- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 03, 2002, 10:33 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Oct 03, 2002, 06:53 PM
BT
If by your comment you are attempting to call me a hypocrite, just say it. Its not like you to be tongue tied. You would be completely right that I do not have professional respect for some of the posters here, especially you, who seem so emotionally tied to this issue that independent thought is impossible for them.
I invite you to refute any assertions I have made here, The_Breeze. Until then, your insinuations that I lack independent thought are dismissed as baseless, ad hominem attacks. Don't like what I have to say? Here's a tip: Telling me I lack independent thought is worthless. Argue the facts.
QuoteSince you wont tell anyone even in the most general terms how exactly you arrived at your current level of (in)experience, you should not be surprised when you are mocked.
That was mocking? I call it juvenile, retarded and pig-ignorant.
QuoteYou have assumed the responsibility of "greeter and gatekeeper" when perhaps you should defer to someone who has actual knowledge.
Invitation #326: Tell me where my assertions are wrong. Tell me where my lack of knowledge on the subject of polygraphy has resulted in an erroneous assertion. You've aptly demonstrated that you wallow in delight in attacking the man. Do you have knowledge enough to refute the man's words?
QuoteHaving a large vocabulary will not suffice for not knowing what you are talking about.
But 23 posts will??
Posted by The_Breeze
- Oct 03, 2002, 06:53 PMBT
If by your comment you are attempting to call me a hypocrite, just say it. Its not like you to be tongue tied. You would be completely right that I do not have professional respect for some of the posters here, especially you, who seem so emotionally tied to this issue that independent thought is impossible for them.
Since you wont tell anyone even in the most general terms how exactly you arrived at your current level of (in)experience, you should not be surprised when you are mocked. You have assumed the responsibility of "greeter and gatekeeper" when perhaps you should defer to someone who has actual knowledge.
Having a large vocabulary will not suffice for not knowing what you are talking about.
If by your comment you are attempting to call me a hypocrite, just say it. Its not like you to be tongue tied. You would be completely right that I do not have professional respect for some of the posters here, especially you, who seem so emotionally tied to this issue that independent thought is impossible for them.
Since you wont tell anyone even in the most general terms how exactly you arrived at your current level of (in)experience, you should not be surprised when you are mocked. You have assumed the responsibility of "greeter and gatekeeper" when perhaps you should defer to someone who has actual knowledge.
Having a large vocabulary will not suffice for not knowing what you are talking about.
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 02, 2002, 07:36 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Oct 02, 2002, 05:27 PM
BT
Your obvious distaste for Law Enforcement shows clearly in your personal attacks.
Not distaste for 'law enforcement' per se. But, you raise an interesting observation. What, in your opinion, should I feel about you after you posted this?
Should I hold batman's opinion in anything but low regard after he finally admits his seething hatred of civilians? If so, why?
Posted by The_Breeze
- Oct 02, 2002, 05:27 PMBT
Your obvious distaste for Law Enforcement shows clearly in your personal attacks.
Having read a few historical posts now, I dont recall any LE officer claiming "sterling ethics" but some have questioned the integrity of the information provided here. Since it becomes more apparent daily that you have no practical experience with this matter you are so passionate about, you should probably take a rest before you burst a blood vessel.
And since you had your way in your 2 (claimed) polygraphs, and were a masterful manipulator using countermeasure techniques, you should not feel so threatened by this tool that does not work. Did you do your countermeasure research prior to even failing your first polygraph, or was it just an interesting exercise to completely befuddle your interrogators?
Your obvious distaste for Law Enforcement shows clearly in your personal attacks.
Having read a few historical posts now, I dont recall any LE officer claiming "sterling ethics" but some have questioned the integrity of the information provided here. Since it becomes more apparent daily that you have no practical experience with this matter you are so passionate about, you should probably take a rest before you burst a blood vessel.
And since you had your way in your 2 (claimed) polygraphs, and were a masterful manipulator using countermeasure techniques, you should not feel so threatened by this tool that does not work. Did you do your countermeasure research prior to even failing your first polygraph, or was it just an interesting exercise to completely befuddle your interrogators?
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 02, 2002, 11:40 AMTo follow up witht he original content of this post, I cannot absolutely confirm that the above-cited LEO's were polygraphed as a condition of employment. The Stevens County Sheriff's Department DOES use the polygraph as part of their pre employment screening process, however they refuse to confirm or deny that Deputy Clark was administered a polygraph.
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 01, 2002, 11:20 PMQuote from: Batman on Sep 30, 2002, 05:14 PMHow would you know what "any detective worth his salt knows"? You been reading those Nero Wolf novels again, or maybe watching Law & Order reruns?
Who is Nero Wolf? As to your second hypothesis, not since Michael Moriarity left the show.
QuoteYou state, "The point I was trying to make is that law enforcement agents, many of whom passed a pre-employment polygraph in order to gain their position of power, are no more moral or ethical than any other demographic of society, and are certainly not 'better' than those who are not involved in law enforcement." Why didn't you just state that then? How come you only give us the true insight meaning of your posts after you've been called out.
It's called clarifying one's position, b.m. Where are you going with your grand conspiracy theory?
QuoteI'll tell you what any good dectective worth his salt knows. He knows that you're a BS'er, that's what he knows.
Would you care to put up or (God forbid) shut up, b.m.? What about my post (specifically please) is b.s.? Or, for that matter, I invite you to take exception to any of my assertions on the boards. Yes, it's my tired mantra of wishing to debate you, b.m. I'm pretty sure I could hold my own if you'd like to try-- after all, I've never had the pleasure of serving on a jury.
QuoteYou thought you had a good one but when told to put up or shut up you simply tried to turn it in your favor. No doubt you're a Democrat, maybe even someone who as aspirations of being a Congressman some day. Even your lord and master, the mighty George, called you out on this one. If you can't admit you stepped on your pud and move on, then what ever you do, don't try and pretend you know what any good dectective worth his salt knows. You don't have a clue!
I really don't have a response to the above quoted passage. It's just so precious, so inane, so wrong I wanted it repeated.
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 01, 2002, 08:57 PMQuote from: Batman on Sep 30, 2002, 05:14 PM
I'll tell you what any good dectective worth his salt knows. He knows that you're a BS'er, that's what he knows. You thought you had a good one but when told to put up or shut up you simply tried to turn it in your favor. No doubt you're a Democrat, maybe even someone who as aspirations of being a Congressman some day. Even your lord and master, the mighty George, called you out on this one. If you can't admit you stepped on your pud and move on, then what ever you do, don't try and pretend you know what any good dectective worth his salt knows. You don't have a clue!
Batman
Do you always speak with such authority on topics about which you obviously know so little?
You need to learn your political positions, Batman. Beech's positions put him solidly in the "libertarian" category.
Skeptic
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Sep 30, 2002, 05:14 PMBeech,
How would you know what "any detective worth his salt knows"? You been reading those Nero Wolf novels again, or maybe watching Law & Order reruns?
You state, "The point I was trying to make is that law enforcement agents, many of whom passed a pre-employment polygraph in order to gain their position of power, are no more moral or ethical than any other demographic of society, and are certainly not 'better' than those who are not involved in law enforcement." Why didn't you just state that then? How come you only give us the true insight meaning of your posts after you've been called out.
I'll tell you what any good dectective worth his salt knows. He knows that you're a BS'er, that's what he knows. You thought you had a good one but when told to put up or shut up you simply tried to turn it in your favor. No doubt you're a Democrat, maybe even someone who as aspirations of being a Congressman some day. Even your lord and master, the mighty George, called you out on this one. If you can't admit you stepped on your pud and move on, then what ever you do, don't try and pretend you know what any good dectective worth his salt knows. You don't have a clue!
Batman
How would you know what "any detective worth his salt knows"? You been reading those Nero Wolf novels again, or maybe watching Law & Order reruns?
You state, "The point I was trying to make is that law enforcement agents, many of whom passed a pre-employment polygraph in order to gain their position of power, are no more moral or ethical than any other demographic of society, and are certainly not 'better' than those who are not involved in law enforcement." Why didn't you just state that then? How come you only give us the true insight meaning of your posts after you've been called out.
I'll tell you what any good dectective worth his salt knows. He knows that you're a BS'er, that's what he knows. You thought you had a good one but when told to put up or shut up you simply tried to turn it in your favor. No doubt you're a Democrat, maybe even someone who as aspirations of being a Congressman some day. Even your lord and master, the mighty George, called you out on this one. If you can't admit you stepped on your pud and move on, then what ever you do, don't try and pretend you know what any good dectective worth his salt knows. You don't have a clue!
Batman
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 28, 2002, 05:56 PMIn a fit of pique I posted the first message in this thread, no doubt irked by the repetitive trumpeting of certain law enforcement agents on this board about their sterling ethics and higher morals than we who stand opposed to the use of polygraphs in counter-espionage, employment, and other types of screening, as well as its use in certain criminal investigations.
The point I was trying to make is that law enforcement agents, many of whom passed a pre-employment polygraph in order to gain their position of power, are no more moral or ethical than any other demographic of society, and are certainly not 'better' than those who are not involved in law enforcement. Daily readers of newspapers can clearly see that police officers (and prosecutors and judges) are routinely arrested and convicted for crimes such as drunk driving, drugged driving, hit and run, rape, drug dealing, arson, car theft, burglery, armed robbery, assault and murder-- including cop-killings. Did the polygraph, as a pre-emplyment screening tool, catch any of them?
Any detective worth his salt knows and will tell you that when a person is caught commiting a crime, the chances of it being the very first time said person commited that crime are slim indeed.
The point I was trying to make is that law enforcement agents, many of whom passed a pre-employment polygraph in order to gain their position of power, are no more moral or ethical than any other demographic of society, and are certainly not 'better' than those who are not involved in law enforcement. Daily readers of newspapers can clearly see that police officers (and prosecutors and judges) are routinely arrested and convicted for crimes such as drunk driving, drugged driving, hit and run, rape, drug dealing, arson, car theft, burglery, armed robbery, assault and murder-- including cop-killings. Did the polygraph, as a pre-emplyment screening tool, catch any of them?
Any detective worth his salt knows and will tell you that when a person is caught commiting a crime, the chances of it being the very first time said person commited that crime are slim indeed.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Sep 19, 2002, 01:05 PMBeech Tree
And while you are making assumptions, you might as well take a shot at the discredited practice of pre-employment psychological testing. Such testing would surely be more relevant in showing deep personality flaws that might lead to incidents such as this. Or do you not want to go down that road since as a rule it is conducted by a Phd.?
Since (thankfully) we are in time out, you may answer through one of your proxies
And while you are making assumptions, you might as well take a shot at the discredited practice of pre-employment psychological testing. Such testing would surely be more relevant in showing deep personality flaws that might lead to incidents such as this. Or do you not want to go down that road since as a rule it is conducted by a Phd.?
Since (thankfully) we are in time out, you may answer through one of your proxies
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 02, 2002, 06:36 PMQuote from: beech trees on Sep 01, 2002, 05:14 PM
...
Stevens County Sheriff's Department apparently uses the polygraph as part of their application screening process.
Why didn't the polygraph catch their deputy?
Beech Trees,
I have to agree with Batman here. I don't see any indication in the article that either of the two law enforcement officers involved was subjected to pre-employment polygraph screening, or that the crimes to which they have pled guilty occurred before any such polygraph screening. I don't see how any inferences about polygraphy can be drawn based on this article.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Sep 02, 2002, 01:20 PMBeech, you off the meds yet?
How about giving a few simple answers to the questions I asked about your initial post on this topic?
Here they are again:
When were either of these two individuals polygraphed? You state that the Stevens County Sheriff's department "apparently" uses polygraph. Do they or don't they? If they do, were these two polygraphed? Did the incident occur before they were hired, or polygraphed (if they ever were)? How about some more facts?
Come on Beech, your all for accuracy. Please provide a few accurate facts about the information you initially provided as to how it pertains to polygraph utilization.
Batman
How about giving a few simple answers to the questions I asked about your initial post on this topic?
Here they are again:
When were either of these two individuals polygraphed? You state that the Stevens County Sheriff's department "apparently" uses polygraph. Do they or don't they? If they do, were these two polygraphed? Did the incident occur before they were hired, or polygraphed (if they ever were)? How about some more facts?
Come on Beech, your all for accuracy. Please provide a few accurate facts about the information you initially provided as to how it pertains to polygraph utilization.
Batman
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 01, 2002, 07:12 PMQuote from: Batman on Sep 01, 2002, 06:50 PMAnyway, my money says the plea agreements were most likely coerced by some low life prosecutor
You mean like this one?
Assistant DA Fired After Allegedly Plotting To Kill Wife
Quoteworking closely with an evil police interrogator.
You mean like this one?
FBI Polygrapher helps coerce false confession
QuoteMaybe these two were simply young, naive, hungry, and tired when they made these plea agreements. That's possible isn't it George?
Or perhaps their spirits were broken by unscrupulous polygraph interrogators-- that's possible, isn't it batman? Or do you deny your fellow LEO is guilty of coercion?
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Sep 01, 2002, 06:50 PMHey beech, how ya doin'? 
When were either of these two individuals polygraphed? You state that the Stevens County Sheriff's department "apparently" uses polygraph. Do they or don't they? If they do, were these two polygraphed? Did the incident occur before they were hired, or polygraphed (if they ever were)? How about some more facts? God knows I have been accused of jumping to conclusions without having enough information. I believe even you have jumped me once or twice for doing this.
How about it George, is Beech concluding too much with too little information? I mean, he's asking why polygraph didn't catch the deputy, but we don't even know for sure if polygraph was ever a factor in any way in this case or with these two individuals?
This posintg by Beech wouldn't simply be some closed minded anti-polygraph shot in the dark would it? Surely you guys are more open minded than that.
Anyway, my money says the plea agreements were most likely coerced by some low life prosecutor working closely with an evil police interrogator. Maybe these two were simply young, naive, hungry, and tired when they made these plea agreements. That's possible isn't it George?
Batman
When were either of these two individuals polygraphed? You state that the Stevens County Sheriff's department "apparently" uses polygraph. Do they or don't they? If they do, were these two polygraphed? Did the incident occur before they were hired, or polygraphed (if they ever were)? How about some more facts? God knows I have been accused of jumping to conclusions without having enough information. I believe even you have jumped me once or twice for doing this.
How about it George, is Beech concluding too much with too little information? I mean, he's asking why polygraph didn't catch the deputy, but we don't even know for sure if polygraph was ever a factor in any way in this case or with these two individuals?
This posintg by Beech wouldn't simply be some closed minded anti-polygraph shot in the dark would it? Surely you guys are more open minded than that.
Anyway, my money says the plea agreements were most likely coerced by some low life prosecutor working closely with an evil police interrogator. Maybe these two were simply young, naive, hungry, and tired when they made these plea agreements. That's possible isn't it George?
Batman
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 01, 2002, 05:14 PMShoot
-'em-up, lying nets former lawmen jail time
Fair use quote:
Stevens County Sheriff's Department apparently uses the polygraph as part of their application screening process.
Why didn't the polygraph catch their deputy?
-'em-up, lying nets former lawmen jail time
Fair use quote:
QuoteTwo former law enforcement officers have been sentenced after pleading guilty to shooting up a Stevens County neighborhood with a submachine gun, then lying to investigators... Former Stevens County deputy Will Clark and his onetime Suncrest roommate, former Newport police reservist Christopher Spurlock, accepted plea agreements Wednesday from Prosecutor Jerry Wetle.
Stevens County Sheriff's Department apparently uses the polygraph as part of their application screening process.
Why didn't the polygraph catch their deputy?