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:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by don
 - Sep 02, 2006, 03:17 AM
I appreciate the replies, better late than never.  Anyway since my last posting I took another test about a month later (at no cost) allowed one makeup test. Again I got an inconclusive.  Took the test again five months later and once again another inconclusive.  The polygrapher was a little upset with me and said this result affects her percentages and recommended I wait as long as possible before retaking.                                      
 I took the test at the end of June and nobody (PO) has  said anything about it since.  One person that responded said time was added for inconclusive. I'm curious if that is a case by case thing.  And as far as my not being familiar with the polygraph, I wouldn't be here if I was.
  For what its worth I take wellbutrin-sr 150mg. and lexapro 20mg.
   I'm not going to bother again until my next six month is up.  
  Thanks again for all the replies   :D
Posted by retcopper
 - Aug 15, 2006, 11:57 AM
Underlyingtruth:

Thanx for the info.

Have a grea day.
Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Aug 14, 2006, 07:01 PM
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 14, 2006, 04:51 PM
Underlyingtruth:

I have stated here a couple of times that I am very much for vdieo/audio taping the enitre polygraph exam.

P.S. Are you sure your State allows the audio taping of another  without that person's  knowledge? I am from Pa. and that is not allowed. Just curious.

Yes, in my state it is legal.  I also verified this with my attny before I did it.

According to the Penal Code: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

A compiled list of the states that do and do not allow this can be found at: http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Aug 14, 2006, 05:36 PM
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 14, 2006, 04:51 PMCesium:
Underlyingtruth:

I have stated here a couple of times that I am very much for vdieo/audio taping the enitre polygraph exam.

P.S. Are you sure your State allows the audio taping of another  without that person's  knowledge? I am from Pa. and that is not allowed. Just curious.

I am certain.  I will try to find some sources.

Posted by retcopper
 - Aug 14, 2006, 04:56 PM
Cesium:

Other than the fact you are comparing the results of a polygrpah exam  to a finding of guilt or innocence in a court room I agree with your basic premise.
Posted by retcopper
 - Aug 14, 2006, 04:51 PM
Cesium:

You metion a poygrapher lying unde oath.  What to hell are you talking about?

Jeffery:

I dont get the conneciton between a polygrapher giving an exam and lying under oath. Please clarify.

Underlyingtruth:

I have stated here a couple of times that I am very much for vdieo/audio taping the enitre polygraph exam.

P.S. Are you sure your State allows the audio taping of another  without that person's  knowledge? I am from Pa. and that is not allowed. Just curious.
Posted by cesium_133
 - Aug 14, 2006, 03:55 AM
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 13, 2006, 03:36 PM
I am a polygrapher.  I have never lied under oath.. :-/  Oh, I get it.  That was one of those "ad hominum" attacks... :o

Ad hominem, retcopper.  I am especially nitpicky on my Latin, and hominum is a genitive plural; it would make the phrase "toward of the men", rather than "toward the man", as ad hominem is.

With that, there was no such attack here.  A rhetorical question was asked, and a good one:

-Is it worse to record a conversation illegally...
-or be victimized by a polygrapher who lies under oath?

Unless the insinuation is obviously directed at you, nonombre, that's a values question.

Now, back on thread, I hope:

If anything, one should score an inconclusive as a pass. As long as this polybox is around, rules of fairness and evidence should still apply.  If there exist a reasonable doubt in court as to guilt, the accused is not guilty; they get the benefit of the doubt.

With an INC, if you can't say the person is being deceptive according to the rules of the APA or whatever (not that one can divine the truth from all this, anyhow), then you have an "NDI".  How else to reason it?  Deception was not indicated (you don't have a "DI" result), as it could not be found.  This fact by definition says that No Deception was Indicated.  Pretty easy, in my book.  Otherwise, you're making the questionee prove his truthfulness, and that is not how things are supposed to work here.  He should walk in under the assumption that he is honest...

But then, polygraphers don't seem to see it that way...
Posted by nonombre
 - Aug 14, 2006, 01:07 AM
Quote from: Dippityshurff on Aug 13, 2006, 11:00 PMNonombre,

I guess I must ask you as a polygrapher.  What do you think of this Ed Gelb business.  If true, it sure seems slimy

If Mr. Gelb's Ph.d is not from an accredited university, he should not advertise himself as such.  I hold a M.S. degree from a fully accredited state university and I have several good friends who have worked very hard to earn doctorate degrees from properly accredited schools.  In short, I resent anyone who holds themselves out to be something they are not...

Regards,

Nonombre
Posted by DippityShurff
 - Aug 13, 2006, 11:00 PM
Nonombre,

I guess I must ask you as a polygrapher.  What do you think of this Ed Gelb business.  If true, it sure seems slimy
Posted by nonombre
 - Aug 13, 2006, 03:36 PM
Quote from: Jeffery on Aug 12, 2006, 09:54 AM

In your state, what is worse - a citizen recording a conversation to protect their rights or a polygrapher lieing under oath to infringe the citizens rights?
I am a polygrapher.  I have never lied under oath.. :-/

Oh, I get it.  That was one of those "ad hominum" attacks... :o
Posted by Jeffery
 - Aug 12, 2006, 09:54 AM
Quote from: retcopper on Aug 11, 2006, 05:19 PMFreedom:

Don't listen to underminingtruth.  Ask him why he takes so many polygraphs. Get an attorney and do what he says.  In my state it is a violation of  the wire tap laws to tape record someone's  voice without their knowledge.

In your state, what is worse - a citizen recording a conversation to protect their rights or a polygrapher lieing under oath to infringe the citizens rights?
Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Aug 11, 2006, 07:30 PM
Uh, yeah... that's what I said to do, "1. Get a good attorney and file a motion with the court to be released from probation.  This will be your best course or action. "

In my state, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation, as long as one of the parties involved is aware.  I know the thought of having somebody record your polygraph sessions scares you... it should!
(And if you're Bush, you can do it regardless of what the law says).


Posted by retcopper
 - Aug 11, 2006, 05:19 PM
Freedom:

Don't listen to underminingtruth.  Ask him why he takes so many polygraphs. Get an attorney and do what he says.  In my state it is a violation of  the wire tap laws to tape record someone's  voice without their knowledge.
Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Aug 11, 2006, 04:03 PM
Quote from: freedom777 on Aug 11, 2006, 07:07 AMI immediately asked him to test me again and he refused.  ?

Polygraphers will refuse to retest you unless some factor of the test changes.  They are unwilling to test against themselves, which is exactly what they would do if all circumstances were unchanged.  Running the same test under the same conditions might render different results and that would show the fallacy of the polygraph machine.  True scientists do this on purpose in order to prove and verify the validity of results.  Polygraphers never will.  In fact, I have yet to find a polygraph that actually has a REAL science degree.

Quote
(funny that the medical interpretation was conveniently dropped from all paperwork)

It is very typical for polygraphers to exclude information from their reports that might call into question the validity of their testing.  I have had them flat-out lie about statements they made to me.  That is why I now secretly record my polygraph sessions and I have caught them in a bald-faced lie.  If I ever have to take it to court, they are screwed.


Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Aug 11, 2006, 03:43 PM
Quote from: don on Dec 15, 2005, 01:52 AMI took an annual maint. poly. today.  I pass every time. (no need for cms).   However today my test came up as inconclusive. I told the absolute truth but the test showed no prominate reaction i guess.  

Everytime I read someone stating "(no need for CMs)" I realize that they have no idea how the polygraph works.