- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Hunter
- Oct 17, 2007, 08:57 PMThank you Dr. Richardson for verifying the Sgts. employment and sorry I questioned your remarks regarding your employment sgt.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Oct 17, 2007, 04:47 PMFor those parties who have expressed an interest:
Sergeant1107 is most assuredly a law enforcement officer. Although I don't know him personally, I do know his boss (the Chief). Regards...
Sergeant1107 is most assuredly a law enforcement officer. Although I don't know him personally, I do know his boss (the Chief). Regards...
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 17, 2007, 03:38 PMQuote from: Ludovico on Oct 17, 2007, 09:53 AMGeorge knows I'm a cop and I believe he knows which department I work for.Quote
Now if I were to post my name, and badge number, and POST ID number, and name of the agency I work for, and my office phone number, would I be able to expect an apology from all the people who accused me of lying about being a police sergeant?
Sure.
You wouldn't even have to post all that publicly. You could PM the info to someone for a more private authenticated introduction.
Dr. Richardson also knows I'm a cop and which department I work for.
Would you be willing to believe either of them?
If either of them have forgotten or would like me to PM them the information so they can call my chief and verify my status as a current sworn officer, with over ten years experience, who is a sergeant and a shift supervisor, I'd be happy to send it to them. I have no problem with either of them posting that they have verified my LEO status, though I wouldn't want them to make public my name or any other identifying information.
As I have already mentioned to Wonder Woman in a PM, I have seen nothing in the behavior of the trolls (which is, by definition, what you and Paradiddle and others have been in your behavior on this board) that would lead me to believe the contents of a "private" message would remain private. If any of you are currently sworn officers, would you like to PM me your name, agency, and ORI, so that I might verify your credentials?
The fact that so many are willing to call me a liar based on SCAN principles when they are either ignorant of or at least knowingly violating many of the basics of that technique does not make me any more willing to trust them.
SCAN requires, first and foremost, that the statement to be analyzed is uninfluenced and unaltered by the investigator. An investigator would not interrogate a suspect for an extended length of time, obtain a written statement, and then attempt to analyze it. But you already know that, don't you?
I have been posting my story on this board and others for over two and a half years, and it has been questioned and attacked many times. I have written my statement regarding my series of polygraph exams several hundred times, at least, and have had that statement's veracity questioned nearly as often. If you feel that qualifies my message board posts as not having been influenced by investigators, you obviously have a very different interpretation of the term than I.
Truly, though, what impact does my profession have on my statements and questions? Each time someone posts a pro-polygraph opinion, I do not start questioning their claims of being a polygraph examiner, simply because it doesn't matter. If a person has something to contribute to the discussion, it is irrelevant what they do for a living or how many polygraphs they have taken or administered.
When opinions, statements, and questions are responded to with attacks directed at the credibility of the poster it is an example of an argumentum ad hominem. It is often used by people who are in a state of intellectual bankruptcy and cannot respond with a logical argument to whatever point or issue was raised. The best response for someone faced with an ad hominem attack is to simply not respond in any way.
Mea culpa for forgetting that.
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 17, 2007, 01:31 PM :-? huh?
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 17, 2007, 01:22 PMQuoteMost cops don't whine about the same old issue at every opportunity. They move on and move forward.
These are not the guys that I'd want having my back on a hot call.
I'll take the guys who choose to fight against injustice no matter what the odds or what strange bedfellows might be involved.
Also, I'll take the guys who refuse to quit.
Ludovico's back up team can be the guys who "move on and move forward" when faced with adversity.
Posted by Squeezecheeze
- Oct 17, 2007, 10:38 AMDITO
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 17, 2007, 09:53 AMQuote
Now if I were to post my name, and badge number, and POST ID number, and name of the agency I work for, and my office phone number, would I be able to expect an apology from all the people who accused me of lying about being a police sergeant?
Sure.
You wouldn't even have to post all that publicly. You could PM the info to someone for a more private authenticated introduction.
Lets face it. You just don't seem like a cop. Statement analysis or not. Most cops don't whine about the same old issue at every opportunity. They move on and move forward. Your whole line of logic is premised in an ethical paradigm which is a little inconsistent with LE and would have us take away cops guns for all the abuses and bad decisions made with them. Most cops would be very reluctant to engage in conversations that aide the bad guys.
Maybe you were a cop one time. Maybe your one of those short time cops... Maybe you were never a cop but wanted to be one.
I'd be happy to apologize if I'm wrong.
Posted by 1904
- Oct 17, 2007, 06:31 AMQuote from: Hunter on Oct 16, 2007, 07:44 PMmy story
Statement analysis would indicate you are telling a story, not a real life situation. It is obvious that your attitude will not change and you will continue to be in opposition to the polygraph community at large. I personally do not accept that you are a sergeant at a LEA.
I spent an hour Scanning Sgt's last 10 Posts. Sorry for you but they present no deception.
If you disagree, please quote the deceptive sentences and provide your analysis for debate.
Happy Hunting.
Posted by 1904
- Oct 17, 2007, 06:29 AMQuote from: Hunter on Oct 17, 2007, 01:53 AMDon't expect anything!!! Your non answer and evasion three times in one post is enough for me. I don't care if you are an LEO or not. Your arguments are circular and not worthy of reply
Have a good day
Bong !!
Sgt: 3 Points
Hunter: 0
Sorry Hunter. You lose.
Posted by Hunter
- Oct 17, 2007, 01:53 AMDon't expect anything!!! Your non answer and evasion three times in one post is enough for me. I don't care if you are an LEO or not. Your arguments are circular and not worthy of reply
Have a good day
Have a good day
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 16, 2007, 11:31 PMQuote from: Hunter on Oct 16, 2007, 07:44 PMmy storySo, let's say I provided my credentials to a bunch of anonymous posters on the Internet in order to satisfy their curiosity. And after I did so you all said, "Gee, I guess he really is a police sergeant." Then what?
Statement analysis would indicate you are telling a story, not a real life situation. It is obvious that your attitude will not change and you will continue to be in opposition to the polygraph community at large. I personally do not accept that you are a sergeant at a LEA.
I am willing to bet you would then claim I had never been polygraphed, or that I had hadn't failed any polygraphs. After I posted sufficient information to prove that I have taken four pre-employment polygraphs and that I failed three of them, what then?
Then we'd come back to the circular logic again, that I must have been lying on the polygraphs, otherwise I would have passed.
Ad hom attacks, which include the repeated accusations that I am lying about my profession and my experiences, indicate that you are unable to respond intellectually to whatever I have to say.
Now if I were to post my name, and badge number, and POST ID number, and name of the agency I work for, and my office phone number, would I be able to expect an apology from all the people who accused me of lying about being a police sergeant? Of course not. I expect you would once again apply statement analysis to posts on an anonymous message board, where the poster does not wish his identity to be discerned, and come to the startling conclusion that the poster appears to be trying to hide something.
Why is that not suprising behavior coming from a polygraph examiner? You are taking a guess right now about what I do for a living and whether my experiences with the polygraph are true or not, and you are wrong. That's not too different from the polygraph examiners who took a guess during my screening exams and were wrong as well. Why should I have expected anything else?
Posted by Hunter
- Oct 16, 2007, 07:44 PMmy story
Statement analysis would indicate you are telling a story, not a real life situation. It is obvious that your attitude will not change and you will continue to be in opposition to the polygraph community at large. I personally do not accept that you are a sergeant at a LEA.
Statement analysis would indicate you are telling a story, not a real life situation. It is obvious that your attitude will not change and you will continue to be in opposition to the polygraph community at large. I personally do not accept that you are a sergeant at a LEA.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 16, 2007, 06:40 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 16, 2007, 06:08 PMI expected nothing less.QuoteMy story, if you accept it, would lead any reasonable person to question the utility of the polygraph. If you believe I have been a sworn officer for over ten years and am currently a shift supervisor who enjoys the utmost respect of the people serving under him, it would be more difficult to pass my tale off as the bitter rantings of some guy on the Internet. You might actually have to consider that the polygraph screws over some very good people, and I'm sure you would prefer not to do that.
See "Sarge", there you go again writing like you are masquerading as another person other than who you are. Your writing is SVA 101 deceptive. You can deny all you want, but your pronouns and sentences suggest there is a different truth than your words. If you were pro-polygraph I would still be very suspicious of you due to your smoky "tells" and verb/noun usage. Sorry chief. I smell fish. Has nothing to do with your alliances.
I understand your inability to deal with my story. It must be difficult for you and your breathren to accept.
If you are truly skilled in statement analysis (which should only be used on things like text messages and anonymous forum posts with great care), then I am sure you know what the issue is. And I am equally sure you know it has nothing to do with any deception regarding my experiences with the polygraph.
But, again, I understand that it easier for you to attack me than it is for you to believe me. That's too bad.
And we are once again at the classic polygraph trap of circular logic. I say I'm telling the truth, and you say I'm not. And you feel perfectly comfortable calling me a liar, because I failed a polygraph. If I was telling the truth, I wouldn't have failed, and then I wouldn't be on this forum saying that I had failed.
Posted by tbld
- Oct 16, 2007, 06:25 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 16, 2007, 06:08 PMQuoteMy story, if you accept it, would lead any reasonable person to question the utility of the polygraph. If you believe I have been a sworn officer for over ten years and am currently a shift supervisor who enjoys the utmost respect of the people serving under him, it would be more difficult to pass my tale off as the bitter rantings of some guy on the Internet. You might actually have to consider that the polygraph screws over some very good people, and I'm sure you would prefer not to do that.
See "Sarge", there you go again writing like you are masquerading as another person other than who you are. Your writing is SVA 101 deceptive. You can deny all you want, but your pronouns and sentences suggest there is a different truth than your words. If you were pro-polygraph I would still be very suspicious of you due to your smoky "tells" and verb/noun usage. Sorry chief. I smell fish. Has nothing to do with your alliances.
Sorry Chief but i also smell fish...if the polygraph were a fish sandwich you could smell it from a mile away. Nice "quotations" and ''highlights'' way to ''go'' verbal attactks aside you know as well as i do that if this site were BS or ''anti poly folly'' you and your fellow polygrapghers wouldnt be coming here and posting constantlyyyy. ill be awaitng your tired excuses
Regards!!!
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 16, 2007, 06:08 PMQuoteMy story, if you accept it, would lead any reasonable person to question the utility of the polygraph. If you believe I have been a sworn officer for over ten years and am currently a shift supervisor who enjoys the utmost respect of the people serving under him, it would be more difficult to pass my tale off as the bitter rantings of some guy on the Internet. You might actually have to consider that the polygraph screws over some very good people, and I'm sure you would prefer not to do that.
See "Sarge", there you go again writing like you are masquerading as another person other than who you are. Your writing is SVA 101 deceptive. You can deny all you want, but your pronouns and sentences suggest there is a different truth than your words. If you were pro-polygraph I would still be very suspicious of you due to your smoky "tells" and verb/noun usage. Sorry chief. I smell fish. Has nothing to do with your alliances.