ask us for comments.  What did you expect me to say?  He got caught in a lie, and I told him that it would probably be safe to continue his job search elsewhere (in another profession).  Do you honestly think he'll have much luck applying for another police officer job?  Don't you think that his documented lying will be the proverbial "turd in a punch bowl" for any further law enforcement job endeavors?  I await your enlightened reply.



Kona


Well, perhaps you just take malicious satisfaction when others express their troubles and experiences with the polygraph? Why is that? Did you get raped by the box? Tell us your story Kona. Do tell. I could use a good laugh.
Posted by Kona
 - May 26, 2004, 11:31 PM
Quote from: Got Fish? on May 26, 2004, 11:04 PM


Yeah. I'd be bitter too if my occupation was to dupe people out of their hopes and dreams, you scum sucking polygrapher.

Polygraphers and lawyers should all be rounded up and herded off the nearest cliff. Place their heads on pikes. Slow roast their inards over a spit.

Now that's funny!  ;D  I've been called a lot of things on these boards, but a "scum sucking polygrapher" is a first.  

For your information, I'm not a polygrapher.  In fact, I believe that the polygraph should be abolished from the pre-employment hiring process, since it has no validity.

As for you friend "Broke Down," he tells us that the examiner said: "you flunked," and then proceeds to ask us for comments.  What did you expect me to say?  He got caught in a lie, and I told him that it would probably be safe to continue his job search elsewhere (in another profession).  Do you honestly think he'll have much luck applying for another police officer job?  Don't you think that his documented lying will be the proverbial "turd in a punch bowl" for any further law enforcement job endeavors?  I await your enlightened reply.



Kona
Posted by Got Fish?
 - May 26, 2004, 11:04 PM
Quote from: Kona on May 26, 2004, 09:13 PM

Yeah.........I think it's safe for you to start your job search again, preferably in another profession.

Best of luck.

Kona


Yeah. I'd be bitter too if my occupation was to dupe people out of their hopes and dreams, you scum sucking polygrapher.

Polygraphers and lawyers should all be rounded up and herded off the nearest cliff. Place their heads on pikes. Slow roast their inards over a spit.
Posted by Kona
 - May 26, 2004, 09:13 PM
Quote from: Broke Down on May 26, 2004, 08:21 PMHe says you flunked and demands an explanation.  You laugh and say that he knows all there is to know.  He unhooks you and escorts you out.  The end.

Comments?

Yeah.........I think it's safe for you to start your job search again, preferably in another profession.

Best of luck.

Kona
Posted by Broke Down
 - May 26, 2004, 08:21 PM
If you made a damaging admission during the post test interview, and then the polygrapher administers a "Breakdown Test" where he runs through it like three times, and then follows up with a post test interrogation, does anyone know if that's indicative of failure?

For instance:

You get tested on drugs
He says "You're having problems on the drug question"
You admit to smoking a joint a few years back or something like that.
He revises the question like "Any more drug use you haven't told me about"

Then: Breakdown test:
Questions like: "Did you enjoy the effects", "Could you be tempted to do drugs again", stuff like that

Then: Post Test Interrogation -
He says you flunked and demands an explanation.
You laugh and say that he knows all there is to know.
He unhooks you and escorts you out.
The end.

Comments?