- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 17, 2009, 04:29 AMMeangino,
There is no evidence of any US government IP address having been used this time.
There is no evidence of any US government IP address having been used this time.
Posted by meangino
- Jul 16, 2009, 06:16 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 15, 2009, 10:37 PM"TS Eliot" has been banned. As mentioned earlier, there is little doubt but that this was Shawn Hacking trolling under a new moniker.
George, you note in the beginning of this thread, upon polygrapher Hacking's first banning, that he was trolling this website from a government IP address.
Would you be able to disclose if he was again using a US Government IP address during his trolling with his new moniker(s)?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 15, 2009, 10:37 PM"TS Eliot" has been banned. As mentioned earlier, there is little doubt but that this was Shawn Hacking trolling under a new moniker.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jul 14, 2009, 11:38 PMNo, keep posting!
TC
TC
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jul 14, 2009, 10:37 PMLet me make it as clear as I can.
If you do not believe in what this website stands for, STOP POSTING. With every response you make on this site, you add to the hits on the search engines. Good, bad, or indifferent, you are supporting anti-polygraph ideas by default by increasing the market share of search engine hits. This is the ARBITRON of computer ratings.
If this site has no validity, do not give credence and do not give it validity by posting a negative.
If you insist on defending what is called an untenable position, you only offer fodder for the opposition.
This site is the number 1 Google hit engine when "polygraph" is entered except for paid advertisers.
To all who hoped for a quick demise to the discussion and argument, all I can say is keep posting and you only dig the hole deeper.
Regards.
If you do not believe in what this website stands for, STOP POSTING. With every response you make on this site, you add to the hits on the search engines. Good, bad, or indifferent, you are supporting anti-polygraph ideas by default by increasing the market share of search engine hits. This is the ARBITRON of computer ratings.
If this site has no validity, do not give credence and do not give it validity by posting a negative.
If you insist on defending what is called an untenable position, you only offer fodder for the opposition.
This site is the number 1 Google hit engine when "polygraph" is entered except for paid advertisers.
To all who hoped for a quick demise to the discussion and argument, all I can say is keep posting and you only dig the hole deeper.
Regards.
Posted by wopdoowop
- Jul 14, 2009, 06:46 PMIt is pathetic that a website administrator could ever think it's right to post personal information, especially when it is a law enforcement person they are posting about. Banning maybe, but posting personal stuff? I agree with Elliot. You guys are really dense if you don't get it. The administrator should at least throw out the topic because it really makes you look stupid.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jul 13, 2009, 02:20 PMQuoteOne thing is painfully obvious fellas. You owe a good agent and apology. In fact you owe the DEA an apology. First you banned an experienced polygrapher from your discussions because he got the best of you and embarrassed you.
If TS Elliot turns out to be DEA SA Hacking, as GM believes, then the above post is truly pathetic. A new low in trolling, asking in the third person for an apology. I thought I had seen it all.
I still think it is are old friend Ed Van Arsdale.
TC
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 13, 2009, 10:41 AMQuote from: TS_Elliot on Jul 13, 2009, 09:16 AMIt was not because he was "trolling" your web site because your web site is just one big troll itself that baits the polygraph community.That's an interesting point of view.
Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with exactly what an Internet troll is, and then you'll see that an entire message board cannot be considered a troll and cannot be trolling anyone or anything.
However, joining a message board with the intent to disrupt the discussions there, ruffle feathers, have a few laughs and then move on is a textbook definition of troll behavior.
If trolls don't like having their names posted then perhaps they shouldn't return to the same website over and over again, after being repeatedly banned, and continue to engage in the same trolling behavior.
If the bans don't work because the troll simply registers again with a new name and continues their trolling, what other recourse would you suggest? To suggest that every web site on the Internet simply put up with trolls who have no other intention in joining board other than to disrupt it is completely unreasonable.
How about a little personal responsibility from the trolls? Members of this board are not "outed" when they disagree with George. They are outed when they continually engage in trolling after repeated warnings and, sometimes, repeated bannings. Every message board owner on the Internet has the same right to deal with disruptive trolls who refuse to follow the common courtesy of not returning to a web site after they have been banned.
Whose actions caused the outings? Who choose to engage in trolling behavior over and over again after repeated warnings and repeated bannings? That's the person who bears the responsibility for the consequences. That's just common sense.
Posted by TS Elliot
- Jul 13, 2009, 09:16 AMOne thing is painfully obvious fellas. You owe a good agent and apology. In fact you owe the DEA an apology. First you banned an experienced polygrapher from your discussions because he got the best of you and embarrassed you. It was not because he found your web site amusing and poked fun at you because you do that to polygraphers all the time. It was not because he was "trolling" your web site because your web site is just one big troll itself that baits the polygraph community. It was not because he used this name or that name as an alias because there appears to be little doubt that you have multiple aliases yourselves that you use to feed off each other. If this last were not true then you must be a few old men living in the same house who instantly spring to one another's defense whenever you need help with a particularly troublesome nemesis.
Second, you named a DEA agent on a public web site in order to "name and shame" him. Did you really think that this would work? Now what you have done is create a celebrity opponent who is probably basking in his newfound fame and happy in the fact that now everyone who comes to the web site can read all of his posts that you have compounded into one link and thereby see that he did nothing but expose a bunch of fakes and hypocrites with no integrity who offer bad advice to the naive and innocent. But your goal wasn't to create a celebrity was it? No your goal was to cause harm. You even went so far as to name a DEA Special Agent in Charge on your web site. Did you seek to "name and shame" him too, or did you just underestimate him and think that he would see his name in writing on a web site and reprimand and discipline one of his agents for simply doing his job?
Third, you refuse to acknowledge that you broke the expected and proclaimed rules and ethics of your own web site, which is supposed to be a place where people on both sides of an argument can come and debate both politely and heatedly. No other polygraph web site does what you have done, yet you sit there smugly acting as though what you have done was justifiable and right.
Obviously your intent was to cause harm and it has backfired on you. Now even people who innocently visit your web site will discover that there is no safety here. There is no expectation of privacy and no respect for rules. There is no integrity here.
Think about what I am saying fellas. It's obvious to everyone but you.
Now I leave you with a quote, as is my custom.
I might show facts as plain as day: but, since your eyes are blind, you'd say, "Where? What?" and turn away. Christina Rossetti
Second, you named a DEA agent on a public web site in order to "name and shame" him. Did you really think that this would work? Now what you have done is create a celebrity opponent who is probably basking in his newfound fame and happy in the fact that now everyone who comes to the web site can read all of his posts that you have compounded into one link and thereby see that he did nothing but expose a bunch of fakes and hypocrites with no integrity who offer bad advice to the naive and innocent. But your goal wasn't to create a celebrity was it? No your goal was to cause harm. You even went so far as to name a DEA Special Agent in Charge on your web site. Did you seek to "name and shame" him too, or did you just underestimate him and think that he would see his name in writing on a web site and reprimand and discipline one of his agents for simply doing his job?
Third, you refuse to acknowledge that you broke the expected and proclaimed rules and ethics of your own web site, which is supposed to be a place where people on both sides of an argument can come and debate both politely and heatedly. No other polygraph web site does what you have done, yet you sit there smugly acting as though what you have done was justifiable and right.
Obviously your intent was to cause harm and it has backfired on you. Now even people who innocently visit your web site will discover that there is no safety here. There is no expectation of privacy and no respect for rules. There is no integrity here.
Think about what I am saying fellas. It's obvious to everyone but you.
Now I leave you with a quote, as is my custom.
I might show facts as plain as day: but, since your eyes are blind, you'd say, "Where? What?" and turn away. Christina Rossetti
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jul 13, 2009, 01:26 AMIf somebody accused me of TREASONOUS activities with absolutely no basis, and I knew who they were, I'd expose their true identity in a NY minute. I have posted repeatedly how COWARDLY I think it is to make such accusations while hiding behind an alias. They lose the debate, resort to personal attacks and the old "GM is a traitor" blather, get banned, keep coming back, get exposed and then squeal like stuck pigs and become all self righteous.
Like I said, they can NOT take their own medicine.
TC
Like I said, they can NOT take their own medicine.
TC
Posted by Twoblock
- Jul 12, 2009, 10:47 PMpailryder
I don't think there are many of us that have an issue with you. You have been rather civil in your posts. However, it appears to me, that when most polygraphers come up short on the debate issues they revert to personal attacks. Mostly against George even stupidly accusing him of unamerican activities when they have no basis in fact for doing so. He let them get by with it much longer than I would. I am sure he warned them by PMs, just like he does us when he thinks we are getting out of line. Unlike most of us, they don't take warnings very well and continue with the crap. That's what gets them banned. I have done my share of flaming and have been called down for it and because of my temper I have purposely refrained from getting involved in those kind of posts lately. I visit this website almost every day and it's hard not to put in my 2 cents. I do occasionally answer a post but it hasn't been directed to polygraphers. I love a good debate but it doesn't happen here much any more.
I don't think there are many of us that have an issue with you. You have been rather civil in your posts. However, it appears to me, that when most polygraphers come up short on the debate issues they revert to personal attacks. Mostly against George even stupidly accusing him of unamerican activities when they have no basis in fact for doing so. He let them get by with it much longer than I would. I am sure he warned them by PMs, just like he does us when he thinks we are getting out of line. Unlike most of us, they don't take warnings very well and continue with the crap. That's what gets them banned. I have done my share of flaming and have been called down for it and because of my temper I have purposely refrained from getting involved in those kind of posts lately. I visit this website almost every day and it's hard not to put in my 2 cents. I do occasionally answer a post but it hasn't been directed to polygraphers. I love a good debate but it doesn't happen here much any more.
Posted by pailryder
- Jul 12, 2009, 10:05 PMHis real name Cullen. He was banned but not outed, or do you not know the difference?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jul 12, 2009, 09:40 PMThe guy was banned and never heard from again. It was back in early 2008. No I don't remember his on-line name. Maybe GM does, since he would have been the one who banned him. He called Sackett "full of shit", or something along those lines.
TC
TC
Posted by pailryder
- Jul 12, 2009, 04:50 PMNot banned Mr. Cullen, banned and OUTED. You cannot recall any anti identified by name, now can you?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jul 12, 2009, 03:17 PMQuoteMy desire to post has certainly been chilled as I have watched every other regular pro polygraph poster banned and outed and never a single anti.
That's not true. I remember of at least one anti who was banned for getting out of line with Jim Sackett.
I've received "warnings" via PM, and have had posts removed or sent to "disgarded Posts" purgatory.
It is simply NOT the case that only pro poly types are banned. Only flame baiting trolls get banned.
TC