- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 13, 2007, 07:57 PMQuoteHowever, the immorality of such actions is not heroic.
Repeated wrongs of others never makes the last ones right.
For that to be correct - and it may be - it would require us to appeal to some higher authority than our Supreme Court, and it makes for an interesting philosophical and theological discussion.
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 13, 2007, 07:26 AMQuote
That would be much like asking the police "Do you routinely lie to people you interrogate?" One, you probably won't get to ask the question, and two, the US Supreme Court has said it's okay, so why is a "polygraphic interrogation" (as some of you call it) any different.
Sir, the point you make floats well above the water.
However, the immorality of such actions is not heroic.
Repeated wrongs of others never makes the last ones right.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by EJohnson
- Dec 12, 2007, 08:01 PMCall me silly, but doesn't Lethe's threads fall under the category of "taunts"----a specifically forbidden mode of communication in these parts?
Thought so.
Thought so.
Posted by Lethe
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:32 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Dec 12, 2007, 07:26 PMQuoteBarry, as you know (or should know), simply understanding how the PLCQ exam works increases the chance of a truthful person failing. If this were not so, polygraphers wouldn't go to such lengths to deceive their subjects.
No, Dr. Rovner's research showed knowledge of how the CQT works doesn't matter. The CQTs can gain signal value in many ways.
Great! So, you guys are going to stop telling stupid lies about how the exam works and are going to be forthcoming and frank with all examinees henceforth? Man, that's awesome. I'm so glad that you're abandoning techniques which, as Dr. Rovner has shown, had no justification and simply confused examinees and lead them to sites like this one.
Now that you're going to stop the deception, people will stop wondering what you're hiding and will be able to trust you guys, which should lead to fewer innocent people trying countermeasures, which you think is a bad thing for them to do.
This is a great day! Polygraphers will no longer lie to and deceive examinees because they have been shown that doing so has no purpose! I'm looking forward to reading the new training manuals and examiner instructions, which, of course, there will be no reason to keep from the public. After all, knowing how the exam works doesn't negatively impact the test results.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:26 PMQuoteBarry, as you know (or should know), simply understanding how the PLCQ exam works increases the chance of a truthful person failing. If this were not so, polygraphers wouldn't go to such lengths to deceive their subjects.
No, Dr. Rovner's research showed knowledge of how the CQT works doesn't matter. The CQTs can gain signal value in many ways.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:21 PMQuoteNeither you nor digithead gave a source for your information, so I'm confused again as to which is correct. Can you refer me to an authoritative source that backs up your position here?
Grammar school.
Posted by Lethe
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:18 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Oct 27, 2007, 05:54 PMOkay, I can't help myself. I'm anal this way, and I've seen the error here before. You don't use a professional and academic title together, so Dr. X, Ph.D. is wrong. It's a red flag indicating, as best I can tell, one of three things: 1) the "doctor" has a fake degree, 2) he's an egomaniac, or 3) he made it through school by the skin of his teeth (as he's forgotten the most important course he took: English Composition). Okay, I'm pushing it a little, but this is one of those things that drives me crazy. I'm sorry for the rant. I'm seeing this more and more, but it's still wrong.
...
Just to be clear (during my rant) Dr. Rovner's doctorate is very much real, but he's either "Lou Rovner, Ph.D." or "Dr. Lou Rovner."
Barry, I had asked about that previously:
Quote from: 5871607C71140 on Sep 20, 2007, 05:17 PMIs it actually even correct to write "Dr. Edward Gelb, Ph.D."? Isn't that sort of redundant, like saying "I'm Doctor Gelb and I have a doctorate"? Does anyone know?
Here is the answer that I'd gotten:
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 20, 2007, 10:26 PM
It's quite common to list your title and your degree especially in academia where there are several degrees that confer the title "Doctor." It helps others understand which type of doctorate you hold.
Some examples:
Dr. John Doe, Ph.D., which is a terminal research degree in most disciplines
Dr. John Doe, Sc.D., also a terminal research degree equivalent to a Ph.D.
Dr. John Doe, Psy.D., which is a professional psych degree rather than a research degree
Dr. John Doe, M.D., medical doctorate, professional degree
Dr. John Doe, J.D., juris doctorate, professional degree - rarely used this way
Dr. John Doe, Pharm.D., pharmacy doctorate, professional degree
Dr. John Doe, Ed.D., education doctorate, professional degree
Dr. John Doe, D.P.H., public health doctorate, terminal research degree
Dr. John Doe, D.P.A, public administration doctorate, terminal research degree
This is not an exhaustive list...
While I agree that it is somewhat pretentious and a little bit redundant to say Dr. John Doe, Ph.D. It serve its purpose...
One other thing that I'd like to point out, in the hierarchy of academia the Ph.D./Sc.D. are the highest degree anyone can attain. M.D. and J.D. are considered professional degrees below the rank of a Ph.D.
Neither you nor digithead gave a source for your information, so I'm confused again as to which is correct. Can you refer me to an authoritative source that backs up your position here?
Posted by Lethe
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:10 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Dec 05, 2007, 12:25 PMDr. Rovner knows CMs don't work. (He did his dissertation on the topic, as you already know.) However, there is a concern that they may "help" the innocent to fail. That's a problem when the truth is at issue. So, perhaps Dr. Rovner wanted to convince the person that you and others like you who suggest that CMs work weren't worth listening to so that this kid would have a fair chance at passing. If that was his motive or concern, it would be unethical not to address the issues with the person.
Barry, as you know (or should know), simply understanding how the PLCQ exam works increases the chance of a truthful person failing. If this were not so, polygraphers wouldn't go to such lengths to deceive their subjects. Unless that deception increases the accuracy, it is worse than useless--it is counterproductive.
But your own programming won't permit you to admit this. You keep on presently the laughable claim that the circumlocutions you go through to trick your examinees has not the slightest purpose whatsoever. Really, is there no end to the amount of bullshit that you won't try to fob off on us? Would you really want to live in a world where everyone was really dumb enough to fall for that crap?
Put another way, aren't the instructions given by polygraphers to their subjects designed to increase the accuracy of the exam? And, if so, does it matter whether or not the subject accepts the information as accurate? If not, then you're making polygraphy out to be thaumaturgy that works on simply saying various incantations.
Dr. Lethe, PhD
P.S. Don't be too hard on Barry when he gives his inevitably ridiculous response. I'm sure that he does know that accuracy suffers when the examinee knows how the exam works, but he is prohibited from admitting this and thinks that avoiding such an admission is good for society (and, incidentally, his livelihood--he's probably got kids to put through college, after all).
Basically, if polygraphers acknowledged that their thing doesn't work well on people who know how it works, all a guilty person would need to do is say "Oh, yeah, I know how that works" to be exempted from examination. Obviously, a test designed to detect deception which any deceptive person can avoid would hardly be useful and therefore would not result in wealth and prestige accruing to members of the guild who operate said test.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 06, 2007, 04:26 PMQuoteSorry Mr. C, the mere fact that you told one other person means you "published" the defamatory information. The fact that Dr. Rovner knew it was being video-taped is what takes this outside the regular he said-she said type of lie telling, and that it ended up in legal proceedings further published the defamatory material
I know that. My point was that George likely has an affirmative duty to prevent its further publication, which he has chosen not to do. If he felt it was okay to publish (to a much wider audience, I might add), then it's hard to argue that his reputation was damaged. What Dr. Rovner said was (and likely still is) commonly believed in the polygraph community, so there was no damage to his reputation among that crowd (and damage to one's reputation is an element of the tort). Moreover, he didn't publish the comments there.
At this point, if George's reputation was harmed, then nobody knows whether he was the source or not, at this point anyhow.
Quote
The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lawyer looking to hire an expert to assist on a case might not want to hire an expert who has had a complaint filed against him with the premier polygraph association.
Oh no, I got it. I just think it's wishful thinking. Let us not forget that the APA has determined it wasn't an ethics violation.
QuoteIsn't it true that you lied about the background of a Mr. George Maschke in a polygraph examination you gave on ...
Do you think he's seen anything here to make him change his mind?
QuoteDo you routinely lie to the people you give polygraphs to?
That would be much like asking the police "Do you routinely lie to people you interrogate?" One, you probably won't get to ask the question, and two, the US Supreme Court has said it's okay, so why is a "polygraphic interrogation" (as some of you call it) any different.
QuoteNo, then what criteria goes into your decision making that makes you decide to lie to an examinee...
Now think about the door you opened with that one. How about when unethical people encourage the truthful people to mess with the test to their likely detriment? Again, I think Dr. Rovner would love this one.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 05, 2007, 01:21 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Dec 05, 2007, 12:28 PM[
I'm sure he's just waiting for those questions to be posed to him in a courtroom - where whatever he opines is pretty much safe from further legal action. He'll have a field day if that question comes up.
The point I was trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lawyer looking to hire an expert to assist on a case might not want to hire an expert who has had a complaint filed against him with the premier polygraph association. And further, any lawyer where he has taken the opposing side against Dr. Rovner might have a pretty good chance to discredit Dr. Rovner, with questions like:
Isn't it true that you lied about the background of a Mr. George Maschke in a polygraph examination you gave on ...
Do you routinely lie to the people you give polygraphs to?
No, then what criteria goes into your decision making that makes you decide to lie to an examinee...
And so on...
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 05, 2007, 01:16 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Dec 05, 2007, 12:25 PM[
First, Dr. Rovner didn't know the test would be used for evidentiary purposes. The courts there had never done so in the past, so why should he have believed any differently? To argue this was going to go beyond the two of them is a stretch. From a legal perspective, I think you're toast as you were the one to publish the info you claimed has somehow defamed you, but that's a question for a lawyer..
Sorry Mr. C, the mere fact that you told one other person means you "published" the defamatory information. The fact that Dr. Rovner knew it was being video-taped is what takes this outside the regular he said-she said type of lie telling, and that it ended up in legal proceedings further published the defamatory material
The fact that Mr. Maschke chose to further publish the defamation could certainly be viewed as contributing to, and perhaps obviating the damage done. That would be for a judge or jury to decide.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 05, 2007, 12:28 PMQuoteAfterall, the "Expert" Dr. Rovner will have to live with having an ethics complaint filed against him with the APA, an issue which will likely always come up in the future whenever he testifies as a polygraph expert.
I'm sure he's just waiting for those questions to be posed to him in a courtroom - where whatever he opines is pretty much safe from further legal action. He'll have a field day if that question comes up.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 05, 2007, 12:25 PMQuoteI certainly think that it was highly unethical of Dr. Rovner to speak the blatant falsehoods he did about me, all the more so in the context of a polygraph examination that was recorded for evidentiary purposes.
First, Dr. Rovner didn't know the test would be used for evidentiary purposes. The courts there had never done so in the past, so why should he have believed any differently? To argue this was going to go beyond the two of them is a stretch. From a legal perspective, I think you're toast as you were the one to publish the info you claimed has somehow defamed you, but that's a question for a lawyer.
Second, it could be argued that you brought this on yourself. Let me explain. Dr. Rovner knows CMs don't work. (He did his dissertation on the topic, as you already know.) However, there is a concern that they may "help" the innocent to fail. That's a problem when the truth is at issue. So, perhaps Dr. Rovner wanted to convince the person that you and others like you who suggest that CMs work weren't worth listening to so that this kid would have a fair chance at passing. If that was his motive or concern, it would be unethical not to address the issues with the person.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 05, 2007, 12:19 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Dec 05, 2007, 09:52 AM1904
Sorry to see you go, Bud. I really enjoyed your posts. Maybe you will reconsider.
I would echo that sentiment.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 05, 2007, 12:19 PMThere is no tort of slander, it is the Tort of Defamation, an intentional tort which in most jurisdictions, (states) he would have 3 years to file suit. Additionally, for the intentional Tort of Defamation, no damages are necessary to be proven, the mere existance of the defamatory material is sufficient to result in an award of punitive damages. Lawsuits are, of course, a very expensive proposition, and it may simply not be financially worth it to Mr. Maschke to pursue it.
The mere fact that when one Googles Dr. Rovner on the internet, this complaint comes up, might be sufficient recompense to satisfy Mr. Maschke.
Afterall, the "Expert" Dr. Rovner will have to live with having an ethics complaint filed against him with the APA, an issue which will likely always come up in the future whenever he testifies as a polygraph expert.
The mere fact that when one Googles Dr. Rovner on the internet, this complaint comes up, might be sufficient recompense to satisfy Mr. Maschke.
Afterall, the "Expert" Dr. Rovner will have to live with having an ethics complaint filed against him with the APA, an issue which will likely always come up in the future whenever he testifies as a polygraph expert.