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.
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:
How many states are in the United States? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Anonymous
 - Aug 02, 2002, 05:45 PM
Eastwood,

The leak investigation you referred to has nothing to do with lifestyle issues, and the gentlemen you referred to are not members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.  Your libelous characterization of them is presumably even an embarrassment for Polycop and Public_Servant.  Perhaps you might care to stop before the polygraph community claims you must be at the center of an antipolygraph disinformation campaign designed to make polygraphers look foolish.
Posted by Eastwood
 - Aug 02, 2002, 05:28 PM
Frankly, they are a bunch of losers.  Idiots like Daschle, Gephart, and their ilk wouldn't dare take a polygraph - too many lifestyle issues hiding in their closets.
Posted by Anonymous
 - Aug 02, 2002, 02:38 PM
Eastwood,

Although I take exception with your broad sweeping characterization of Congressional leaders and staff as "losers," I suspect that the answer to your question is that which has been offered: These "tests" have no validity, they are completely unreliable, an no one in his/her right mind would risk their reputation on such.
Posted by Eastwood
 - Aug 02, 2002, 01:44 PM
Most of the losers on the intelligence committees are refusing to take a polygraph as part of the FBI leak investigation.  I wonder why.
 8)