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 migaveli
 - Dec 28, 2006, 08:06 PM
Thanks George...I was unaware that anything had been posted about it in the past. I appreciate your imput anyway.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 28, 2006, 07:53 AM
Quote from: migaveli on Dec 27, 2006, 07:53 PMI don't know if this article has ever been shared here, but I just found it:

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112734

Just curious about everyone's opinion on the article. It seems to me that the polygrapher basically knew he'd probably take the money, etc. Also sounds like the guy use the sphincter technique way too intensely. Anyway, share your two cents (you too George, since he said he spoke with you). Thanks guys!

(hope i didnt break any rules by posting that link!)

1) The author of this article, Emily Yoffe, is a she, not a he.

2) Yoffe did not speak with me, and nowhere in the article does she actually claim to have done so. Rather, she speaks only of having "consulted" AntiPolygraph.org (as one might "consult" a dictionary).

3) You broke no rule of this message board by posting this link. For past discussion of Yoffe's article, see Can I Beat a Lie Detector? - MSN Slate Article.
Posted by migaveli
 - Dec 27, 2006, 07:53 PM
I don't know if this article has ever been shared here, but I just found it:

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112734

Just curious about everyone's opinion on the article. It seems to me that the polygrapher basically knew he'd probably take the money, etc. Also sounds like the guy use the sphincter technique way too intensely. Anyway, share your two cents (you too George, since he said he spoke with you). Thanks guys!

(hope i didnt break any rules by posting that link!)