- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by QWERTY12345
- Jan 21, 2017, 02:14 PMQuote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 02:20 PMI have recently took two poly in less than 30 days and was told I failed them both. The first poly I failed only one question out of three. However, I was told because I failed that one question that means I was lying about the other two but I didn't show any lying on those two.Well in my situation i told the truth on a post conviction Polygraph and they said i flat out lied. So after that I had to do SO classes yuck so my lawyer told me to go with the flow and I did I didn't know about this website but I figured If i was telling the truth originally then i would start lying on future polygraphs hell I didnt change anything had computers when I wasn't supposed to saw hookers porn did what I pleased but i was careful so then when it came time for the polygraph I simply went in and flat out lied on every question except for the control questions and i went on to pass 8 straight polygraphs. Then I finished up the class and I was released from classes and probation so long story short I was convicted of a he said she said situation and it was my fault as far as going to the cops telling my side and got screwed over royally now I don't trust cops nor will i ever help them I despise them. Oh and the polygraphs are nothing more then a witchhunt and moneymaker i don't care what anyone says whether your a SO or not this system is useless it doesn't help anyone!!
I knew that I haven't violated any conditions of my parole. I couldn't understand why this one question which was so broad can overshadow the the other two question which was specific to what I am on parole for.
The second poly I failed on the same broad question but I also was told I show same strong reaction this time on the other two questions which I passed on the the first poly. Again, I knew by a shadow of doubt I have not violated any condition of my parole concerning any of the three questions. My question than who lying?
Posted by Ex Member
- Nov 05, 2015, 12:53 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Nov 04, 2015, 02:36 PMNote the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.George, Asperger Syndrome falls under the umbrella term "Autism Spectrum Disorder."
*Asd, Probation Officers use the polygraph as a 24 hour tail. I cannot see a judge revoking probation as a result of a stressed polygraph when the probationer suffers from such a disorder.
George is merely saying that your concerns are moot as the polygraph is not scientific regardless of whether one suffers from ASD or not. I am not aware of any research conducted with the polygraph and ASD.
However, some psychophysiological recording may help to study ASD. An interesting study in Finland is looking to see if a fearful expression may be misinterpreted as overly arousing or threatening. This study will use psychophysiological (skin conductance, heart rate, EEG) measurements to explore how children with ASD respond to exaggerated forms of direct eye gaze – either by demonstrating a fearful reaction or a defensive reaction.
Posted by Asd
- Nov 04, 2015, 03:10 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Nov 04, 2015, 02:36 PMSorry I was in a hurry and didnt even look at soelling. Thanks for that.QuoteHow can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
Polygraphy doesn't work at all, even with people who don't have brain disorders. It's pseudoscience
Note the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.
I know from reading that this person will fail. The original court order and doctors advice is that this person should not do these tests as a sure fail because of this persons disabilities. But if a test they would have to be aware of this persons disabilities etc..however the P.O. decided to follow through with doing them.
I am concerned for this person. Disabilities such as what this person has is a new in the legal field and has had ground breaking results in the legal field. However many officers, lawyers, judges and so forth are not trained to understand these types of disabilities. Its been a mountain of climbing. Though I know they do not work at all, what rights does a person have once they are told they must take it?
My concern is the abuse mentioned in other posts from theropists or P.Os if a test is failed towards this person with a brain disability. Just stimuli such as fast paced questions can set a tick of confusion.
Concerned for this persons future and rights.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 04, 2015, 02:36 PMQuoteHow can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
Polygraphy doesn't work at all, even with people who don't have brain disorders. It's pseudoscience
Note the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.
Posted by Asd
- Nov 04, 2015, 02:25 PMHow can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
Posted by mypolygraphexperience
- Dec 08, 2010, 06:48 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 09, 2007, 04:48 PMQuoteThe restrictions are far more justified by the habitual use of pornography and sexual chat rooms by offenders
Of course, the absolute worse case senario is that an offender falls in the 4-6% category of actually sexually reoffending after their conviction. I hope and pray that you aren't in that hopeless category.
You do realize that these statistics usually include non-sex crime offenses, the statistic is even lower for sex crime reoffenses.
Also you do realize that the sex offenders that are beyond hope are going to be the first to break probation, not care about violating their computer clause, and pass all their tests using countermeasures anyway? In turn for passing the test, the courts, probation officers and SOTP will make things easier for them. On the other hand committed to treatment sex offenders get the book thrown out them for being honest and failing.
With that being said. I don't see how anyone thinks this is a good tool for SOTP.
Posted by ecordy75
- Oct 18, 2009, 12:53 PMQuote from: Donna.Taylor on Dec 09, 2007, 03:07 PMQuote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 02:20 PM
The bigger question is - does your parole stipulations prohibit you from using the internet?
If this person has paid with their own money for their internet account, then they are legally entitled to use it.
The problem has always been with extreme economic libertarians who preach endlessly in the media about the rights of private ownership and big business to do whatever they want on and with their own property. But, of course, all those who promulgate this rhetoric ultimately mean only to protect those with the most ownership and the most economic power. Their philosophy does absolutely nothing to help those who don't already have power and money and property to gain property.
Hence, all these conservatives and those who support them have NO right to complain about sex offenders or anyone shoving the same philosophies back into their faces.
If Comcast or Yahoo or whoever chooses not to allow this person use their services, then the worst that can be done is they can exercise THEIR property rights to ban this person from their services.
No judge or cop or court has the legal authority to interfere with this person's legal commerce and kidnap them and hold them hostage. That would be terrorism.
A vegan sex-offender who votes for Ralph Nader or Socialist is 100x better than a non-sex-offender religionist or social-conservative extreme-libertarian-economist who hypocritically eats meat.
Whether either type of person "passes" or "fails" a polygraph makes absolutely NO difference in the moral character of tht person.
I have no interest in helping ANY meat-eating Demopublicrat-voter who hypocritically preaches "responsibility" and "self-reliance" get medical treatment. I cheer when they have all their money and property taken away.
1 year in prison is much worse torture than anything anyone suffers on the outside. I can say that objectively as a person who has not even been held hostage in prison yet nor been arrested.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Dec 13, 2008, 11:33 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Dec 13, 2008, 02:12 PMTyr,
I've been visiting this board for quite awhile. The polygraphers I've met, both online and in the examination room are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met. They know more than the scientific community! And if your reputation has been smeared by their bogus test, and voice your complaint, then your are just a ranting whiner who needs to "take your spanking and get on with your life". Karma baby, karma.
TC
Arrogance and ignorance combine in an exponential manner when creating character flaws in a person (or group of people).
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Dec 13, 2008, 02:12 PMTyr,
I've been visiting this board for quite awhile. The polygraphers I've met, both online and in the examination room are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met. They know more than the scientific community! And if your reputation has been smeared by their bogus test, and voice your complaint, then your are just a ranting whiner who needs to "take your spanking and get on with your life". Karma baby, karma.
You can review the posts of some of the more pathological polyliars on this board. You might find it interesting and instructive as a professional in field of psychology. They seem to think they know more than Phil Zimbardo, The National Academy of Sciences...etc. Actually they don't, and they know they don't, but will still post for months in a vain attempt to defend polygraphy. Then, they finally give up and resort to slandering the board owner accusing him of aiding terrorists and child molesters.
TC
I've been visiting this board for quite awhile. The polygraphers I've met, both online and in the examination room are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met. They know more than the scientific community! And if your reputation has been smeared by their bogus test, and voice your complaint, then your are just a ranting whiner who needs to "take your spanking and get on with your life". Karma baby, karma.
You can review the posts of some of the more pathological polyliars on this board. You might find it interesting and instructive as a professional in field of psychology. They seem to think they know more than Phil Zimbardo, The National Academy of Sciences...etc. Actually they don't, and they know they don't, but will still post for months in a vain attempt to defend polygraphy. Then, they finally give up and resort to slandering the board owner accusing him of aiding terrorists and child molesters.
TC
Posted by Tyr
- Dec 13, 2008, 01:33 PMThe truth here is that it is the Polygraph folks are the ones who should be ashamed at putting the public at risk. The fact is that the consensus among the scientific community is that the polygraph does not do what they claim it does. The burden of proof is not on those that agree with the scientific consensus but rather on those that do not. That is the bottom line no matter what is said. So until the consensus changes via proven scientific means then all of your posts are no better than the homeopath trying to convince me that the pure sugar water will cure cancer.
And Ms. Taylor and Mr Johnson it appears you know little more than any normal layperson does about sex offenders. For instance the term "sex offenders" covers a wide variety of criminal acts; many of these "sex offenders" have no restrictions at all about the internet. Not to mention the 4%-6% number quoted is also misleading. 4%-6% of what type of sex offender? 4%-6% of what type over what time span? There are a few types of sex offenders that have over a 50% recidivism rate at 25 years post release. Not to mention the fact that in most cases many victims never speak out and when they do it takes years (average in clergy sexual abuse cases was 12 years) to speak out.
And as a licensed therapist who has assessed and treated high risk offenders I would never rely on a polygraph for anything other than an interrogation tool that it is. And I could care less if the anti-poly or pro-poly crowd is the right one, what I care about is the truth whatever it may be. Right now that truth has been and still is that the polygraph does not do what the pro-poly crowd claims. If consensus changes then and only then would I consider it safe and ethical to use in some of the ways that it is currently being used.
And Ms. Taylor and Mr Johnson it appears you know little more than any normal layperson does about sex offenders. For instance the term "sex offenders" covers a wide variety of criminal acts; many of these "sex offenders" have no restrictions at all about the internet. Not to mention the 4%-6% number quoted is also misleading. 4%-6% of what type of sex offender? 4%-6% of what type over what time span? There are a few types of sex offenders that have over a 50% recidivism rate at 25 years post release. Not to mention the fact that in most cases many victims never speak out and when they do it takes years (average in clergy sexual abuse cases was 12 years) to speak out.
And as a licensed therapist who has assessed and treated high risk offenders I would never rely on a polygraph for anything other than an interrogation tool that it is. And I could care less if the anti-poly or pro-poly crowd is the right one, what I care about is the truth whatever it may be. Right now that truth has been and still is that the polygraph does not do what the pro-poly crowd claims. If consensus changes then and only then would I consider it safe and ethical to use in some of the ways that it is currently being used.
Posted by Davis
- Nov 10, 2008, 07:45 AMYou know what I find the most upsetting over this, is the complete ignorance in here that is exactly what the problem with america is.
First off, not all sex offenders are raping little kids.
Not ALL offenders are here to try to beat the system, but rather those who are desperate to find any positive information for someone in their situation and happen upon this site because of all the traffic and ridiculous petty arguements to the point where google reconizes the relevancy of the site and ranks it higher, therefor by all the polygraphers coming in here trying to so call "prevent" all of the sexual predators from violating conditions and reoffending, they are in fact helping the ones who are not good people and who are in fact looking to decieve their polygraph tests. So way to keep the engine going. Fantastic work.
For those who comment on how disgusting all the offenders are, without knowing the exact case or person, just simply shows another aspect of the polygraph that is not scientific, it's called the human factor. Your hatred for sex offenders, and passion to put them further down and continued isolation, just shows how many of the unprofessional polygraphers can use their profession to give false reports to their p.o and/or therapist. For those who use their power illegally, for shame, and I can not wait for you to lose your career.
As for internet access, further showing the ignorance of the people who post here. There are things called safety contracts, and there are things called individualized sentencing. Some have internet restrictions, some have alcohol and drug restrictions, some have no contact with any minor, some have no contact with a specific sex and/or age range. Some even with internet restriction are allowed to access the internet using software that prevents pornographic material or sites that allow contact to minors. Lastly, it's all up to the convicted, the therapist, and the probation officer, on what restrictions they have, don't have, will have, or had initially.
Way to go everyone. Feel proud of how ignorant you are, nothing but fuel to the cause instead of using your education, passion, and anger to further prevention. I am disgusted to be an american.
First off, not all sex offenders are raping little kids.
Not ALL offenders are here to try to beat the system, but rather those who are desperate to find any positive information for someone in their situation and happen upon this site because of all the traffic and ridiculous petty arguements to the point where google reconizes the relevancy of the site and ranks it higher, therefor by all the polygraphers coming in here trying to so call "prevent" all of the sexual predators from violating conditions and reoffending, they are in fact helping the ones who are not good people and who are in fact looking to decieve their polygraph tests. So way to keep the engine going. Fantastic work.
For those who comment on how disgusting all the offenders are, without knowing the exact case or person, just simply shows another aspect of the polygraph that is not scientific, it's called the human factor. Your hatred for sex offenders, and passion to put them further down and continued isolation, just shows how many of the unprofessional polygraphers can use their profession to give false reports to their p.o and/or therapist. For those who use their power illegally, for shame, and I can not wait for you to lose your career.
As for internet access, further showing the ignorance of the people who post here. There are things called safety contracts, and there are things called individualized sentencing. Some have internet restrictions, some have alcohol and drug restrictions, some have no contact with any minor, some have no contact with a specific sex and/or age range. Some even with internet restriction are allowed to access the internet using software that prevents pornographic material or sites that allow contact to minors. Lastly, it's all up to the convicted, the therapist, and the probation officer, on what restrictions they have, don't have, will have, or had initially.
Way to go everyone. Feel proud of how ignorant you are, nothing but fuel to the cause instead of using your education, passion, and anger to further prevention. I am disgusted to be an american.
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 02, 2008, 12:50 AMYou are a strange fellow orolan. You say that sex offenders in your state attend treatment for 6 months to 3 years----yet you in another thread claim to be attending treatment for 10 years. Huh?
Also, you claim to have passed all of your polygraphs yet lied on them all-----yet, you are soooooo angry at polygraph, you make George Maschke look like a Bhuddist.
You spew venom and levy accusations of criminal fraud at examiners----who you accuse of being idiots.
So, in a nut shell, you are enraged by idiot polygraph examiners who pose no threat to your masterful yet incidental countermeasures with their ineffective test----and once more, you are intent on insulting and degrading them at every turn. You brilliant and ethical convicted child molester, me dumb and evil polygraph examiner trying to get your riches. Gotcha.
Hypothesis #1
You are a sex offender who lies about your polygraph experience----as your story is fishier than the the dumpster at Red Lobster. You have clearly exagerated your criminal mindedness/criminal uniqueness regarding your poly success----why would a self-proclaimed successful intrepid poly-beater person be so bombastic? It's not like you express any concern for children's safety by virtue of some perceived over-reliance on polygraph. No, you are plain angry. Is it the $300 from your "6 months to 3 yrs of polygraph tests" that ya want----oh wait, you were in high turnover groups for ten years---which suggests a prolonged period of supervision? Prolonged supervision is reserved for people who continually screw up (like Jester) or people who committed crimes that were especially heinous, like prolonged kidnapping with rape, or elements of torture or sexual abuse to infant children as part of your "greatest hits parade." No, I doubt your venom stems from the relative small monetary costs of polygraph. And what about those people who you so boldly accuse of wanting to test you repeatedly for sinister financial gain as you contend? I suspect that that examiner(s) probably would've rather seen you finish your term in prison than recieve your $100 + 3hr whine-inducing headache + report and subsequent report dispatch and/or phone calls-----2 to 3 times a year. You and your story is a hot mess. Wise cracks with no wisdom.
Hypothesis #2
see hypothesis #1 and add lemon juice
Also, you claim to have passed all of your polygraphs yet lied on them all-----yet, you are soooooo angry at polygraph, you make George Maschke look like a Bhuddist.
You spew venom and levy accusations of criminal fraud at examiners----who you accuse of being idiots.
So, in a nut shell, you are enraged by idiot polygraph examiners who pose no threat to your masterful yet incidental countermeasures with their ineffective test----and once more, you are intent on insulting and degrading them at every turn. You brilliant and ethical convicted child molester, me dumb and evil polygraph examiner trying to get your riches. Gotcha.
Hypothesis #1
You are a sex offender who lies about your polygraph experience----as your story is fishier than the the dumpster at Red Lobster. You have clearly exagerated your criminal mindedness/criminal uniqueness regarding your poly success----why would a self-proclaimed successful intrepid poly-beater person be so bombastic? It's not like you express any concern for children's safety by virtue of some perceived over-reliance on polygraph. No, you are plain angry. Is it the $300 from your "6 months to 3 yrs of polygraph tests" that ya want----oh wait, you were in high turnover groups for ten years---which suggests a prolonged period of supervision? Prolonged supervision is reserved for people who continually screw up (like Jester) or people who committed crimes that were especially heinous, like prolonged kidnapping with rape, or elements of torture or sexual abuse to infant children as part of your "greatest hits parade." No, I doubt your venom stems from the relative small monetary costs of polygraph. And what about those people who you so boldly accuse of wanting to test you repeatedly for sinister financial gain as you contend? I suspect that that examiner(s) probably would've rather seen you finish your term in prison than recieve your $100 + 3hr whine-inducing headache + report and subsequent report dispatch and/or phone calls-----2 to 3 times a year. You and your story is a hot mess. Wise cracks with no wisdom.
Hypothesis #2
see hypothesis #1 and add lemon juice
Posted by orolan
- Jan 02, 2008, 12:17 AMQuoteIf you are deceptive to one the examiner cannot call you truthful to others.I need a better explanation for that one. How can two questions scored NDI based on the response level as defined by the control questions suddenly be scored as DI because the third question garnered a DI score based on it's response level again as defined by the control questions?
QuoteSorry George, but I find this disgusting....Well Mr. IDon'tLikeIt, who gives a horse's a** about your useless opinions?
QuoteI'm an leo, with Statement analyzation, and I/I qualifications.Truly sad. You read suspects' statements and decide if they're being truthful? And yet your ability to spell and construct proper sentences looks like something a 6th-grader would be ashamed of. I bet your Sergeant truly hates reading your reports
QuoteBTW I am a polygraph examiner certified in sex offender testing (PCSOT)Are we all supposed to somehow be impressed by that? I'm certainly not. Just means you can't get a real job.
QuoteMy bets are you should not be on any sexually explicit web sites or chat rooms!Maybe he shouldn't be. But last time I looked this board fit neither description.
QuoteThe only exceptions which allow paroled sex offenders to visit the internet (in every state I am aware of) are when offenders are in college and they are at the campus computer banks.Notice you fail to include a number for those states. I personally know several hundred sex offenders on parole who are allowed on the Internet. They naturally are subject to random searches of their computer to see where they've been. They have other restrictions (against contact with minors for example) that apply at the grocery store, their front yard, and of course the Internet. That's all the PO needs. There are no minors here as far as I know.
Quoteyour apparent lack of recognition of your parole rules places you at a level of risk that you yourself might deny, but data is data.Your complete and utter arrogance is mind-boggling. Probation and parole conditions are not finite entities. They're defined by sentencing courts and parole boards, often on a case-by-case basis. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't more narcissistic than you claim the sex offenders are.
QuoteI can't help but wonder what other kinds of websites you have been surfing.And now you're saying that because he Googled "polygraph question" he obviously must be frequenting kids chat rooms and kiddie-porn trading forums as well? Thats some pretty stretched-out logic.
QuoteIf and that is a big IF the SO's are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here.Why not, Ms. Taylor? I'm here. Was here years ago while on supervision too (BTW my PO had FULL knowledge of my presence here and had no problem with it at all. Go figure.) I didn't come here because I failed a poly or wanted t olearn how to pass one. I came here to tell my story of how I thoroughly debunked your idiotic "protect the children" test. BEFORE I ever heard about this site or read George's book. Bo countermeasures for me. Just the truth, ma'am. But the "truth" was not the tangible thing the examiner thought it was, now was it. Turns out I lied on the entire exam and he believed every word. Why? Because like you, he does it to line his pockets. He does it because the laws have basically taken away his ability to earn a living since the poly has limited usages in the private sector these days. I see no reason to believe your reasons are any different. Answer me this. If you didn't do PSOT, what WOULD you do?
QuoteThe guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well. I thought you said you don't help sex offenders.Same drivel, different examiner. If what George offers here is useless and the guilty offender will fail anyway, how can you say he is helping them? Shouldn't you say he is hurting them?
QuoteYour best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair. Indeed a proud day for you.Hunter, do you believe in free speech? Freedom of religion? Son of a gun. I thought so. Me too. So it's a proud day for you, because sex offenders agree with you about Constitutional rights
QuoteGM - I think the key word would be without evidence after your site encourage people not to make admissions.UnderJustice came here AFTER having his finding of truthfulness reversed to deception without valid reason. So how can you blame this site for that?
QuoteYou, however, are on a web site that if known by your PO would result in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.You're as arrogant as that other clown. Must run in the polygraph examiner family. I spent TEN YEARS on supervision and never once did my PO have a problem with me frequenting this forum.
QuoteI hope on your next Polygraph the examiner asks if you have been on any internet chat rooms...Why? This isn't an "Internet chat room". And you have no reason to believe he has been in any chat rooms. But what you DO know is that if you sit here and sow seeds of doubt into his head as to whether or not this is a chat room or a bulletin board, he'll be nervous and confused at that next examination as to how he should answer. Thus giving your colleague an opportunity to say he was deceptive or inconclusive and thus keep him coming back for more examinations.
QuoteBut when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.And that statement Sarge speaks volumes about you and your integrity. My hat is off to you. Some may say "look, the sex offenders even like you". I'll nip that in the bud right here by saying that I don't know Sarge. And no doubt we have differing opinions on many things. But I do RESPECT him for those opinions and the way he conducts himself.
QuoteAll SO's are required to take polygraph tests in most states---that is to say, in states where there is containment, than all Offenders are required to be tested.All sex offenders in most states? Or most sex offenders in all states? Or some sex offenders in some states? Your arrogance is showing again. For one thing there is a difference between "sex offender" and "sex offender on state or Federal supervision". The former have no such requirement. For another, most states require polygraphs "as a part of the treatment program". When treatment is finished, so are the polygraphs. In my state a treatment program for an offender runs anywhere between 6 months and 3 years. Some offenders are never in it long enough to even get a polygraph because they're annual. There are thousands of sex offenders on state supervision in my state that haven't seen a polygraph in 5+ years. Funny thing. Even though they are deprived of that invaluable toll to keep them offense-free, 97% of those offenders are somehow doing exactly that. Remaining offense-free. Go figure.
QuoteThe recitivism rate is lower in states that require polygraph testing/containment method(Kim English 2003)Yeah, Kim and her two-state study of less than 200 offenders that does not definitively say the polygraph is responsible for the lower rate. Matter of fact, the study shows little if any difference between the two states using the poly and the 3rd "control" state that did not. For example you can split hairs and say that 5 out of 60 is "better" than 5 out of 70 but when you get down to it that's a statistically insignificant difference.
Gotta go. I grow weary of the garbage spewed around here by narcissistic polygraph examiners
Posted by nomegusto
- Dec 12, 2007, 02:15 PMAlrighty...
Look Under- The original part of the post is who lying.
The answer after careful consideration to your posts, and your history (ie: convicted felon), the liar would be yourself sir.
Including myself, I think other's here whether there pro/anti polygraph can come up with this conclusion. I've posted earlier my reasoning for this conclusion. It's the way your posting, and explaining yourself. Obviously, there is a serious amount of thinking going on with your posts like the bracketing. I'm sure with a basic interview any leo/polygrapher/parole officer wouldn't need a polygraph to catch you in deceptive traits whether it'd be through NVI, or having you write down a formal statement. I've highlighted examples on a previous post. Please if your a LEO, interviewer, polygrapher prove me wrong. I value the fact, that I'm not perfect.
Look Under- The original part of the post is who lying.
The answer after careful consideration to your posts, and your history (ie: convicted felon), the liar would be yourself sir.
Including myself, I think other's here whether there pro/anti polygraph can come up with this conclusion. I've posted earlier my reasoning for this conclusion. It's the way your posting, and explaining yourself. Obviously, there is a serious amount of thinking going on with your posts like the bracketing. I'm sure with a basic interview any leo/polygrapher/parole officer wouldn't need a polygraph to catch you in deceptive traits whether it'd be through NVI, or having you write down a formal statement. I've highlighted examples on a previous post. Please if your a LEO, interviewer, polygrapher prove me wrong. I value the fact, that I'm not perfect.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Dec 12, 2007, 11:56 AMNomegusto, I can't help but think that for some reason Underjustice is suffering from so much tension he cannot use proper tense. I futher find his post a bit [overbracketed]... (parenthetically speaking)
Never the less I think if we give him a sufficient opportunity to organize and reflect upon his thoughts before posting we may indeed learn what he is trying to say.
Sancho Panza
Eternal Optimist
Never the less I think if we give him a sufficient opportunity to organize and reflect upon his thoughts before posting we may indeed learn what he is trying to say.
Sancho Panza
Eternal Optimist