- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by raymond.nelson
- Oct 29, 2007, 03:28 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 29, 2007, 11:54 AMEric Johnson,
At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:Quote...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...
Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:QuoteI am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....
So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...
Huh?
Ludo who? He's a fictional character in a novel last I knew.
Incidentally,
I heard that's not really Lou in the video, but a Hollywood stunt man.
Word on the street is that Lou's agent warned him that the test could be dangerous, and they used a stand-in.
(sorry George, for posting off topic, I couldn't resist it.)
r
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2007, 12:08 PMEric Johnson,
I'll let you have the last word on this matter and let readers draw their own conclusions.
Further posts to this message thread should address the topic of Lou Rovner's polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.
I'll let you have the last word on this matter and let readers draw their own conclusions.
Further posts to this message thread should address the topic of Lou Rovner's polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 29, 2007, 12:02 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 29, 2007, 11:54 AMEric Johnson,
At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:Quote...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...
Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:QuoteI am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....
So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...
Why the obfuscation? I have always known the ID of Ray and Donna based on their writing styles, reference to Kubrick Film--- initially. I was never 100% certain if Lou was posting---as 'Hawk only had 5 posts. No conspiracy, no pissing on shoes. If I knew (had known) that Lou was 'Hawk, I would say so, but I do not have a close professional nor personal relationship with Lou---and knowledge of his posting is now after the fact. I am convinced he was Hawk, but not at the time. I made no such secrecy of my ID as hundreds of examiners knew that I was posting as Paradiddle from a different forum. No conspiracy, just literary past-present tense troubles.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2007, 11:54 AMEric Johnson,
At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:
Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:
So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...
At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:
Quote...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...
Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:
QuoteI am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....
So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 29, 2007, 11:38 AMYou're pissing your own shoe and crying "flood." My intentions were to state that I take your word that Lou was 'Hawk---and not Hunter, Nonombre, Liebaby---other posters for whom I do not have confirmed knowledge of their identities. I haven't lost credibility, you seem to be losing your temper.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2007, 11:33 AMEric Johnson,
The plain language of your post of 6:48 AM this morning indicates that you were purporting at the time of writing not to know that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudbakerHawk posts:
Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
The plain language of your post of 6:48 AM this morning indicates that you were purporting at the time of writing not to know that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudbakerHawk posts:
Quote...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...
Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 29, 2007, 11:17 AMQuoteBut just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.
I did not pretend anything. I remarked that at the time, I was not aware of Studebaker's identity. I assume that since you identified Ray and Donna and myself---that you probably got the others correct also. But I was never convinced by the identities of either Hunter or Studebaker Hawk---until days or even hours before the outing I had strong suspicions---I still do not know who Hunter, Nonombre or LieBaby is, and any suspicions are just that. You are being paranoid. My statement regarding Lou was merely judiscious and reflective of my desire to not trust your "sources"wholeheartedly. No one gets everything right.
QuoteSecondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are;
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2007, 11:08 AMEric Johnson writes:
An anonymous Internet poll is no way to dispel rumors.
But just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.
QuoteConsidering that to determine the precise origin of malware is very expensive and tricky business, the charges are difficult to both proveAND disprove------like food poisoning, there are vastly expensive ways to investigate, but in most cases, a poll will verify to a degree the damage if any. Companies such as Hormel who were accused of distributing food born illness in some of their canned goods immediatly issues a warning and a hotline (poll)----as this is what real concerned people do. Incidentally, I still buy Hormel products.
An anonymous Internet poll is no way to dispel rumors.
QuoteI am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced. If you think otherwise, what be your sources mate?
But just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 29, 2007, 10:52 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 29, 2007, 10:29 AMEric Johnson writes:QuoteI have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam.
I am not at all pleased to have been defamed by Dr. Rovner in his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma and am concerned by the indication he gave in his pre-test that he repeats the same falsehoods about me to all his examinees.QuoteFurthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to suggest that it's okay for anyone to falsely claim (as Lou Rovner did) that I sent him/her a computer virus (a federal crime), and that such defamation is not actionable?QuoteSecondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are...
AntiPolygraph.org has compelling reason to believe that you are well aware that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudebakerHawk postings (whose authorship he has prudently not denied).
Considering that to determine the precise origin of malware is very expensive and tricky business, the charges are difficult to both proveAND disprove------like food poisoning, there are vastly expensive ways to investigate, but in most cases, a poll will verify to a degree the damage if any. Companies such as Hormel who were accused of distributing food born illness in some of their canned goods immediatly issues a warning and a hotline (poll)----as this is what real concerned people do. Incidentally, I still buy Hormel products.
I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced. If you think otherwise, what be your sources mate?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2007, 10:29 AMEric Johnson writes:
I am not at all pleased to have been defamed by Dr. Rovner in his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma and am concerned by the indication he gave in his pre-test that he repeats the same falsehoods about me to all his examinees.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to suggest that it's okay for anyone to falsely claim (as Lou Rovner did) that I sent him/her a computer virus (a federal crime), and that such defamation is not actionable?
AntiPolygraph.org has compelling reason to believe that you are well aware that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudebakerHawk postings (whose authorship he has prudently not denied).
QuoteI have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam.
I am not at all pleased to have been defamed by Dr. Rovner in his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma and am concerned by the indication he gave in his pre-test that he repeats the same falsehoods about me to all his examinees.
QuoteFurthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to suggest that it's okay for anyone to falsely claim (as Lou Rovner did) that I sent him/her a computer virus (a federal crime), and that such defamation is not actionable?
QuoteSecondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are...
AntiPolygraph.org has compelling reason to believe that you are well aware that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudebakerHawk postings (whose authorship he has prudently not denied).
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 29, 2007, 06:48 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 29, 2007, 01:19 AMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 28, 2007, 07:24 PMGeorge,
I'm curious. Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters? Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner. He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently. I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here. After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court").
Lou Rovner evidently sees AntiPolygraph.org as being important enough that he discusses it with all of his examinees. Rovner opened the pre-test phase of his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma by saying:QuoteI say this to everyone I test -- you wouldn't believe some of the people that have sat in the chair you're sitting in right now -- and regardless of who it is and why they're here, I tell them what I'm about to tell you: If I were sitting in your chair, a week ago or more, I would have got on the Internet and Googled "polygraph testing" or "lie detection" or something like that. And what comes up, you know, my website comes up -- not in your neck of the woods but a lot of polygraph examiners have websites and they come up on the Google lists, and then you get associations like the American Polygraph Association and so forth, and then there's a couple of sites -- one of them is called AntiPolygraph.org, and one is called Polygraph.com. They're both there to teach people how to beat a polygraph test, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had been there, if you had seen those sites, because I would have looked for them myself had it been my test.
Rovner must also be aware that persons (including potential clients) searching the Internet for information about "Lou Rovner" are also going to find AntiPolygraph.org and may very well find my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony. And they'll be left to draw their own conclusions as to why Rovner saw fit to post anonymous taunts on AntiPolygraph.org, but not to substantively respond to criticism.QuoteYou may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary. He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward. (The post has since been deleted.)
Lou Rovner's puerile taunts posted under the moniker StudebakerHawk were hardly an attempt at establishing dialog. The final taunt that resulted in StudebakerHawk's being banned was indeed deleted. For the record, 1) Gino did not characterize all who post under pseudonyms as cowards, and 2) did not claim that he himself posts under a pseudonym. (He doesn't.)
I very much doubt that Dr. Rovner feels "better armed" for future proceedings, where in addition to the matter of his false and defamatory remarks about me, the fact that he posted here as a troll may also be made known to judge and jury.
I have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam. Furthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.
Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are;
QuotePolygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty
on: Oct 16th, 2007, 11:10pm
I knew it! Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph. Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy. Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??
2 Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty
on: Oct 16th, 2007, 2:03pm
Who is Gino Scalabrini anyway? Another "expert" like "Dr." Richardson?
3 Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Procedure / Re: Polygraph analysis questions
on: Oct 11th, 2007, 8:20pm
I don't think anybody cares about the topic. We all know that George and his band of nerds are totally ignorant about polygraph testing.
When two people disagree, and one of them is a pro in the field, who would be dumb enough to listen to the amateur.
4 Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Procedure / Re: Polygraph analysis questions
on: Oct 11th, 2007, 6:05pm
Paradiddle,
That's the best poem I ever saw. Are you really not George Maschke, or are you trying to throw us off the scent?
5 Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: Tomorrow (10/4) at 5p.m. on Fox 5 News (New York area) -- "Testing the Polygraph"
on: Oct 7th, 2007, 10:53pm
It just looks to me like countermeasures didn't work. Maybe they don't.
If one wants to call 5 posts of remarks that amount to pithy agreements as "Trolling", than I can certainly find many antipolygraph posters who fit such a label. GMAFB.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 29, 2007, 01:19 AMQuote from: Barry_C on Oct 28, 2007, 07:24 PMGeorge,
I'm curious. Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters? Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner. He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently. I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here. After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court").
Lou Rovner evidently sees AntiPolygraph.org as being important enough that he discusses it with all of his examinees. Rovner opened the pre-test phase of his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma by saying:
QuoteI say this to everyone I test -- you wouldn't believe some of the people that have sat in the chair you're sitting in right now -- and regardless of who it is and why they're here, I tell them what I'm about to tell you: If I were sitting in your chair, a week ago or more, I would have got on the Internet and Googled "polygraph testing" or "lie detection" or something like that. And what comes up, you know, my website comes up -- not in your neck of the woods but a lot of polygraph examiners have websites and they come up on the Google lists, and then you get associations like the American Polygraph Association and so forth, and then there's a couple of sites -- one of them is called AntiPolygraph.org, and one is called Polygraph.com. They're both there to teach people how to beat a polygraph test, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had been there, if you had seen those sites, because I would have looked for them myself had it been my test.
Rovner must also be aware that persons (including potential clients) searching the Internet for information about "Lou Rovner" are also going to find AntiPolygraph.org and may very well find my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony. And they'll be left to draw their own conclusions as to why Rovner saw fit to post anonymous taunts on AntiPolygraph.org, but not to substantively respond to criticism.
QuoteYou may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary. He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward. (The post has since been deleted.)
Lou Rovner's puerile taunts posted under the moniker StudebakerHawk were hardly an attempt at establishing dialog. The final taunt that resulted in StudebakerHawk's being banned was indeed deleted. For the record, 1) Gino did not characterize all who post under pseudonyms as cowards, and 2) did not claim that he himself posts under a pseudonym. (He doesn't.)
I very much doubt that Dr. Rovner feels "better armed" for future proceedings, where in addition to the matter of his false and defamatory remarks about me, the fact that he posted here as a troll may also be made known to judge and jury.
Posted by Barry_C
- Oct 28, 2007, 07:24 PMGeorge,
I'm curious. Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters? Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner. He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently. I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here. After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court").
You may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary. He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward. (The post has since been deleted.)
You haven't offered him any incentive to return. It would be nice to ask him how often the issue of CMs and other topics of interest arise during his many court proceedings. It is my understanding it often doesn't come up at all. Maybe you can extend the olive branch and see if you can have a real discussion, but I suspect he's satisfied with his recent "gains" he's reaped from what's happened here. (The ethics complaint isn't going to help get him back either.)
In other words, your approach doesn't seem to support the notion that you want to have a real conversation with him, and he has no need to have one with you. When he "tested you, you pulled the plug. Am I missing something?
I'm curious. Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters? Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner. He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently. I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here. After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court").
You may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary. He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward. (The post has since been deleted.)
You haven't offered him any incentive to return. It would be nice to ask him how often the issue of CMs and other topics of interest arise during his many court proceedings. It is my understanding it often doesn't come up at all. Maybe you can extend the olive branch and see if you can have a real discussion, but I suspect he's satisfied with his recent "gains" he's reaped from what's happened here. (The ethics complaint isn't going to help get him back either.)
In other words, your approach doesn't seem to support the notion that you want to have a real conversation with him, and he has no need to have one with you. When he "tested you, you pulled the plug. Am I missing something?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 24, 2007, 02:14 AMMr. Johnson,
As an honorably discharged 20-year veteran of the U.S. Army and Army Reserve, I feel no compelling need to defend my loyalty and commitment to the United States in the face of taunts from the likes of you. I have already rebutted Dr. Rovner's false and defamatory suggestion that I fled the United States to avoid criminal prosecution and that I sent him a computer virus.
I again invite Dr. Rovner to respond to my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.
As an honorably discharged 20-year veteran of the U.S. Army and Army Reserve, I feel no compelling need to defend my loyalty and commitment to the United States in the face of taunts from the likes of you. I have already rebutted Dr. Rovner's false and defamatory suggestion that I fled the United States to avoid criminal prosecution and that I sent him a computer virus.
I again invite Dr. Rovner to respond to my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.
Posted by EJohnson
- Oct 23, 2007, 10:37 AMI think Lou was just being flippent over the fact that you, George and Co. refuse to accept the peer reviewed study demonstrating that countermeasures are damaging to examinees who attempt them. As for your reasons for "fleeing" the US when you claim to love her so much as evidenced by your pictures in front of Ole Glory, well I suppose that is purely deductive. Why did you leave us George? I suppose it didn't help your image of your professional exodus that your book encourages American Sex Offenders to disengage from treatment protocols and that the book encourages examinee's to use behaviors to manipulate United States Sworn Law Enforcement Officers who conduct employment screening tests for which you find "unwarranted and/or useless" (your opinion)-----all while you are sipping beer from a stein in a completely different country.
E
E