- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sackett
- Apr 11, 2008, 12:13 AMMr Cullen,
Just because you didn't talk to the FBI means NOTHING! You said you didn't talk with them, "so I guess I'm not a spy after all" doesn't prove or support anything. Maybe you are a spy, I don't know. It seems to me you are someone who really didn't want the job they were willing to discuss. Your refusal does not make you a martyr either! It means, at that time, you are unemployed.
Now pay attention. I want to ask you something. When and where do I lie?
You stated, "Polygraphers lie all the time. Did your polygrapher lie at all?" Well, either we lie all the time or we don't? Which is it? Not sure, huh? Just repeating the mantra of the posting members here? Yep, thought so.
Don't forget to answer the question. Don't want your internet "cousins" accusing you of not answering....
Sackett
Just because you didn't talk to the FBI means NOTHING! You said you didn't talk with them, "so I guess I'm not a spy after all" doesn't prove or support anything. Maybe you are a spy, I don't know. It seems to me you are someone who really didn't want the job they were willing to discuss. Your refusal does not make you a martyr either! It means, at that time, you are unemployed.
Now pay attention. I want to ask you something. When and where do I lie?
You stated, "Polygraphers lie all the time. Did your polygrapher lie at all?" Well, either we lie all the time or we don't? Which is it? Not sure, huh? Just repeating the mantra of the posting members here? Yep, thought so.
Don't forget to answer the question. Don't want your internet "cousins" accusing you of not answering....
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 10, 2008, 02:31 AMQuoteI expect everyone who would dare to enter an "anti" anything site would have some desire to beat the process and/or avoid responsibility for something.
That makes no sense. Depends what the "anti" is addressing. If it is targeted against something that is a fraud, does more harm than good, has been debunked...etc, then the responsible thing to do is be "anti". Of course, that is best done by getting the facts, pro or con ("Anti").
QuoteA site like this is NOT for simply obtaining information in any style of honest collection or research.
You ARE talking about THIS site and not the "Polygraph Place", aren't you?
Lots of people come here because they are perplexed as to why they failed the test despite telling the truth. They get propaganda at PP, they get facts here. Would a post pointing to the NAS report get deleted on that board?
You job is to HIDE the truth, our job is to EXPOSE the truth.
You just no like dah truth!
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 09, 2008, 11:47 PMQuoteAs for being completely honest with the polygraph examiner, I find that a hoot.
Polygraphers lie all the time. Did your polygrapher lie at all? About the test's accuracy...etc. My polygrapher at the NSA Mr. Lingenfelter said it was 98% accurate. Even drew out a pie chart for me. And like a gullible, naive person I was at that time, I BELIEVED HIM!!! That is the main value of this site. Give them the truth about the test. Just gotta get people here BEFORE THEY TEST!
QuoteA thorough background check is the best defense against a potential threat.
And one of the big problems with a pre-employment test is that they brand you a liar, spy, traitor, without ANY follow up investigation.
The local FBI dicks DID called me a year after my polygraph, BECAUSE of the results of my polygraph, wanting to "talk" with me. I declined. I never heard from them again, so I guess I'm not a spy after all.
QuoteThe polygraph is just a crutch thrown at Congress to make it look like the agencies are "getting tough" and to have a "scape goat" reason that no individual would take responsibility for their actions of approving a person for clearance.
Maybe they should require members of congress be tested. That would end the test in a hurry!
TC
Posted by Fair Chance
- Apr 09, 2008, 11:25 PMDear Sackett,
I am gainfully employed by an agency and I have all of the clearances with lots of letters behind them including three letter classified levels and beyond. The polygraph pre-screening exams would have thrown me aside to the wolves but for my many years of honorable service in the military and the Department of Justice. The exam was wrong in its conclusion: way wrong in its assumptions. I am living proof that it is very fallible. This country is spending so much money on a method that known by our adversaries.
You did hit the nail on the head with the hammer when you stated that agencies and HR departments are using the exam results to scapegoat more serious issues with applicants. This is destroying the credibility of the polygraph in all ways, shapes, and forms.
As for being completely honest with the polygraph examiner, I find that a hoot. I am completely honest with all persons involved with any employment application. I do not need the "threat" of a polygraph examination to keep me honest. That is what is ironic. The polygraph examination was not needed to keep the FBI employees honest in the past and has not been proven to prevent any of the ones that went bad from being dishonest. The ones that were bad were never caught by the polygraph.
A thorough background check is the best defense against a potential threat. The polygraph is just a crutch thrown at Congress to make it look like the agencies are "getting tough" and to have a "scape goat" reason that no individual would take responsibility for their actions of approving a person for clearance.
Regards.
I am gainfully employed by an agency and I have all of the clearances with lots of letters behind them including three letter classified levels and beyond. The polygraph pre-screening exams would have thrown me aside to the wolves but for my many years of honorable service in the military and the Department of Justice. The exam was wrong in its conclusion: way wrong in its assumptions. I am living proof that it is very fallible. This country is spending so much money on a method that known by our adversaries.
You did hit the nail on the head with the hammer when you stated that agencies and HR departments are using the exam results to scapegoat more serious issues with applicants. This is destroying the credibility of the polygraph in all ways, shapes, and forms.
As for being completely honest with the polygraph examiner, I find that a hoot. I am completely honest with all persons involved with any employment application. I do not need the "threat" of a polygraph examination to keep me honest. That is what is ironic. The polygraph examination was not needed to keep the FBI employees honest in the past and has not been proven to prevent any of the ones that went bad from being dishonest. The ones that were bad were never caught by the polygraph.
A thorough background check is the best defense against a potential threat. The polygraph is just a crutch thrown at Congress to make it look like the agencies are "getting tough" and to have a "scape goat" reason that no individual would take responsibility for their actions of approving a person for clearance.
Regards.
Posted by sackett
- Apr 09, 2008, 10:28 PMQuote from: boopteedo on Apr 09, 2008, 12:03 PMDear Sackett,
I am a member and poster on this site. I try not to be sarcastic. The only expectation that I had when I applied for a federal job was a "fair chance", hence my screen name. I know that life is not always fair but the process concerning "not acceptable parameters" in pre-screening polygraphs borders is cloaked in secrecy and yet can ruin lives.
Regards
Fair chance,
I expect everyone who would dare to enter an "anti" anything site would have some desire to beat the process and/or avoid responsibility for something. A site like this is NOT for simply obtaining information in any style of honest collection or research.
Having said this, as it relates to AP, access to this site could only be explained as some miguided effort to obtain a job (in pre-employment efforts) they obviously feel some reservation in obtaining. Otherwise, why would an otherwise honest person enter a site like this? Sort of like attending a devil worshipers convention to find out why Catholicism is bad... (this is a analogy and not intended to offend anyone's religious conviction)
On that note, sarcasm is used by myself and others on this board in an effort to avoid direct attacks or personal insults which, as indicated in "Discarded Posts" can and will cause expulsion.
As for your results. Many departments also use the polygraph as the scape goat for DQ'ing applicants. This is a dishonest effort to prevent honest discussion with applicants by HR personnel for why they are truly not being considered. Other times, something that is said may prevent the applicant's success and sometimes, an applicant fails the examination and will not be considered because there are a thousand other applicants who are not having trouble and it is easier to process them.
My suggestion is to try another agency. There's a position out there for everyone ... if you're completely honest in the polygraph.
Sackett
Posted by Fair Chance
- Apr 09, 2008, 12:03 PMDear Sackett,
I am a member and poster on this site. I try not to be sarcastic. The only expectation that I had when I applied for a federal job was a "fair chance", hence my screen name. I know that life is not always fair but the process concerning "not acceptable parameters" in pre-screening polygraphs borders is cloaked in secrecy and yet can ruin lives.
Regards
I am a member and poster on this site. I try not to be sarcastic. The only expectation that I had when I applied for a federal job was a "fair chance", hence my screen name. I know that life is not always fair but the process concerning "not acceptable parameters" in pre-screening polygraphs borders is cloaked in secrecy and yet can ruin lives.
Regards
Posted by sackett
- Apr 08, 2008, 10:57 PMOnce again, I am seeing unrealistic expectations for what one sees as their "deserved" job.
How routine for the members and posters on this board...
Nancy, read the job announcement!
Sackett
How routine for the members and posters on this board...
Nancy, read the job announcement!
Sackett
Posted by Fair Chance
- Apr 08, 2008, 10:12 PMDear "Nancy Drew",
I do not know where you got the inference or impression that the salary could be "negotiated." The Federal government has strict OPM guidelines on what you will be paid and how pay raises will be administrated. What you do not see "upfront" is not going to happen. You have to state that you are only interested in a job if you qualify at a specific "GS" level. Do not accept a job expecting that they will make a significant change on threat of you leaving. Many Special Agents were burned after signing up after 9/11 thinking that the FBI would make them whole after seeing what they could do. They took significant salary cuts from their previous private sector jobs of what they were making, relocated to high cost of living areas, and expected to "grind through the ranks" like all agents before them. There was no special consideration given.
I sense you are heading for deep disappointment with your line of questions.
Regards.
I do not know where you got the inference or impression that the salary could be "negotiated." The Federal government has strict OPM guidelines on what you will be paid and how pay raises will be administrated. What you do not see "upfront" is not going to happen. You have to state that you are only interested in a job if you qualify at a specific "GS" level. Do not accept a job expecting that they will make a significant change on threat of you leaving. Many Special Agents were burned after signing up after 9/11 thinking that the FBI would make them whole after seeing what they could do. They took significant salary cuts from their previous private sector jobs of what they were making, relocated to high cost of living areas, and expected to "grind through the ranks" like all agents before them. There was no special consideration given.
I sense you are heading for deep disappointment with your line of questions.
Regards.
Posted by NancyDrew
- Apr 08, 2008, 06:36 PMCan anyone shed any insight into the recent hirings for this position? I'm in process and they made me a very lowball offer (I have a doctorate and 10 years experience in a very similar field.) I accepted conditionally and processing has begun.
Will there be an opportunity to negotiate down the road or should I pull out sooner rather than later?
Nancy Drew
Will there be an opportunity to negotiate down the road or should I pull out sooner rather than later?
Nancy Drew