- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 07, 2011, 09:06 PMCharlie Chuckles,
You are correct. My blunder and I do accept full responsibility for my error. This was unintentional and I must say embarrassing. I will be more attentive in the future.
You are correct. My blunder and I do accept full responsibility for my error. This was unintentional and I must say embarrassing. I will be more attentive in the future.
Posted by Charlie Chuckles
- Sep 07, 2011, 06:19 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Sep 06, 2011, 11:04 PMSergeant1107,
This part of his post was deleted at some time.
Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home. It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online
Umm, I think there has been a mistake. The highlighted message above was never part of this thread. It is something that I wrote in an entirely different thread about the CIA polygraph here:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4831.msg35829#msg35829
It looks like user Bill Brown, who first replied the original post in this thread, made a mistake and quoted my post by accident.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 06, 2011, 11:04 PMSergeant1107,
I am sure this is true in some jurisdictions, however in others it is considered a DQ. I'm sure it does depend on individual department standards of conduct. And again reading the original post, I understand why he was DQ'd.
This part of his post was deleted at some time.
Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home. It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online
I am sure this is true in some jurisdictions, however in others it is considered a DQ. I'm sure it does depend on individual department standards of conduct. And again reading the original post, I understand why he was DQ'd.
This part of his post was deleted at some time.
Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home. It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 06, 2011, 09:53 PMI regularly go background checks for my agency and if someone told me they masturbated in a public restroom I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't see it as any different than having sex in a public restroom. Actually, the former is probably somewhat safer than the latter. But neither would be relevant to a police background investigation.
Unless there is some other aspect I couldn't care less. Without some other aspect (such as voyeurism, pedophilia, etc...) all that masturbation is indicative of is a functioning sex drive.
Unless there is some other aspect I couldn't care less. Without some other aspect (such as voyeurism, pedophilia, etc...) all that masturbation is indicative of is a functioning sex drive.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 05, 2011, 08:17 PMI did laugh after reading that blog, I cannot answer for that federal examiner. It sounds like the questions were asked in the pre test, not as control questions. i personally have not asked questions of that nature to a police applicant. I have asked if they have committed a sexual crime, and beastiality, also known as zoosexuality, fits into sexual crimes. That would not be a control question, it would be a relevant question.
Posted by figs
- Sep 05, 2011, 08:04 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Sep 05, 2011, 07:52 PMfigs,
I have never heard of sexual oriented control questions.
Never talked to a federal polygrapher?
Have you ever had sex with a chicken? http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/520940_Working_for_FBI.html
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 05, 2011, 07:52 PMfigs,
I have never heard of sexual oriented control questions. I have been in the business for about 30 years. I can only speculate why law enforcement administrators make the decisions they make.
I will only answer for myself. I would suspect that persons who are on the internet viewing sexual deviant materials might act out on those fantasies at some point in time. Coupled with the fact that he has admitted to conversing on line with other persons watching the same type materials. I suspect this excited him sexually and he in all probability acted out on his sexual excitation.
Now that is all speculation and not fact. My speculation may be off target and totally wrong, it is only speculation without facts. You may wish to check all my prior posts and make a decision regarding my giving misinformation. I don't do that at all. And I am a polygraph examiner for the record.
I have never heard of sexual oriented control questions. I have been in the business for about 30 years. I can only speculate why law enforcement administrators make the decisions they make.
I will only answer for myself. I would suspect that persons who are on the internet viewing sexual deviant materials might act out on those fantasies at some point in time. Coupled with the fact that he has admitted to conversing on line with other persons watching the same type materials. I suspect this excited him sexually and he in all probability acted out on his sexual excitation.
Now that is all speculation and not fact. My speculation may be off target and totally wrong, it is only speculation without facts. You may wish to check all my prior posts and make a decision regarding my giving misinformation. I don't do that at all. And I am a polygraph examiner for the record.
Posted by figs
- Sep 05, 2011, 07:35 PMI'm pushing you to be clear bc to me these behaiors sound like textbook control question topix. "A person who did X might do Y. So you've never ever [lied to someone you love, driven drunk, looked at freaky xxx, etc] - now HAVE YOU?"
Not that one would suspect a polygrapher might spend his free time posting misinformation about polygraphs on the Internetz.
Not that one would suspect a polygrapher might spend his free time posting misinformation about polygraphs on the Internetz.
Posted by figs
- Sep 05, 2011, 06:35 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Sep 05, 2011, 06:06 PMI do apologize if the quotes offended you. They were to emphasise the words, my bad. I cannot answer what chance a dpt would take, it is policy in most departments. When coupled with the statement of watching porn fetishes and messaging with others, it may suggest a pattern of behavior that would not be acceptable.
What pattern of behavior does this info suggest to you, and why is it relevant?
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 05, 2011, 06:06 PMI do apologize if the quotes offended you. They were to emphasise the words, my bad. I cannot answer what chance a dpt would take, it is policy in most departments. When coupled with the statement of watching porn fetishes and messaging with others, it may suggest a pattern of behavior that would not be acceptable.
Posted by figs
- Sep 05, 2011, 05:55 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Sep 05, 2011, 05:21 PMFigs,
It is not my logic. It is policy in most departments. Masturbating in public restrooms and viewing porn FETISHES may suggest other patterns of behavior that are not acceptable. Why take a chance? That is the logic used in making a DQ decision.
It may not be "fair" or "justified" in your personal opinion, but it is what it is. Again, it is not my decision, it is a decision made by individual departments. I have seen many DQ'd for this same behavior.
Please dont use quote marks around words I did not use.
You didnt answer my question. What chance exactly would a police dpt take in hiring someone who touched his genitals in the bathroom?
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 05, 2011, 05:21 PMFigs,
It is not my logic. It is policy in most departments. Masturbating in public restrooms and viewing porn FETISHES may suggest other patterns of behavior that are not acceptable. Why take a chance? That is the logic used in making a DQ decision.
It may not be "fair" or "justified" in your personal opinion, but it is what it is. Again, it is not my decision, it is a decision made by individual departments. I have seen many DQ'd for this same behavior.
It is not my logic. It is policy in most departments. Masturbating in public restrooms and viewing porn FETISHES may suggest other patterns of behavior that are not acceptable. Why take a chance? That is the logic used in making a DQ decision.
It may not be "fair" or "justified" in your personal opinion, but it is what it is. Again, it is not my decision, it is a decision made by individual departments. I have seen many DQ'd for this same behavior.
Posted by figs
- Sep 05, 2011, 04:25 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Sep 04, 2011, 08:58 PMJust like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home. It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online
I'm sure all the 3 letter agencies really want to hire you, excellent candidate for National Security Agency. And yes we do share information between agencies. Nothing illegal or unethical about sharing, you signed a release of information during your application process. I do understand you were applying for a LEO job, not a 3 letter agency. You may want to look at other job opportunities, don't think you will make it as a LEO with the admissions you made on your post.
What's your logic, Bill? How would these common behaviors (touching one's genitals in a bathroom stall! looking at p0rn on teh Internetz!!) affect a person's ability to do a job?
Curious bc this lucks like a theme in polygraphy. Lots of sex quizzing in its history. Their must be a good reasons.
Posted by srtaanti
- Sep 05, 2011, 08:39 AMSounds like you are F'd!
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Sep 04, 2011, 08:58 PM Just like people won't admit to their favorite porn fetishes that they view in their own privacy at home. It is one of those things you don't talk about in person with others, but you will anonymously message cyber strangers about it online
I'm sure all the 3 letter agencies really want to hire you, excellent candidate for National Security Agency. And yes we do share information between agencies. Nothing illegal or unethical about sharing, you signed a release of information during your application process. I do understand you were applying for a LEO job, not a 3 letter agency. You may want to look at other job opportunities, don't think you will make it as a LEO with the admissions you made on your post.
I'm sure all the 3 letter agencies really want to hire you, excellent candidate for National Security Agency. And yes we do share information between agencies. Nothing illegal or unethical about sharing, you signed a release of information during your application process. I do understand you were applying for a LEO job, not a 3 letter agency. You may want to look at other job opportunities, don't think you will make it as a LEO with the admissions you made on your post.