- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by LALE
- Feb 25, 2008, 10:20 AMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 10:27 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 09:01 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 07:20 PM
I believe the bigger picture is that APA members/examiners should follow rules and guidelines of the APA to retain their membership in this association.
The APA doesn't even kick out members who falsify their credentials. I wouldn't hold your breath.
How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know.
So then, name just one.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 19, 2008, 09:17 PMLarry,
please name one thing I have been deceptive about! I do not mean your perception of lying based on your fanatical quest to misrepresent the truth; but, just one thing that we can all agree with, by evidence on this board, that I have purposefully misled, withheld or lied about. That is, if you can handle a simple request from an examiner?
Furthermore, when did I go and whine to George? I can handle my own battles. I simply believe it is unfair to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed man. YOU, being "that man...Cuz, It seems that it is YOU, not I, who are one conducting the
"POOR ME - PITY PARTY."
You are exactly the personality type that should be excluded from law enforcement and/or government service. Or, as they say in some circles, "you got issues, bro!"
Sackett
please name one thing I have been deceptive about! I do not mean your perception of lying based on your fanatical quest to misrepresent the truth; but, just one thing that we can all agree with, by evidence on this board, that I have purposefully misled, withheld or lied about. That is, if you can handle a simple request from an examiner?
Furthermore, when did I go and whine to George? I can handle my own battles. I simply believe it is unfair to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed man. YOU, being "that man...Cuz, It seems that it is YOU, not I, who are one conducting the
"POOR ME - PITY PARTY."
You are exactly the personality type that should be excluded from law enforcement and/or government service. Or, as they say in some circles, "you got issues, bro!"
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 18, 2008, 09:57 PMDo you actually have something to say, or are you just yelling to get it off your chest?
Yes, your pattern of posting on this board indicates deception.
You seem not to want to answer my question. Why are you holding back the truth? Persistent refusal to answer a simple question is a sign of "deception".
Of course, you are under no obligation to answer.
Have you ever falsely accused somebody you tested of being untruthful?
just to prove I'm not as thin skinned as some have suggested, I'm not going to address your personal attack on me.
No you just go crying to george because I called you a name. Which is your right, of course. Sorry!
Larry
Yes, your pattern of posting on this board indicates deception.
You seem not to want to answer my question. Why are you holding back the truth? Persistent refusal to answer a simple question is a sign of "deception".
Of course, you are under no obligation to answer.
Have you ever falsely accused somebody you tested of being untruthful?
just to prove I'm not as thin skinned as some have suggested, I'm not going to address your personal attack on me.
No you just go crying to george because I called you a name. Which is your right, of course. Sorry!
Larry
Posted by sackett
- Feb 18, 2008, 10:56 AMLarry,
just to prove I'm not as thin skinned as some have suggested, I'm not going to address your personal attack on me. I would request, though, you find something a little more original to use as your ammunition.
Do you actually have something to say, or are you just yelling to get it off your chest?
Please advise,
Sackett
P.S. Did you actually author both of the preceding "Larry" posts?
just to prove I'm not as thin skinned as some have suggested, I'm not going to address your personal attack on me. I would request, though, you find something a little more original to use as your ammunition.
Do you actually have something to say, or are you just yelling to get it off your chest?
Please advise,
Sackett
P.S. Did you actually author both of the preceding "Larry" posts?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 09:00 PMMr. Johnson,
You're pattern of posting on this board indicates that you are a polygrapher. Probably from Canada.
Yet you continue to lie!
Can you prove otherwise?
We want to help you, but we can't if you continue to withhold information. Come clean and we can get through this together.
As it stands now, though, you are showing a "pattern of deception".
You're pattern of posting on this board indicates that you are a polygrapher. Probably from Canada.
Yet you continue to lie!
Can you prove otherwise?
We want to help you, but we can't if you continue to withhold information. Come clean and we can get through this together.
As it stands now, though, you are showing a "pattern of deception".
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 17, 2008, 03:38 PMNow you are being racist against Asians eh? Nice.
Have you done any more side jobs for foreign agencies? Nothing like maken a lil extra lettuce for a rainy day, eh?
Have you done any more side jobs for foreign agencies? Nothing like maken a lil extra lettuce for a rainy day, eh?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 02:57 PMMister Johnson,
I can tell you from experience, because I lie on test and passing the test.
Mr. Ames, he pass test, but he lying!
I think you lie. You no polygrapher? Prove it!
You no can prove, then you must be liar!
Larry
I can tell you from experience, because I lie on test and passing the test.
Mr. Ames, he pass test, but he lying!
I think you lie. You no polygrapher? Prove it!
You no can prove, then you must be liar!
Larry
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 17, 2008, 01:58 PMI don't draw a paycheck from polygraph at all.
No lies.
No arrogance.
Just plain ol' horse sense.
I don't have to "believe in the test" like it is some form of religion. Polygraph does quite well with or without the belief of both it's detractors and it's boosters. In peer-reviewed studies, the polygraph does very well in detecting lies, and even more so in detecting hidden knowledge. Your statements over the last couple of weeks regarding "belief in" polygraph suggest serious mental disorder.
I honestly don't care about turncoats and espionage-----any more than the average citizen. All of your ranting about a super-spy being able to beat polygraph tests is nothing new-------such legends have abounded for decades---that is, super-polygraph-beating-monsters. You seem to be very excited over this concept. Write a congressman, do some jogging----whatever. Just please know that to continue a repetetive rant such as yours is .....well......a few pancakes short of a stack.
No lies.
No arrogance.
Just plain ol' horse sense.
I don't have to "believe in the test" like it is some form of religion. Polygraph does quite well with or without the belief of both it's detractors and it's boosters. In peer-reviewed studies, the polygraph does very well in detecting lies, and even more so in detecting hidden knowledge. Your statements over the last couple of weeks regarding "belief in" polygraph suggest serious mental disorder.
I honestly don't care about turncoats and espionage-----any more than the average citizen. All of your ranting about a super-spy being able to beat polygraph tests is nothing new-------such legends have abounded for decades---that is, super-polygraph-beating-monsters. You seem to be very excited over this concept. Write a congressman, do some jogging----whatever. Just please know that to continue a repetetive rant such as yours is .....well......a few pancakes short of a stack.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 01:40 PMEjohnson,
How does it make you feel that Ames spied his ass off yet passed all his polygraphs with flying colors? Yet you still defend the test.
A little old fashion detective work would have caught him sooner, but, hey, the man passed his polygraphs, so they probably figured he was an okay guy.
Do you still believe in the test? Tell the truth. We are sick of your lies and arrogance. Come clean!
Just because you draw a pay check by engaging in this con game is no excuse!
How does it make you feel that Ames spied his ass off yet passed all his polygraphs with flying colors? Yet you still defend the test.
A little old fashion detective work would have caught him sooner, but, hey, the man passed his polygraphs, so they probably figured he was an okay guy.
Do you still believe in the test? Tell the truth. We are sick of your lies and arrogance. Come clean!
Just because you draw a pay check by engaging in this con game is no excuse!
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 17, 2008, 07:50 AMCliff, I know what I am talking about alright.
Perhaps it's time to retire Al's persona mate. You have shown your literary prowess with him enough. The only thing you didn't count on is that no American from the intel biz would use such a name-----we Americans aren't so ironical----at least not as much as the Anglo-Africans.
The only exception being the American band "The Dead Kennedy's"---but they were a punk band, not former rank and file patriotic intel workers.
Perhaps it's time to retire Al's persona mate. You have shown your literary prowess with him enough. The only thing you didn't count on is that no American from the intel biz would use such a name-----we Americans aren't so ironical----at least not as much as the Anglo-Africans.
The only exception being the American band "The Dead Kennedy's"---but they were a punk band, not former rank and file patriotic intel workers.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 03:30 AMEjohnson
How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know.
I don't think you know what the hell your talking about.
I would expect such a lame-ass, arrogant answer like that from some hack polygrapher!
Maybe you're just afraid to admit the polygraph has no scientific basis.
Who should we believe you and sackashit, or the scientific community?
How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know.
I don't think you know what the hell your talking about.
I would expect such a lame-ass, arrogant answer like that from some hack polygrapher!
Maybe you're just afraid to admit the polygraph has no scientific basis.
Who should we believe you and sackashit, or the scientific community?
Posted by sackett
- Jan 31, 2008, 01:28 AM"Dr" Lethe,
do you have an accusation, specific to an examiner, or are you simply "blowing smoke" to support your own propaganda...? 8-)
Sackett
do you have an accusation, specific to an examiner, or are you simply "blowing smoke" to support your own propaganda...? 8-)
Sackett
Posted by Lethe
- Jan 27, 2008, 09:21 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 07:20 PMQuote from: 5C75647875100 on Jan 21, 2008, 03:04 AMQuestion for polygraphers: Which states, if any, actually have laws that require polygraph exams done by all state agencies to fully comply with APA guidelines and standards?
It's great if you can talk about how awesome APA standards are. But if no one is actually following them, they may as well not even exist. We all know that federal agencies pretty much do whatever the hell they want. Pretty much every competent polygrapher I've ever seen comment on the subject has said that all exams should at least be audio recorded and that video recording would also be a good idea. I believe the APA itself has said that all exams should be recorded. But, hey, if that gets in the way of doing what you want, why do it? Truly it is written that those who have power do what they want and those who don't suffer what they must.
So, which states, if any, actually require all polygraph exams done under their auspices to comply with APA rules? We've got polygraphers from all over the country here, I'm sure we can come up with a pretty good, if not 100% exhaustive and authoritative list.
Utah rules state:
1. A potential examiner must graduate from a course of instruction in deception detection that is approved by the APA.
2. Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT) intern examiners must be supervised by an examiner that is PCSOT certified.
3. Also if an examiner conducts PCSOT without holding a current certification from APA they could be disciplined (including revocation of license).
I believe the bigger picture is that APA members/examiners should follow rules and guidelines of the APA to retain their membership in this association. If they are an APA member and the APA standards are greater than their state rules - the examiner should be held accountable to the APA best practices or loose their membership.
APA and AAPP are valuable entities to examiners. I believe memberships with these entities should be held at the highest regard by examiners. Taylor
Donna, the APA Standards of Practice (Effective 01/20/2007) states, in part:
Quote
3.9.9 An audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phases is required to be made and maintained as part of the examination file for as long as required by regulation or law, but for a minimum of one year for all evidentiary and paired-testing examinations. Audio/video recording is recommended for PCSOT examinations.
You seem to be implying that a polygrapher who doesn't follow the standards, which include audio/video recording all exams and keeping those records for at least one year, would lose APA membership and thus not be able to conduct exams in Utah. If this is so, then we could logically conclude that all exams performed under the auspices of the State of Utah are audio and video recorded and that those recordings are kept for at least one year. Is this, in fact, the case?
If not, then the State of Utah does not require its polygraphers to fully comply with APA standards.
Dr. Lethe
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 21, 2008, 11:34 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 10:27 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 09:01 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 07:20 PM
I believe the bigger picture is that APA members/examiners should follow rules and guidelines of the APA to retain their membership in this association.
The APA doesn't even kick out members who falsify their credentials. I wouldn't hold your breath.
How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know.
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3092.msg21841#msg21841
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 21, 2008, 10:27 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 09:01 PMQuote from: tominbangor on Jan 21, 2008, 07:20 PM
I believe the bigger picture is that APA members/examiners should follow rules and guidelines of the APA to retain their membership in this association.
The APA doesn't even kick out members who falsify their credentials. I wouldn't hold your breath.
How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know.