- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by stud
- Jun 07, 2004, 11:19 PMQuote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 05, 2004, 08:06 PMThe only bullshit you smell is your own, because you are so so full of it. Nothing you say makes any sense, only nonsense, ha ha ha.
I said DUD, rhymes with STUD, and that is exactly what I meant - you simply show your abysmal profound ignorance with every post. DUD - of little or no worth, one that is ineffectual, failure, misfit..... a perfect description of you you fucking idiot.
You are a walking violation to the laws of nature. Get off this website, your advice is a repugnant odor to everyone on it, just like the ridiculous archaic polygraph you believe in.
Posted by Marty
- Jun 07, 2004, 04:25 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 07, 2004, 12:01 AM
ISBS,
Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy not only pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years, but also by the fact that he first made these criticisms he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.
Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.
George,
lielabs, at polyplace, said this rather interesting piece on 5/31/04:
QuoteI would think that if you understood the testing process you would understand the control questions are vitally important and based on your assumption would generate a reaction based on the knowledge that you must respond to those questions. If you did not understand that as your post suggests then it is more evidence of the damage other sites are doing to innocents.
wdc (pillpopper) then responded that that would be, in his view, using CMs and unethical.
It's rather interesting that lielabs, a moderator there, suggested (in the guise of a criticism) that innocents should "respond" to these controls if they sufficiently understood the process. I was rather surprised to find that admission.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 07, 2004, 12:01 AMQuote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 06, 2004, 07:29 PM
But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah. Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.
ISBS,
Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years, but also by the fact that when he first made these criticisms, he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.
Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 06, 2004, 11:45 PMRay,
You earlier wrote:
I strongly disagree with your contention that my suggestion to PBR that he not volunteer the fact that he has exaggerated his past drug use to friends and colleagues is tantamount to suggesting that he commit a "lie by omission." Such information is not responsive to any relevant question in common use for pre-employment screening. Therefore, PBR has no ethical obligation to disclose it, and a choice not to do so would not constitute a "lie by omission," as you maintain. The question PBR asked regarding whether or not to disclose this information is one of pragmatics, not ethics.
You earlier wrote:
QuoteWe all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination. With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application. A simple yes or no will do.
I strongly disagree with your contention that my suggestion to PBR that he not volunteer the fact that he has exaggerated his past drug use to friends and colleagues is tantamount to suggesting that he commit a "lie by omission." Such information is not responsive to any relevant question in common use for pre-employment screening. Therefore, PBR has no ethical obligation to disclose it, and a choice not to do so would not constitute a "lie by omission," as you maintain. The question PBR asked regarding whether or not to disclose this information is one of pragmatics, not ethics.
Posted by I-Smell-BS-2
- Jun 06, 2004, 08:44 PMDrew, you know very well you will have no say about how that machine will be used when it is sold and it you also know that you are pushing for it to replace the polygraph. But you, like George, want to act like you are so noble and have no other motives than the good of humanity - peddle that tripe to someone who doesn't know better.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 06, 2004, 08:31 PMISBS,
My rationale for joining this discussion stands as outlined in my previous post:
My employment with Brain Fingerprinting did not occur until roughly a decade after I first raised the concerns I have about probable lie control question test (PLCQT) polygraphy. And even now, that which I have repeatedly and largely expressed misgivings regarding is the use of the PLCQT for various screening applications. I find these to be nothing but completely invalid fishing expeditions with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice and one(s) causing to harm to individuals, various agencies, and the nation alike. I can assure you as long as I have any association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Brain Fingerprinting will never be used as a general screening tool, for lie detection, or any other questionable and/or invalid pursuits and accordingly will never make a single dime from any such activity.
My rationale for joining this discussion stands as outlined in my previous post:
Quote
Ray,
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
My employment with Brain Fingerprinting did not occur until roughly a decade after I first raised the concerns I have about probable lie control question test (PLCQT) polygraphy. And even now, that which I have repeatedly and largely expressed misgivings regarding is the use of the PLCQT for various screening applications. I find these to be nothing but completely invalid fishing expeditions with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice and one(s) causing to harm to individuals, various agencies, and the nation alike. I can assure you as long as I have any association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Brain Fingerprinting will never be used as a general screening tool, for lie detection, or any other questionable and/or invalid pursuits and accordingly will never make a single dime from any such activity.
Posted by I-SMELL-BS-2
- Jun 06, 2004, 07:29 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 06, 2004, 05:53 PMRay,
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah. Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 06, 2004, 05:53 PMRay,
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
Posted by Ray
- Jun 06, 2004, 04:38 PMDrew,
Marty and I were having a rather civil discussion when you decided to join in and demand that I answer your questions before you would answer my question (which was never initially addressed to you). I'm not sure who you think you are...you want to dictate the direction of a discussion that you were never initially involved in?
If I had initially posed the question to you I might understand your desire to control the conversation. The bottom line is that if you don't want to address my points, why should I even participate?
Marty - Thanks for addressing my question. I think it's a VERY thin line George walks with his advice to applicants and I think he crossed it in this case.
Marty and I were having a rather civil discussion when you decided to join in and demand that I answer your questions before you would answer my question (which was never initially addressed to you). I'm not sure who you think you are...you want to dictate the direction of a discussion that you were never initially involved in?
If I had initially posed the question to you I might understand your desire to control the conversation. The bottom line is that if you don't want to address my points, why should I even participate?
Marty - Thanks for addressing my question. I think it's a VERY thin line George walks with his advice to applicants and I think he crossed it in this case.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 06, 2004, 02:30 PMDear Drew,
Emotional outbursts aside, this website is by far the most complete public source of total polygraph information both PRO and CON.
The reader has enough information to make their own opinions based upon many scientific articles and spirited discussions.
Many postings are more concerned with examinees who have complete ignorance of the subject. They assumed it was 100% accurate and somehow disagree with its findings.
After now being exposed to many of the inner workings of government, I cannot dispute that the government has an almost obsessive-compulsive desire for the polygraph to be valid. The polygraph does provide a secretive wall to hide behind and releases individuals from liability should a security breach occur.
Regards.
Emotional outbursts aside, this website is by far the most complete public source of total polygraph information both PRO and CON.
The reader has enough information to make their own opinions based upon many scientific articles and spirited discussions.
Many postings are more concerned with examinees who have complete ignorance of the subject. They assumed it was 100% accurate and somehow disagree with its findings.
After now being exposed to many of the inner workings of government, I cannot dispute that the government has an almost obsessive-compulsive desire for the polygraph to be valid. The polygraph does provide a secretive wall to hide behind and releases individuals from liability should a security breach occur.
Regards.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jun 06, 2004, 01:39 PMRay,
I am quite happy to discuss examinee deception, what it is and what it is not, and the propriety (or lack thereof) of any recommendations for it, but with regard to that or any other commentary I make on this board, I do it according to my own dictates and not those of others. If you are interested in such dialogue (and I do believe there are several things/issues to discuss which have not previously been addressed on this message board), please read or reread the last paragraph of my last post and respond accordingly. That post in its entirety:
Ray,
You write in part:
If the issue is deception (versus generalized integrity), the issue is well beyond George's personal belief. Several years ago now (how time flies when you're having fun), while part of an exchange with a polygraph examiner, I offered the following thoughts on this message board regarding deception on the part of a polygraph examiner who conducts probable lie control question tests. I believe those considerations to be true today as I did then.
You raise the issue of examinee deception and perhaps allude to the ethics of countermeasure use. I would be happy to discuss those issues with you if you will first address point by point the issues I raise about examiner deception in the aforementioned quote. I maintain that examiner deception is first (occurs in the pretest before an examinee is likely to be deceptive), occurs most frequently (each and every time a probable lie control question test is administered independent of whether an examinee is deceptive), is not trivial but quite substantive (the test outcome depends upon it), and lastly but surely is quite comical (requires widespread public ignorance and universal bluff to carry out--perhaps the most important function of this site is not to provide a venue for complaint but to diminish such ignorance.)
I am quite happy to discuss examinee deception, what it is and what it is not, and the propriety (or lack thereof) of any recommendations for it, but with regard to that or any other commentary I make on this board, I do it according to my own dictates and not those of others. If you are interested in such dialogue (and I do believe there are several things/issues to discuss which have not previously been addressed on this message board), please read or reread the last paragraph of my last post and respond accordingly. That post in its entirety:
Ray,
You write in part:
Quote...We all know George questions the integrity of polygraph examiners....
If the issue is deception (versus generalized integrity), the issue is well beyond George's personal belief. Several years ago now (how time flies when you're having fun), while part of an exchange with a polygraph examiner, I offered the following thoughts on this message board regarding deception on the part of a polygraph examiner who conducts probable lie control question tests. I believe those considerations to be true today as I did then.
Quote
Examiner:
You say in part:
"...Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here..."
You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
...
You raise the issue of examinee deception and perhaps allude to the ethics of countermeasure use. I would be happy to discuss those issues with you if you will first address point by point the issues I raise about examiner deception in the aforementioned quote. I maintain that examiner deception is first (occurs in the pretest before an examinee is likely to be deceptive), occurs most frequently (each and every time a probable lie control question test is administered independent of whether an examinee is deceptive), is not trivial but quite substantive (the test outcome depends upon it), and lastly but surely is quite comical (requires widespread public ignorance and universal bluff to carry out--perhaps the most important function of this site is not to provide a venue for complaint but to diminish such ignorance.)
Posted by Administrator
- Jun 06, 2004, 02:47 AMPosted by I-SMELL-BS-2
- Jun 05, 2004, 08:06 PMQuote from: stud on Jun 05, 2004, 07:45 PM
Talk about an illiterate ignoramus, you freaken moron, you can't even spell "dude" right. It's dude, not dud idiot. Look it up in the dictionary, or do you even own one dork. You are a dunce, and a disgrace to everyone on this web site. If you are in law enforcement, get out, you are a danger not only to yourself, but everyone around you.
P.S. I apologize to everyone else on this web site, for the immature level I have descended to regarding this member. I have had enough of this criticizing bafoon.
Good by
I said DUD, rhymes with STUD, and that is exactly what I meant - you simply show your abysmal profound ignorance with every post. DUD - of little or no worth, one that is ineffectual, failure, misfit..... a perfect description of you you fucking idiot.
Posted by stud
- Jun 05, 2004, 07:45 PMQuote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 05, 2004, 02:55 PMTalk about an illiterate ignoramus, you freaken moron, you can't even spell "dude" right. It's dude, not dud idiot. Look it up in the dictionary, or do you even own one dork. You are a dunce, and a disgrace to everyone on this web site. If you are in law enforcement, get out, you are a danger not only to yourself, but everyone around you.
Hey Dud, I PITY you too, you illiterate ignoramus.
P.S. I apologize to everyone else on this web site, for the immature level I have descended to regarding this member. I have had enough of this criticizing bafoon.
Good by
Posted by I-SMELL-BS-2
- Jun 05, 2004, 02:55 PMQuote from: stud on Jun 05, 2004, 01:47 AM
If you're in law enforcement, I pitty the dept that has to put up with your pathetic excuse of a human being.
Hey Dud, I PITY you too, you illiterate ignoramus.