- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Aug 18, 2016, 01:08 AM
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 17, 2016, 01:54 PMArk, I likely would have won in a landslide if I sent refrigerator magnets bearing the slogan TRUST YOUR CHARTS to a thousand APA members.
But irrespective of the message, there's a logistical problem: The APA does not make a complete member directory available to its membership.
There's a partial member directory on www.polygraph.org, but it's limited to those individuals who pro-actively registered on the site. Last time I looked, that on-line directory contained about 600 names. My hunch is that it's largely the same bunch that actually took the time to vote.
As for identifying the non-voters, all we know is that more than 80% of the APA membership didn't vote.
But irrespective of the message, there's a logistical problem: The APA does not make a complete member directory available to its membership.
There's a partial member directory on www.polygraph.org, but it's limited to those individuals who pro-actively registered on the site. Last time I looked, that on-line directory contained about 600 names. My hunch is that it's largely the same bunch that actually took the time to vote.
As for identifying the non-voters, all we know is that more than 80% of the APA membership didn't vote.
Posted by Ex Member
- Jul 17, 2016, 12:06 PMDan is it possible for you to find out the members who did not vote? I think all you need to do is write a couple hundred personal letters to them.
Posted by Ex Member
- Jul 15, 2016, 01:02 PMDan, 25% is not trivial.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 15, 2016, 12:49 PMThere were 2,472 eligible voters, though it appears that less than 500 APA members actually cast a ballot.
In the race for president elect, McCloughan received 339 votes (75%); I received 116 votes (25%).
Unlike last year, I did no active campaigning (as through email to APA members, for example), other than to post election related topics on a couple of forums.
By the way, APA examiner membership is made up of 1,239 law enforcement examiners, 1,065 private examiners, and 413 government examiners.
In the race for president elect, McCloughan received 339 votes (75%); I received 116 votes (25%).
Unlike last year, I did no active campaigning (as through email to APA members, for example), other than to post election related topics on a couple of forums.
By the way, APA examiner membership is made up of 1,239 law enforcement examiners, 1,065 private examiners, and 413 government examiners.
Posted by Ex Member
- Jul 15, 2016, 12:23 PMWhat were the results of the election?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 03, 2016, 10:03 AMThe American Polygraph Association 2016 electronic elections -- scheduled to start July 3rd at 0001 hours DST and run through 2359 hours DST on July 9th -- have hit a snag: the independent hosting web site is mysteriously down.
There was a similar false start last year, yet the vendor -- Votenet, based in Arlington VA -- was retained.
Given that we are in the midst of a holiday weekend, speedy resolution would seem rather unlikely.
Is this latest foul-up a mere coincidence, I wonder?
There was a similar false start last year, yet the vendor -- Votenet, based in Arlington VA -- was retained.
Given that we are in the midst of a holiday weekend, speedy resolution would seem rather unlikely.
Is this latest foul-up a mere coincidence, I wonder?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 24, 2016, 10:53 AMYesterday I again emailed my opponent for the office of APA president elect -- APA director Jamie McCloughan -- and asked him point-blank why he won't debate the issues with me.
Mr. McCloughan has yet to respond.
I hope the "dedicated to truth" APA electorate will take note of this continued stonewalling.
Mr. McCloughan has yet to respond.
I hope the "dedicated to truth" APA electorate will take note of this continued stonewalling.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 17, 2016, 12:39 PMthings got quiet here real fast
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 15, 2016, 09:06 PMLet's get things back on track...
If my opponent for APA president elect -- APA Director Jamie McCloughan -- refuses to debate the issues with me, he should withdraw from the race.
Mr. McCloughan, are you, or are you not, dedicated to truth?
If my opponent for APA president elect -- APA Director Jamie McCloughan -- refuses to debate the issues with me, he should withdraw from the race.
Mr. McCloughan, are you, or are you not, dedicated to truth?
Posted by Joe MCcarthy
- Jun 15, 2016, 08:39 PMI have a better idea.
Out and about right now, but then they probably know that. When I get home, I am.upping the ante.
No one will like it, but what's good for the goose
Out and about right now, but then they probably know that. When I get home, I am.upping the ante.
No one will like it, but what's good for the goose
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 15, 2016, 07:59 PMlieguy8,
As we used to say in the army, you're a bold motherfucker.
Too bold, in this case.
ATTENTION: I'll pay $1,000 to the first person who conclusively identifies lieguy8.
I can do check, money order, PayPal, electronic transfer, or even arrange a cash hand-off at Caberet Royale in Dallas.
If anyone has any information regarding the identity of lieguy8, please call me directly at 603-801-5179.
Sign me,
Dedicated to Truth
As we used to say in the army, you're a bold motherfucker.
Too bold, in this case.
ATTENTION: I'll pay $1,000 to the first person who conclusively identifies lieguy8.
I can do check, money order, PayPal, electronic transfer, or even arrange a cash hand-off at Caberet Royale in Dallas.
If anyone has any information regarding the identity of lieguy8, please call me directly at 603-801-5179.
Sign me,
Dedicated to Truth
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 15, 2016, 06:41 PMJust say when.
Posted by lieguy8
- Jun 15, 2016, 02:39 PMToo close to home.
Too close to home.
Bronze Leaf Dr
Spring Creek Pkwy
75
W. University Dr
West St
Something to think about, Joey
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brunchberry+Ln,+Plano,+TX+75023/@33.0610308,-96.7577217,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c22a45a7a44c5:0x3e2c7390230756e2!8m2!3d33.0611117!4d-96.75696?hl=en
Too close to home.
Bronze Leaf Dr
Spring Creek Pkwy
75
W. University Dr
West St
Something to think about, Joey
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brunchberry+Ln,+Plano,+TX+75023/@33.0610308,-96.7577217,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c22a45a7a44c5:0x3e2c7390230756e2!8m2!3d33.0611117!4d-96.75696?hl=en
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 15, 2016, 08:41 AMJoe, those are two good questions.
In my opinion, the best way to curb the kind of anti-competitive behavior you speak of is through polygraph-consumer education and awareness, as well as through the APA's rigorous endorsement of a comprehensive bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, which could contain specific items geared toward consumer protection vis-a-vis the open market.
As for using polygraph to "clear" ethics issues within the microcosm of the polygraph industry, forget it. Polygraph is without any proven scientific basis. It functions best as a pseudo-scientific contraption (bogus pipeline) that aids the investigation and interrogation process by facilitating admissions.
For almost 95 years (!), the courts have overwhelmingly declared polygraph inadmissible, condemning the "test" as being unreliable. And for good reason -- it is. Thus, it would make little sense to use polygraph in ethics investigations.
It seems to me that far better remedies would be available through the courts, or perhaps agreeing to binding arbitration with a reputable -- and neutral, obviously --arbiter, wherein the rules of civil procedure are generally followed.
In my opinion, the best way to curb the kind of anti-competitive behavior you speak of is through polygraph-consumer education and awareness, as well as through the APA's rigorous endorsement of a comprehensive bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, which could contain specific items geared toward consumer protection vis-a-vis the open market.
As for using polygraph to "clear" ethics issues within the microcosm of the polygraph industry, forget it. Polygraph is without any proven scientific basis. It functions best as a pseudo-scientific contraption (bogus pipeline) that aids the investigation and interrogation process by facilitating admissions.
For almost 95 years (!), the courts have overwhelmingly declared polygraph inadmissible, condemning the "test" as being unreliable. And for good reason -- it is. Thus, it would make little sense to use polygraph in ethics investigations.
It seems to me that far better remedies would be available through the courts, or perhaps agreeing to binding arbitration with a reputable -- and neutral, obviously --arbiter, wherein the rules of civil procedure are generally followed.