- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by 1904
- Sep 06, 2007, 05:22 AMPENTAFED:
You strayed right off the general purpose of the board.
Despite all your ranting and seemingly anti-polygraph stance, I think you have a hidden agenda.
Maybe you're just a verbose, misguided missionary, suffering from relative obfuscation.
I prefer the alleged moral relativism of the members on this board to your fanatical obsession with your
skewed set of principles.
You strayed right off the general purpose of the board.
Despite all your ranting and seemingly anti-polygraph stance, I think you have a hidden agenda.
Maybe you're just a verbose, misguided missionary, suffering from relative obfuscation.
I prefer the alleged moral relativism of the members on this board to your fanatical obsession with your
skewed set of principles.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Sep 05, 2007, 09:39 PMI am more scared for this country than ever when any one person assumes to know the "truth" and the "only way."
I have lived my life as well as possible. I have never tried to gain anything at someone else's expense. My whole life was judged by a person and machine as being "negative", not forthcoming, not telling the truth.
The FBI is now getting what it wants, a bunch of yes men/women who toe the FBI policy and by line regardless of how the Constitution is written or enforced. The invisible gatekeeper of the polygraph weeds out those who do not "fit in". The greatest patriots of the United States were those who were willing to question and challange the status quo.
So sad.
I have lived my life as well as possible. I have never tried to gain anything at someone else's expense. My whole life was judged by a person and machine as being "negative", not forthcoming, not telling the truth.
The FBI is now getting what it wants, a bunch of yes men/women who toe the FBI policy and by line regardless of how the Constitution is written or enforced. The invisible gatekeeper of the polygraph weeds out those who do not "fit in". The greatest patriots of the United States were those who were willing to question and challange the status quo.
So sad.
Posted by Twoblock
- Sep 05, 2007, 08:56 PMHey 5Fed
Why don't you spew your moral diatribe to your comrades at the CIA, whose failure to relay their information cost N.Y. City the twin towers and 3,000 lives, and the FBI, NSA, etc. Spew it toward the congressional chambers in D.C. Hell, you might even need to look in the mirrow. Who knows. Make your efforts worthwhile instead of assuming the worst of someone on these boards.
Why don't you spew your moral diatribe to your comrades at the CIA, whose failure to relay their information cost N.Y. City the twin towers and 3,000 lives, and the FBI, NSA, etc. Spew it toward the congressional chambers in D.C. Hell, you might even need to look in the mirrow. Who knows. Make your efforts worthwhile instead of assuming the worst of someone on these boards.
Posted by 2525
- Sep 05, 2007, 08:54 PMQuote from: PentaFed on Sep 05, 2007, 02:24 PM
Obfuscate all you want. I've stated my position on the polygraph and we all agree that it's unreliable. My points were related to being truthful about your past. Did you care to comment on that? If you can't be honest about your past, regardless of whether it involves a polygraph, then you don't deserve to be in a position of public trust. Especially when at some point you will be in a position to state true facts for the specific purpose of gaining lawful permission to circumvent someone's constitutional rights. You and your comrades issues are apparently not limited to use of polygraph but include not liking the fact that you need to truthfully answer certain questions that you don't think you should have to answer. That sounds more like a personal problem, than a policy problem.
I should add that any life-experienced adult who comes here and encourages young people entering intelligence or law enforcement to be less than truthful on their applications or in their interviews, ought to be ashamed of themselves and begin to rethink their own moral compass. That is if they even have one. You are setting those people up for a life of FAILURE......perhaps like your own FAILURE which may help to explain your behavior. Misery loves company, as the old adage goes. With that said I leave all the truly honorable people here carrying on the good fight to eliminate use of the polygraph......as well as all you spineless cowards who love to dance with the truth. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be in higher abundance here now.
Wow, what was that! PentaFed's response seemed quite ignoble. I for one am glad PentaFed resigned from this forum.
As a former boss of mine used to say, "It takes all kinds." So, everyone has a contribution to make regardless of the span of their abilities.
Also, there is a lot to being a human. Humanity is not cast in absolute black or white. Rather humans are composed of a large assortment of shades of grey.
Please permit me to post the following brief parable to explain.
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two "wolves" inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, sharing, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
I do not feel antipolygraph.org feeds evil wolves within our young.
Posted by PentaFed
- Sep 05, 2007, 07:43 PMQuote from: 2525 on Sep 05, 2007, 07:07 PMQuote from: PentaFed on Sep 05, 2007, 02:24 PM
snip
snip
Just because the polygraph isn't reliable, doesn't mean you are entitled to create your own truth.
Um, the polygraph creates a false truth that harms humans Sir. Machines that purport to detect deception should not be connected to the diverse human species. I think this is the point 1904 is making in his characteristic jocular manner.
Obfuscate all you want. I've stated my position on the polygraph and we all agree that it's unreliable. My points were related to being truthful about your past. Did you care to comment on that? If you can't be honest about your past, regardless of whether it involves a polygraph, then you don't deserve to be in a position of public trust. Especially when at some point you will be in a position to state true facts for the specific purpose of gaining lawful permission to circumvent someone's constitutional rights. You and your comrades issues are apparently not limited to use of polygraph but include not liking the fact that you need to truthfully answer certain questions that you don't think you should have to answer. That sounds more like a personal problem, than a policy problem.
I should add that any life-experienced adult who comes here and encourages young people entering intelligence or law enforcement to be less than truthful on their applications or in their interviews, ought to be ashamed of themselves and begin to rethink their own moral compass. That is if they even have one. You are setting those people up for a life of FAILURE......perhaps like your own FAILURE which may help to explain your behavior. Misery loves company, as the old adage goes. With that said I leave all the truly honorable people here carrying on the good fight to eliminate use of the polygraph......as well as all you spineless cowards who love to dance with the truth. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be in higher abundance here now.
Posted by 2525
- Sep 05, 2007, 07:07 PMQuote from: PentaFed on Sep 05, 2007, 02:24 PM
snip
snip
Just because the polygraph isn't reliable, doesn't mean you are entitled to create your own truth.
Um, the polygraph creates a false truth that harms humans Sir. Machines that purport to detect deception should not be connected to the diverse human species. I think this is the point 1904 is making in his characteristic jocular manner.
Posted by PentaFed
- Sep 05, 2007, 02:24 PMQuote from: 1904 on Sep 05, 2007, 07:54 AMTamatoes, tomatoes. Patates, Potatoes.Circular arguments? You mean like your assertion that I claimed the applicant's integrity would be smeared by his use of pot? Again, where did I make such claim? You are the kind of person who, when he doesn't like the rules in any given situation, decides to make up his own.
The integrity issue revolves around a once-off pot tasting.
Is that even anyone else's business..?? I dont think so.
A country that resorts to polygraphing job applicants is in deep S.
It suggests a serious lack of skills and ability in the hiring selection process.
Why dont you just throw them in the water? If they come back up
again - hire them.
Your use of circular argument and ad hominem attack was predictable.
You have a serious relationship problem with yourself B. Get over it.
While I don't know the owner of this board, from what I've seen him write I am convinced he is a patriot who feels strongly about the abuses associated with polygraph, and who wants to see polygraph use in employment ended. This site was created toward that end. Based on what I know about it, I support that goal as well.
However, I think I can be safe in saying it was not created to support dishonesty, which is what your goal apparently is. While I don't support polygraph use for employment, I do support truthfully answering questions that are posed to me about my past. (whether I like the answer or not)
Again, I'll say,. it's a shame that this board has collected a a following of people who have merely tagged along on the anti-polygraph bandwagon in order to find ways around the truth, engage in moral relativism, and decide for themslves which part of their past is relevant and which part is not. That's not the way it works, and people like you only hamper the the otherwise legitimate anti-polygraph debate.
As for relationship problems, I would suggest you spend more time engaging in introspection. You seem to have a problem being honest with yourself and are on a crusade to support this character flaw in others.
Just because the polygraph isn't reliable, doesn't mean you are entitled to create your own truth.
Posted by 1904
- Sep 05, 2007, 07:54 AMTamatoes, tomatoes. Patates, Potatoes.
The integrity issue revolves around a once-off pot tasting.
Is that even anyone else's business..?? I dont think so.
A country that resorts to polygraphing job applicants is in deep S.
It suggests a serious lack of skills and ability in the hiring selection process.
Why dont you just throw them in the water? If they come back up
again - hire them.
Your use of circular argument and ad hominem attack was predictable.
You have a serious relationship problem with yourself B. Get over it.
The integrity issue revolves around a once-off pot tasting.
Is that even anyone else's business..?? I dont think so.
A country that resorts to polygraphing job applicants is in deep S.
It suggests a serious lack of skills and ability in the hiring selection process.
Why dont you just throw them in the water? If they come back up
again - hire them.
Your use of circular argument and ad hominem attack was predictable.
You have a serious relationship problem with yourself B. Get over it.
Posted by PentaFed
- Sep 04, 2007, 02:16 PMI see that some folks engage in selective reading techniques here.
Where in any of my posts did I say that his integrity would be compromised because of his pot use?
Do tell.
Is your argument that if a prospective intern in a law enforcement agency is asked a simple question as to prior use of illegal drugs (whether or not a polygraph is involved) they should lie?
If someone uses pot once and are then asked in an official process "did you ever used an illegal drug" does that one pot use not constitute ever using an illegal drug? I guess it's much better to lie about it, get caught lying, and then be regarded as someone who can't be trusted to be forthright on anything, right?
I'm a lifelong Democrat who actually voted for Clinton. However your kind of moral relativism could be one reason why the stupid polygraph doesn't go away!
If a prospective LEO has to lie to himself about what he's done in his past that's the real problem, not necessarily what he's done. When its time for that person to take the stand and swear out a complaint or an affidavit for a warrant to circumvent someone's constitutional rights, his freaking word has to MEAN something. I guess he should then decide which facts work for him and which facts he should creatively reconstruct to obtain the end result he is looking for?
Do you get it? I don't think you do.
Clintonian tactics didn't work for Clinton and they certainly won't work for others. Please learn how to read for comprehension before insulting someone you don't know. NOWHERE in any of my posts did I even imply that his integrity would be compromised "because of his pot use."
This forum is a great place to kick around issues re: polygraph. It's unfortunate that, for some, it's become a place to advocate being less than truthful in your application process. People like you provide cover for polygraph proponents and use the legitimate merits of the anti-polygraph crusade to push your advocacy of moral relativism and dishonesty.
If anybody is a "BillyBob" it's you. Get with the program, please.
Where in any of my posts did I say that his integrity would be compromised because of his pot use?
Do tell.Is your argument that if a prospective intern in a law enforcement agency is asked a simple question as to prior use of illegal drugs (whether or not a polygraph is involved) they should lie?
If someone uses pot once and are then asked in an official process "did you ever used an illegal drug" does that one pot use not constitute ever using an illegal drug? I guess it's much better to lie about it, get caught lying, and then be regarded as someone who can't be trusted to be forthright on anything, right?
I'm a lifelong Democrat who actually voted for Clinton. However your kind of moral relativism could be one reason why the stupid polygraph doesn't go away!
If a prospective LEO has to lie to himself about what he's done in his past that's the real problem, not necessarily what he's done. When its time for that person to take the stand and swear out a complaint or an affidavit for a warrant to circumvent someone's constitutional rights, his freaking word has to MEAN something. I guess he should then decide which facts work for him and which facts he should creatively reconstruct to obtain the end result he is looking for?
Do you get it? I don't think you do.
Clintonian tactics didn't work for Clinton and they certainly won't work for others. Please learn how to read for comprehension before insulting someone you don't know. NOWHERE in any of my posts did I even imply that his integrity would be compromised "because of his pot use."
This forum is a great place to kick around issues re: polygraph. It's unfortunate that, for some, it's become a place to advocate being less than truthful in your application process. People like you provide cover for polygraph proponents and use the legitimate merits of the anti-polygraph crusade to push your advocacy of moral relativism and dishonesty.
If anybody is a "BillyBob" it's you. Get with the program, please.
Posted by 1904
- Sep 04, 2007, 06:32 AM[/quote]
Clintonian tactics will get you nowhere. While we all make stupid mistakes in our lives, the distance we create from those mistakes, and the lessons we learn from them are most important to employers. However, once your integrity has been compromised it's nearly impossible to restore it in one lifetime.[/quote]
To PentaFed / Cuzzin BillyBob
What, if like Clinton, C12man5 also didn't inhale?
Shouldn't the examiner then rather ask, " Did you ever inhale marijuana? "
Then, you state that C12's integrity has probably been compromised for his lifetime, because
he once tried marijuana....
Scary.
Clintonian tactics will get you nowhere. While we all make stupid mistakes in our lives, the distance we create from those mistakes, and the lessons we learn from them are most important to employers. However, once your integrity has been compromised it's nearly impossible to restore it in one lifetime.[/quote]
To PentaFed / Cuzzin BillyBob
What, if like Clinton, C12man5 also didn't inhale?
Shouldn't the examiner then rather ask, " Did you ever inhale marijuana? "
Then, you state that C12's integrity has probably been compromised for his lifetime, because
he once tried marijuana....
Scary.
Posted by PentaFed
- Sep 03, 2007, 09:01 PMQuote from: c12man5 on Sep 03, 2007, 02:39 PMbecause in a society were almost 80% of people aged 15-24 will have tried an illicit drug at least once in there life they should be punished right? Face it in the society we live in today drug use is a part of life a big one. So dont come in here with your saintly bs when I can see right through you.
(15-24) combines college + high school
Keep in mind this was almost 5 years ago.
The CIA policy is no use within the last 12 months.......
As I said in my previous post, we have all made mistakes and errors in judgment. Next time READ what someone writes, instead of trying (and failing) to "see right through them." The POINT, my friend, is that your drug use is not the issue here. Your HONESTY is. You just don't get it. You admitted to illegal drug use. The answer to the question is yes. You seem to be forever trying to circumvent being honest about what you've done in your life. If you can't be honest with yourself, why should you be in a position of trust? Admit to your illegal use of drugs and move on with your freaking life! Nobody is saying your pot use should be held against you! In fact, if it is what you say it is then I doubt the USMS will hold it against you. However, your seeming lack of an ability to get honest with yourself is much more troubling than the recreational pot use! With that said, who the hell is recruiting interns for the USMS? I thought those slots went to the "best and brightest."
Posted by c12man5
- Sep 03, 2007, 02:39 PMbecause in a society were almost 80% of people aged 15-24 will have tried an illicit drug at least once in there life they should be punished right? Face it in the society we live in today drug use is a part of life a big one. So dont come in here with your saintly bs when I can see right through you.
(15-24) combines college + high school
Keep in mind this was almost 5 years ago.
The CIA policy is no use within the last 12 months.......
(15-24) combines college + high school
Keep in mind this was almost 5 years ago.
The CIA policy is no use within the last 12 months.......
Posted by PentaFed
- Sep 03, 2007, 01:58 AMQuote from: c12man5 on Sep 02, 2007, 02:05 PMThanks for your response but here is my problem, what is defined as using an illegal drug? I have NEVER used an entire bowl by myself. My room mate on the other hand smokes every day all day so what constitutes illegal drug use is the smoking of a certain amount of miligrams?
What is defined as using an illegal drug? Hmmm. How competitive is this internship program at USMS? I would think the Marshal's could do better. To answer the question, use of an illegal drug is USE OF AN ILLEGAL DRUG. It's a simple question and calls for a simple, yet HONEST, answer. You either used it, or you didn't. There is no "in between" unless the question stipulates that there is. And it doesn't. Based on what you've admitted, the answer has to be yes. If you can't do that, then maybe you need to look at a different type of work. Clintonian tactics will get you nowhere. While we all make stupid mistakes in our lives, the distance we create from those mistakes, and the lessons we learn from them are most important to employers. However, once your integrity has been compromised it's nearly impossible to restore it in one lifetime.
Posted by c12man5
- Sep 02, 2007, 02:05 PMThanks for your response but here is my problem, what is defined as using an illegal drug? I have NEVER used an entire bowl by myself. My room mate on the other hand smokes every day all day so what constitutes illegal drug use is the smoking of a certain amount of miligrams?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 02, 2007, 05:08 AMIt really isn't that complicated.
What if the question was, "Are you now living in or have you ever lived in Florida?"
Would you not know how to answer that? If you live there now or have lived there in the past you should answer "yes", right?
If you are using drugs now or have ever used drugs than your answer should be, "Yes."
What if the question was, "Are you now living in or have you ever lived in Florida?"
Would you not know how to answer that? If you live there now or have lived there in the past you should answer "yes", right?
If you are using drugs now or have ever used drugs than your answer should be, "Yes."