- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 17, 2013, 06:57 AMJust to update this topic, I note that in 2012, only 17 posts were made to the public area of the PolygraphPlace.com message board, and none have been made thus far in 2013:
http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi
Truly remarkable.
http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi
Truly remarkable.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 26, 2008, 10:13 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 26, 2008, 08:03 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 20, 2008, 12:08 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 19, 2008, 11:38 PMHow do the numbers break down when you look at posts by individual users? Are a small amount of users contributing the bulk of the content?
You can get a sense of how the numbers break down by looking at the forum's registered user list ordered by the number of posts each user has made:
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=ml;sort=posts
Thanks George,
I did try to take a look at that - but for whatever reason, user access to it is restricted.
Regards,
Harley.
Sorry, it may be the case that only administrators and moderators can view that page. In short, there are at this time (total posts = 30,090):
19 users with 250 or more posts, who have made a total of 10,693 posts
30 users with 100-249 posts, who have made a total of 4,481 posts
29 users with 50-100 posts, who have made a total of 2,100 posts
43 users with 25-50 posts, who have made a total of 1,476 posts
and the remaining users accounting for the remaining posts have fewer than 25 posts each.
Posted by harlequinn
- May 26, 2008, 08:03 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 20, 2008, 12:08 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 19, 2008, 11:38 PMHow do the numbers break down when you look at posts by individual users? Are a small amount of users contributing the bulk of the content?
You can get a sense of how the numbers break down by looking at the forum's registered user list ordered by the number of posts each user has made:
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=ml;sort=posts
Thanks George,
I did try to take a look at that - but for whatever reason, user access to it is restricted.
Regards,
Harley.
Posted by cat
- May 23, 2008, 09:53 AMHello George,
I am a relatively new user to this. I orginally came looking for some help for a friend of mine. But, the cite has proved to be extremely interesting, I have been learning quite abit.
Censorship is never a good thing, even if we don't like what others have to say. There is always something to be learned from others, even if it's how not to act a certain way. There are those who can create "Black Magic" with their mouth, so to speak.
Ex: Hitler burned books, banned what people could say, etc. and used only his mouth to hypnotize thousands, getting them to do his will.
I think it's great that both sides get to voice their opinion here. I will certainly keep up with the cite and pass it along to others.
Have a great day.
I am a relatively new user to this. I orginally came looking for some help for a friend of mine. But, the cite has proved to be extremely interesting, I have been learning quite abit.
Censorship is never a good thing, even if we don't like what others have to say. There is always something to be learned from others, even if it's how not to act a certain way. There are those who can create "Black Magic" with their mouth, so to speak.
Ex: Hitler burned books, banned what people could say, etc. and used only his mouth to hypnotize thousands, getting them to do his will.
I think it's great that both sides get to voice their opinion here. I will certainly keep up with the cite and pass it along to others.
Have a great day.
Posted by pailryder
- May 23, 2008, 07:29 AMLethe
Of course we prefer to post here. We only use the private forum to brag to others in the polygraph industrial cabal about the lives we have runied and to laugh about the wonderful people we have eliminated from consideration for positions they deserve. And then we need a private place to lament our lack of a logician to reply to your razor sharp analysis.
Currently we are discussing new ways to exploit ignorant people and new employment possibilities for the time when everyone is a knowledge as you.
Of course we prefer to post here. We only use the private forum to brag to others in the polygraph industrial cabal about the lives we have runied and to laugh about the wonderful people we have eliminated from consideration for positions they deserve. And then we need a private place to lament our lack of a logician to reply to your razor sharp analysis.
Currently we are discussing new ways to exploit ignorant people and new employment possibilities for the time when everyone is a knowledge as you.
Posted by Lethe
- May 23, 2008, 02:33 AMDo they even call what they do censorship over there? Usually Orwellian terms are employed, like "elimination of non-useful information." If people know the truth, they're harder to control; better to keep them stupid.
Anyway, I half suspect that some of the more intelligent polygraphers would even find this forum superior to that one: here polygraphers with views outside the mainstream can post them. I'm sure that is discouraged over there. They all just end up parroting the same party line. Something about loving the "Dear Leader", I believe.
Ah! What a glorious thing is censorship! If something can't survive without it, you know it's gotta be good!
Anyway, I half suspect that some of the more intelligent polygraphers would even find this forum superior to that one: here polygraphers with views outside the mainstream can post them. I'm sure that is discouraged over there. They all just end up parroting the same party line. Something about loving the "Dear Leader", I believe.
Ah! What a glorious thing is censorship! If something can't survive without it, you know it's gotta be good!
Posted by notguilty1
- May 20, 2008, 10:38 PMGeorge,
I have enjoyed your site and I post regularly. I found lots of good information here that gave me some insight into Polygraph both pro and con.
I appreciate your work and effort to bring the uncensored truth to the public.
It is no surprize to me that Polyplace censors thier content it must rely on the public continuing the illusion that polygraphs work in detecting deception. Any information to the contrary would hurt thier exsistance.
George please keep up the good work.
I have enjoyed your site and I post regularly. I found lots of good information here that gave me some insight into Polygraph both pro and con.
I appreciate your work and effort to bring the uncensored truth to the public.
It is no surprize to me that Polyplace censors thier content it must rely on the public continuing the illusion that polygraphs work in detecting deception. Any information to the contrary would hurt thier exsistance.
George please keep up the good work.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 20, 2008, 12:15 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 19, 2008, 11:44 PMI would be interested in the number of lurkers out there who never post.
Do you have number of visitors by ISP number?
TC
The forum does have a log (available only to administrators) that records the IP addresses of all visitors, but the data is retained for only six hours, and long-term reports are not generated. So I have no idea how many people who are not registered might regularly read this message board. However, at the bottom of the forum's main page, you'll get an indication of the number of "guests" that have visited in the past 15 minutes.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 20, 2008, 12:08 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 19, 2008, 11:38 PMHow do the numbers break down when you look at posts by individual users? Are a small amount of users contributing the bulk of the content?
You can get a sense of how the numbers break down by looking at the forum's registered user list ordered by the number of posts each user has made:
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=ml;sort=posts
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 19, 2008, 11:44 PMI would be interested in the number of lurkers out there who never post.
Do you have number of visitors by ISP number?
TC
Do you have number of visitors by ISP number?
TC
Posted by harlequinn
- May 19, 2008, 11:38 PMHi George,
Interesting forum you have here. I'm about to have a bigger look at it.
An interesting side note about your numbers:
4279 or roughly 14% of all posts have come from you.
This isn't a bad thing of course, on the contrary, it shows active interest by the person running the forum.
How do the numbers break down when you look at posts by individual users? Are a small amount of users contributing the bulk of the content?
Regards,
h.
Interesting forum you have here. I'm about to have a bigger look at it.
An interesting side note about your numbers:
4279 or roughly 14% of all posts have come from you.
This isn't a bad thing of course, on the contrary, it shows active interest by the person running the forum.
How do the numbers break down when you look at posts by individual users? Are a small amount of users contributing the bulk of the content?
Regards,
h.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2008, 11:11 AMpailryder,
Thank you for your kind words. To be sure, PolygraphPlace.com's censorship is doubtlessly not the sole factor accounting for its forum's lower rate of activity. But I think it is a very important one, and quite possibly the most important one. Because AntiPolygraph.org decided from the outset to welcome the participation of those who may strongly disagree with us, the debate on AntiPolygraph.org has, on the whole, been more interesting and informative than that on PolygraphPlace.com. I think most fair-minded polygraph examiners would likely agree.
PolygraphPlace.com's regrettable decision to exclude polygraph critics has only served to impoverish the discussion there.
Thank you for your kind words. To be sure, PolygraphPlace.com's censorship is doubtlessly not the sole factor accounting for its forum's lower rate of activity. But I think it is a very important one, and quite possibly the most important one. Because AntiPolygraph.org decided from the outset to welcome the participation of those who may strongly disagree with us, the debate on AntiPolygraph.org has, on the whole, been more interesting and informative than that on PolygraphPlace.com. I think most fair-minded polygraph examiners would likely agree.
PolygraphPlace.com's regrettable decision to exclude polygraph critics has only served to impoverish the discussion there.
Posted by pailryder
- May 19, 2008, 10:42 AMMr Maschke
A fair comparison of your board and Polyplace, but it should be noted, and perhaps you, yourself, are to modest point out, that censorship alone does not completely accout for the popularity of this site. Your entire site is first rate and you have so much information available to everyone. Everything functions properly, and you, or someone, must spend an enormous amout of energy to keep up to date daily.
After all, we both want to improve the polygraph profession, just in different ways. Me by making myself a better examiner, you by making us gone. Time will tell.
A fair comparison of your board and Polyplace, but it should be noted, and perhaps you, yourself, are to modest point out, that censorship alone does not completely accout for the popularity of this site. Your entire site is first rate and you have so much information available to everyone. Everything functions properly, and you, or someone, must spend an enormous amout of energy to keep up to date daily.
After all, we both want to improve the polygraph profession, just in different ways. Me by making myself a better examiner, you by making us gone. Time will tell.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 19, 2008, 06:25 AMAs controversial as the use of polygraphs may be, there are for all intents and purposes only two websites with public forums devoted to the discussion of polygraph issues: PolygraphPlace.com (a for-profit, commercial website operated by a polygraph examiner) and AntiPolygraph.org (a not-for-profit, public interest website). A comparison between these two forums, both of which have been on-line for roughly eight years, offers an object lesson in the effects of censorship, as the former is censored, and the latter is not. The bottom line up front: the uncensored forum has roughly 6.5 times as many public posts as the censored one.
The PolygraphPlace.com message board was opened on 19 November 1999 and has been in continuous operation since then. Its moderators include Dr. Louis Rovner, a polygraph examiner with a Ph.D. in psychology. Introducing the forum, he wrote:
Although Rovner claimed that "anyone who visits the board will have the opportunity to respond to your questions," this was never true of the PolygraphPlace.com message board. In fact, courteous, on-topic replies by polygraph critics have been routinely deleted and those posting them (including myself and Dr. Drew Richardson) have been banned.
In the more than eight years that the PolygraphPlace.com message board has been on-line, some 4,579 posts have been made to the public section of that forum. (The board also has a private forum that is open to polygraph examiners only. It has some 7,789 posts. They must have a lot to talk about that they don't want the public to know.)
By contrast, the AntiPolygraph.org message board, which opened on 29 September 2000, has been uncensored from the start. All points of view are welcome, and no one has been banned for voicing views in support of polygraphy. We don't fear the thoughts of those with whom we disagree. We welcome them.
The result: although the AntiPolygraph.org message board has been on-line nearly a year less than the PolygraphPlace.com message board, we have now have close to 30,000 posts (22,919 29,919 at the time of writing), or roughly 6.5 times as many posts as PolygraphPlace.com has on its public forum. The difference in the liveliness of the discussion and debate is as stark as the difference between West and East Berlin before the wall came down.
The PolygraphPlace.com message board was opened on 19 November 1999 and has been in continuous operation since then. Its moderators include Dr. Louis Rovner, a polygraph examiner with a Ph.D. in psychology. Introducing the forum, he wrote:
QuoteHello. My name is Louis Rovner and I'll be your moderator for this forum. Please post any and all of your ideas, comments and questions. Anyone who visits the board will have the opportunity to respond to your messages. In addition, I'll do my best to answer any questions or bring them to the attention of other experts.
I sincerely hope you find this board interesting and useful.
Although Rovner claimed that "anyone who visits the board will have the opportunity to respond to your questions," this was never true of the PolygraphPlace.com message board. In fact, courteous, on-topic replies by polygraph critics have been routinely deleted and those posting them (including myself and Dr. Drew Richardson) have been banned.
In the more than eight years that the PolygraphPlace.com message board has been on-line, some 4,579 posts have been made to the public section of that forum. (The board also has a private forum that is open to polygraph examiners only. It has some 7,789 posts. They must have a lot to talk about that they don't want the public to know.)
By contrast, the AntiPolygraph.org message board, which opened on 29 September 2000, has been uncensored from the start. All points of view are welcome, and no one has been banned for voicing views in support of polygraphy. We don't fear the thoughts of those with whom we disagree. We welcome them.
The result: although the AntiPolygraph.org message board has been on-line nearly a year less than the PolygraphPlace.com message board, we have now have close to 30,000 posts (