- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by digithead
- May 01, 2006, 03:10 PMQuote from: retcopper on May 01, 2006, 01:11 PMDigithead:
Regarding your work into sex offenders. The first sex offenders course i attended in 1966 I learned that pedophiles can not be cured. It is a sad fact but true. Nothing over the past 40 yrs has changed that perception. I'm sorry your liberal applications of education etc., just do not work. The only thing that works is incarceration. Polygraphy is the only useful tool in the containment method.
You omitted my statement about civil comittment...
And of course, pedophiles cannot be cured of their prediliction, hence my statement on civil comittment. However, increased supervision (GPS, random checks, TC) also works when done correctly...
As for my supposed "liberal" applications, I only go where the evidence is strongest. And you have no evidence for either my conservative or liberal persuasion, only your assumptions...but then polygraphy is only based on assumptions, not evidence, so it's not surprising you'd make that logical leap...
And if polygraph is the only good thing about the containment method, then my original statement polygraph sabotaging its effectiveness stands...
Posted by retcopper
- May 01, 2006, 01:11 PMDigithead:
Regarding your work into sex offenders. The first sex offenders course i attended in 1966 I learned that pedophiles can not be cured. It is a sad fact but true. Nothing over the past 40 yrs has changed that perception. I'm sorry your liberal applications of education etc., just do not work. The only thing that works is incarceration. Polygraphy is the only useful tool in the containment method.
Regarding your work into sex offenders. The first sex offenders course i attended in 1966 I learned that pedophiles can not be cured. It is a sad fact but true. Nothing over the past 40 yrs has changed that perception. I'm sorry your liberal applications of education etc., just do not work. The only thing that works is incarceration. Polygraphy is the only useful tool in the containment method.
Posted by digithead
- Apr 29, 2006, 06:32 PMQuote from: retcopper on Apr 27, 2006, 11:09 AMAllegedliar:
Digithead:
And what have you done lately to protect your community from child molesters besides second guessing someone who is attemting to make this world a better place. I'm glad some people are willing to stick their neck out to help make things better. That is a lot more constructive than doing "research" and being a Monday morning QB.
Doing "research" allows the criminal justice system to separate the junk out from what actually works based on scientific reasoning. Otherwise you're just guessing. But then that's basically what a polygrapher is doing from his squiggly lines...
Polygraphy is unscientific flapdoodle based on wishful thinking. It should be tossed out along with all the other junk that used to be used in the criminal justice system such as phrenology and somatypes...
And exactly how am I a Monday morning QB? I've worked as researcher for over fifteen years doing program evaluations. My research has helped CJ administrators decide to keep programs that reduce recidivism (education, therapeutic communities) from ones that don't (boot camps), saving taxpayer dollars and increasing public safety...
Doing research, my friend, is a lot more productive than polygraphy. As for specific research into sex offending, I've just begun. The containment method looks promising but its reliance on the polygraph sabotages its effectiveness. Hopefully, I'll get the CJ sytem to toss the polygraph for increased supervision levels or civil commitment...
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 29, 2006, 02:50 AMretcopper is just sticking up for his own. it's no different than defending your friend even when you know he is wrong. just let it slide. you know he isn't being remotely objective.
nonombre,
i have a career. i have never taken a polygraph. i LOVE my job, too. the only difference i see is this: i do not lie to the people i work with, or abuse them in any way. i am completely upfront about all the risks and potential issues that could arise. how often do you explain potential risks of being false positive to your victims before your start your vodoo?
it must be nice to lie to every person you test...free from any accountablity whatsoever. there is no truth in darkness.
nonombre,
i have a career. i have never taken a polygraph. i LOVE my job, too. the only difference i see is this: i do not lie to the people i work with, or abuse them in any way. i am completely upfront about all the risks and potential issues that could arise. how often do you explain potential risks of being false positive to your victims before your start your vodoo?
it must be nice to lie to every person you test...free from any accountablity whatsoever. there is no truth in darkness.
Posted by FBI-Reject
- Apr 27, 2006, 03:57 PMAs a journalism major, I can say spelling errors can ruin the credibility of an otherwise good source or article. That said, I don't think focusing on spelling errors is the best way to determine the legitimacy of what a person has to say.
Now, nonombre's arrogant response shows his true colors. His "career" is based on lies, actually hurts national security by keeping good and valuable people out of the intelligence community, and traumatizes innocent people.
As for his insinuation that people who haven't passed a polygraph test are all losers with no prospects, he should think again. I don't know his resume, but I daresay that if we were to compare, my resume would have a good chance at appearing more accomplished than his.
Anyway nonombre, thanks for supporting my view that polygraphers are generally arrogant, uncaring, overzealous, and narrow-minded.
Now, nonombre's arrogant response shows his true colors. His "career" is based on lies, actually hurts national security by keeping good and valuable people out of the intelligence community, and traumatizes innocent people.
As for his insinuation that people who haven't passed a polygraph test are all losers with no prospects, he should think again. I don't know his resume, but I daresay that if we were to compare, my resume would have a good chance at appearing more accomplished than his.
Anyway nonombre, thanks for supporting my view that polygraphers are generally arrogant, uncaring, overzealous, and narrow-minded.
Posted by nolehce
- Apr 27, 2006, 03:46 PMThose were my comments on what Nonombre wrote.
Moreover, I find it hard to take seriously anything written by a purported polygrapher who cannot even properly spell the world "lying."
You would think a polygrapher would, after all, want to carry some credibility, ironically enough.
Why would I want to put my career or freedom in the hands of a jackass joker who cannot spell the very thing he is supposedly trained to detect?
Neither would I board an aircraft knowing the pilot could not spell the word "engine" or "aileron." Then again, putting polygraphy as a profession at the same level as aviation is an insult to pilots everywhere.
Moreover, I find it hard to take seriously anything written by a purported polygrapher who cannot even properly spell the world "lying."
You would think a polygrapher would, after all, want to carry some credibility, ironically enough.
Why would I want to put my career or freedom in the hands of a jackass joker who cannot spell the very thing he is supposedly trained to detect?
Neither would I board an aircraft knowing the pilot could not spell the word "engine" or "aileron." Then again, putting polygraphy as a profession at the same level as aviation is an insult to pilots everywhere.
Posted by retcopper
- Apr 27, 2006, 11:09 AMAllegedliar:
I was a finalist in a state spelling bee contest when I was in grade school. I see lots of spelling mistakes in here but I don't feel compelled to point them out. I make plenty of spelling mistakes because I type too fast, never have to use spellcheck, and don't feel I have to proof read everything for spelling errors. Why didn't you comment on what he wrote instead of correcting his spelling mistake.
Digithead:
And what have you done lately to protect your community from child molesters besides second guessing someone who is attemting to make this world a better place. I'm glad some people are willing to stick their neck out to help make things better. That is a lot more constructive than doing "research" and being a Monday morning QB.
I was a finalist in a state spelling bee contest when I was in grade school. I see lots of spelling mistakes in here but I don't feel compelled to point them out. I make plenty of spelling mistakes because I type too fast, never have to use spellcheck, and don't feel I have to proof read everything for spelling errors. Why didn't you comment on what he wrote instead of correcting his spelling mistake.
Digithead:
And what have you done lately to protect your community from child molesters besides second guessing someone who is attemting to make this world a better place. I'm glad some people are willing to stick their neck out to help make things better. That is a lot more constructive than doing "research" and being a Monday morning QB.
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 27, 2006, 02:02 AMFrom http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12501798/
The relevant part is in paragragh 5.
CIA warns ex-agents over talking to media
The Central Intelligence Agency has warned former employees not to have unapproved contacts with reporters, as part of a mounting campaign by the administration to crack down on officials who leak information on national security issues.
A former official said the CIA recently warned several retired employees who have consulting contracts with the agency that they could lose their pensions by talking to reporters without permission. He added that while the threats might be legally "hollow," they were having a chilling effect on former employees.
The CIA called the allegations "rubbish". Jennifer Millerwise Dyke, spokeswoman for CIA director Porter Goss, said former employees with consulting deals could lose their contracts for violating the CIA secrecy agreement by having unauthorised conversations with reporters. But she stressed that under current law, "termination of a contract does not affect pensions".
The clampdown represents the latest move in what observers describe as the most aggressive government campaign against leaks in years. The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure to the media of secret overseas CIA prisons and a highly classified National Security Agency domestic spying programme authorised by President George W. Bush. Last week, the CIA fired Mary McCarthy, an intelligence officer, for allegedly leaking classified information and having undisclosed contacts with reporters.
Mr Goss has increased the number of "single issue" polygraphs – lie detector tests aimed at ferreting out leaking employees. A second former official said Mr Goss was trying to "scare everybody" by using polygraphs aggressively.
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former CIA general counsel, said Mr Goss was "obviously taking a much more forward-leaning stance than any of us have seen for years". But another former intelligence official said the agency was simply returning to a "more conservative regimen" to remind employees that they work for a secret organisation.
The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.
The House intelligence committee has asked John Negroponte, the director for national intelligence who oversees the 16 intelligence agencies, to study whether retirees could lose their pensions for disclosing classified information even when not prosecuted.
The attempt to silence former employees extends beyond those who still have consulting contracts. Larry Johnson, a former CIA official who blogs at www.TPMCafe.com, said he recently received a "threatening" letter reminding him about his confidentiality agreements.
Mr Johnson – who has criticised the White House for not aggressively investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert operative, said it was the first such letter he had received despite regularly commenting in the media on intelligence matters since his retirement in 1989. He said other former employees also received letters.
He said the CIA was also "very forceful" in intimidating a retired official who maintains ties to the agency after he signed a letter criticising the administration over the Plame leak.
Mr Gimigliano said CIA staff officers and contractors must sign a secrecy agreement which compelled them to seek prepublication permission for anything they wrote involving the CIA, intelligence matters, and classified material.
Mr Gimigliano added: "When a former officer or contractor fails to honour the legally binding agreement ... our Publications Review Board may send the individual a written reminder. That reminder includes the statement that 'permission to publish will not be denied solely because information may be embarrassing to or critical of the agency' ... Obviously, such letters contain no threats."
But Mr Johnson and other critics say the campaign is also intended to crack down on politically embarrassing comments from former officials.
"They are trying to intimidate the press and trying to intimidate employees," said Mr Johnson. "Anybody who has been critical of the Bush administration is getting letters."
Another former CIA employee who maintains links to the agency said it did not need to be blatant about threats because contractors and retirees who had relationships with agency officials understood that talking to reporters could have repercussions for future work.
"People at the agency are bright enough to see that is going on, they don't need to be reminded," the former official said.
Stanley Sporkin, former CIA general counsel during the Reagan administration and a retired judge, said it was "ridiculous" that the agency was trying to limit contacts with the media.
He said the only restriction should be that they do not reveal classified information. Something has got to be done to address this. These days it is almost like a witch hunt," said Mr Sporkin
The relevant part is in paragragh 5.
CIA warns ex-agents over talking to media
The Central Intelligence Agency has warned former employees not to have unapproved contacts with reporters, as part of a mounting campaign by the administration to crack down on officials who leak information on national security issues.
A former official said the CIA recently warned several retired employees who have consulting contracts with the agency that they could lose their pensions by talking to reporters without permission. He added that while the threats might be legally "hollow," they were having a chilling effect on former employees.
The CIA called the allegations "rubbish". Jennifer Millerwise Dyke, spokeswoman for CIA director Porter Goss, said former employees with consulting deals could lose their contracts for violating the CIA secrecy agreement by having unauthorised conversations with reporters. But she stressed that under current law, "termination of a contract does not affect pensions".
The clampdown represents the latest move in what observers describe as the most aggressive government campaign against leaks in years. The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure to the media of secret overseas CIA prisons and a highly classified National Security Agency domestic spying programme authorised by President George W. Bush. Last week, the CIA fired Mary McCarthy, an intelligence officer, for allegedly leaking classified information and having undisclosed contacts with reporters.
Mr Goss has increased the number of "single issue" polygraphs – lie detector tests aimed at ferreting out leaking employees. A second former official said Mr Goss was trying to "scare everybody" by using polygraphs aggressively.
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former CIA general counsel, said Mr Goss was "obviously taking a much more forward-leaning stance than any of us have seen for years". But another former intelligence official said the agency was simply returning to a "more conservative regimen" to remind employees that they work for a secret organisation.
The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.
The House intelligence committee has asked John Negroponte, the director for national intelligence who oversees the 16 intelligence agencies, to study whether retirees could lose their pensions for disclosing classified information even when not prosecuted.
The attempt to silence former employees extends beyond those who still have consulting contracts. Larry Johnson, a former CIA official who blogs at www.TPMCafe.com, said he recently received a "threatening" letter reminding him about his confidentiality agreements.
Mr Johnson – who has criticised the White House for not aggressively investigating the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert operative, said it was the first such letter he had received despite regularly commenting in the media on intelligence matters since his retirement in 1989. He said other former employees also received letters.
He said the CIA was also "very forceful" in intimidating a retired official who maintains ties to the agency after he signed a letter criticising the administration over the Plame leak.
Mr Gimigliano said CIA staff officers and contractors must sign a secrecy agreement which compelled them to seek prepublication permission for anything they wrote involving the CIA, intelligence matters, and classified material.
Mr Gimigliano added: "When a former officer or contractor fails to honour the legally binding agreement ... our Publications Review Board may send the individual a written reminder. That reminder includes the statement that 'permission to publish will not be denied solely because information may be embarrassing to or critical of the agency' ... Obviously, such letters contain no threats."
But Mr Johnson and other critics say the campaign is also intended to crack down on politically embarrassing comments from former officials.
"They are trying to intimidate the press and trying to intimidate employees," said Mr Johnson. "Anybody who has been critical of the Bush administration is getting letters."
Another former CIA employee who maintains links to the agency said it did not need to be blatant about threats because contractors and retirees who had relationships with agency officials understood that talking to reporters could have repercussions for future work.
"People at the agency are bright enough to see that is going on, they don't need to be reminded," the former official said.
Stanley Sporkin, former CIA general counsel during the Reagan administration and a retired judge, said it was "ridiculous" that the agency was trying to limit contacts with the media.
He said the only restriction should be that they do not reveal classified information. Something has got to be done to address this. These days it is almost like a witch hunt," said Mr Sporkin
Posted by day2day
- Apr 26, 2006, 02:33 AMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 AM
That of course was a cheap shot. But we in the polygraph community have gotten used to being the target of the bitter losers who post on this site.
We have careers, and you don't.
And just think..We are the REASON you don't have a career.
I just LOVE my job...
I sincerely hope that was not directed at everybody on this forum. What a broad stroke, much the same as you do not appreciate being made of you. Your arrogance should be cause for shame. Yes, you are the reason I don't have that career. Thank you for making the decision, although it was incorrect. A criminal gets more representation than a job candidate, because you and many other dream-weavers are judge, jury and executioner. Your postion is noted.
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Apr 26, 2006, 01:55 AMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 AM
And just think..We are the REASON you don't have a career.
I just LOVE my job...
I hope you realize that a lot of people facing a polygraph come to this site wanting to know what to expect. I hope they read your statement over and over......
Anyways, smartass....my FBI polygraph failure didn't stop me from passing a polygraph with a different agency.
Posted by digithead
- Apr 26, 2006, 01:49 AMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 AM
That of course was a cheap shot. But we in the polygraph community have gotten used to being the target of the bitter losers who post on this site.
We have careers, and you don't.
And just think..We are the REASON you don't have a career.
I just LOVE my job...
Nonombre...
You can't count me as one of the "bitter losers" since I've never taken a polygraph nor have been personally hurt by a polygraph. I'm a criminal justice researcher who looked into post-conviction use of the polygraph and came away appalled at what I found...
You also have never answered my questions about your false positive and negative rates. How many careers have you destroyed with a false positive? And if you've been part of an SOTP, how many pedophiles have you let continue offending with a false negative?
You probably don't want to think about it, do you?
Posted by 8675309
- Apr 26, 2006, 01:44 AMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 AM
That of course was a cheap shot. But we in the polygraph community have gotten used to being the target of the bitter losers who post on this site.
We have careers, and you don't.
And just think..We are the REASON you don't have a career.
I just LOVE my job...
Thats good that you love your job. But don't be ignorant thinking that people here don't have a career. It may not be in the FBI, CIA, or Law Enforcement like they want, but that doesnt mean they are slobs or losers like you are making them out to be. I have a great career, and my failure to get into the FBI has actually benefited me immensely. So its not all bad.
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 AMQuote from: allegedliar on Apr 25, 2006, 11:02 PMNonombre, you wrote:
"Is it possible that it is Ms. McCarthy who is now lieing (to save her image)?"
Am I to believe that you are a polygrapher and that you cannot even properly spell the word "lying?!"
Have you no shame? How can you show your face on this board, let alone among your fellow polygraphers without even being able to spell a word that would seemingly be central to your profession?
How can you lecture us on the truth when, if you cannot even recognize an important word that is misspelled, you would have us believe that you can detect a lie in the squiggle of a polygraph chart?
Is illiteracy common within the ranks of polygraphers? I hope you are not so sloppy with the fates of those you polygraph as you are with your spelling.
:-/
That of course was a cheap shot. But we in the polygraph community have gotten used to being the target of the bitter losers who post on this site.
We have careers, and you don't.
And just think..We are the REASON you don't have a career.
I just LOVE my job...
Posted by nolehce
- Apr 25, 2006, 11:02 PMNonombre, you wrote:
"Is it possible that it is Ms. McCarthy who is now lieing (to save her image)?"
Am I to believe that you are a polygrapher and that you cannot even properly spell the word "lying?!"
Have you no shame? How can you show your face on this board, let alone among your fellow polygraphers without even being able to spell a word that would seemingly be central to your profession?
How can you lecture us on the truth when, if you cannot even recognize an important word that is misspelled, you would have us believe that you can detect a lie in the squiggle of a polygraph chart?
Is illiteracy common within the ranks of polygraphers? I hope you are not so sloppy with the fates of those you polygraph as you are with your spelling.
:-/
"Is it possible that it is Ms. McCarthy who is now lieing (to save her image)?"
Am I to believe that you are a polygrapher and that you cannot even properly spell the word "lying?!"
Have you no shame? How can you show your face on this board, let alone among your fellow polygraphers without even being able to spell a word that would seemingly be central to your profession?
How can you lecture us on the truth when, if you cannot even recognize an important word that is misspelled, you would have us believe that you can detect a lie in the squiggle of a polygraph chart?
Is illiteracy common within the ranks of polygraphers? I hope you are not so sloppy with the fates of those you polygraph as you are with your spelling.
:-/
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 25, 2006, 09:58 PMQuote from: antrella on Apr 25, 2006, 03:09 PM
And just like that, the plot thickens...note however, that she also denies having flunked that part of the polygraph.
antrella,
You are correct. The plot thickens. You know, this Mary McCarthy could have gone two ways in defending herself. She could have claimed (as many on this site put forth) that she did what she did out on deep concern for the legality of the american government's actions, and that she did what she thought was the right thing to do.
Instead, she is now denying providing classified information and to confessing to that fact during her polygraph examination.
But yet, she was fired....Hmmm.
I wonder.... You know, I have never been in the CIA, but I would bet that they would think long and hard before firing a senior official with many years with the agency.
They said she confessed during a polygraph examination. She says that did not happen...
I wonder....Doesn't the CIA record their polygraph exams? I would think that all sorts of CIA lawyers, security officials, and even Porter Goss himself would have listened to the tape before they made the decision to fire Ms. McCarthy.
So, according to Ms. McCarthy, they all lied (to include the director). Hmmm.
Is it possible that it is Ms. McCarthy who is now lieing (to save her image)? Maybe what she discussed on that tape is so classified, she knows CIA can never release it, can never defend itself (in public)?
And if it is true that Ms. McCarthy knowingly provided classified information to a reporter during a time of war, it is impossible for her to now reverse herself and claim she did it for the good of the country. She has blown that chance and has shown the world what she is (a coward and a traiter)
That is of course, if her denials are a lie...
Yes, my friend, the plot truly does thicken. I for one, will be sitting on the sidelines, with a large bucket of popcorn...
Regards,
Nonombre