Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by agony
 - Mar 31, 2010, 12:35 PM
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 30, 2010, 08:36 PMAs an extremely loyal and honest person, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that someone I love this much would lie to me. It's as simple as that.
Unfortunately, your loyalty, your honesty, and your love are completely useless if your partner's loyalty, honesty, and love fail to measure up.  What you need now are a couple of other virtues: judgement to know when you are being taken advantage of, and courage to escape a destructive relationship before you are damaged any further.

-Aunty Agony.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 31, 2010, 01:06 AM
apknow,

Understand that polygraph chart readings are evidence of nothing. Computerized readings add no more validity to polygraphy than they do to astrology. It's a gimmick to fool suckers.

Polygraphy is sheer pseudoscience, and it's inherently biased against the truthful. It's quite common for truth-tellers to wrongly fail. Conversely, had your SO been a liar intent on fooling the polygraph (and you), (s)he could have used simple countermeasures (explained in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) to pass.

I have a question regarding the following:

Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 30, 2010, 04:37 PMAn unknown STD popped up in our relationship.
What is an "unknown STD?"
Posted by T.Cullen
 - Mar 30, 2010, 09:12 PM
QuoteIf someone walks up to you and slaps your face, rest assured you have been slapped in the face

If somebody slapped me in the face and there was video of it that would certainly be a valid basis for claiming I had been slapped in the face.

All wishes aside, what is the basis for concluding with a 99% degree of accuracy that somebody is being "deceptive", based soley on the graphical output depicting data produced during a polygraph?

TC
Posted by T.Cullen
 - Mar 30, 2010, 09:05 PM
Maybe I should restate my question.

What is the basis for concluding the output shown on the PDF chart, no matter how many times it's checked, provides valide evidence that your SO was actually being deceptive  with a 99% degree of certainy deception?

This is the assumption your are making, isn't it?

TC
Posted by yankeedog
 - Mar 30, 2010, 06:30 PM
apknow,

   I am afraid you already have the answer to your question.  Wishing something not to be true will not  change the reality of the situation.  Even if you put your polygraph experience(s) aside, what does the evidence tell you?  If someone walks up to you and slaps your face, rest assured you have been slapped in the face. If you were sitting on a jury and had this evidence before you, would you convict or acquit? :'(
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Mar 30, 2010, 06:22 PM
QuoteI (even still) want to believe my SO is telling the truth, but a 0.99 DI-FAIL came in

Where are you getting this ".99 deception indicated"?  What is your basis for that?

TC