- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 11, 2002, 11:55 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Oct 11, 2002, 12:27 AM
Beech,
Look around on this site. It is only you whose buttons I push. You can't post without an angry tone. You are a magnet for abuse.
I see that I have failed to sway you from your delusions of grandeur, so I will aquiesce and allow you to believe your own hype, oh grand button-pusher.
QuoteWhat the Breeze says has nothing to do with me. I am my own person, regardless of whether I may agree on some points with certain persons.
When did I ever make the assertion that you and user 'The_Breeze' enjoy some sort of relationship? For what purposes do you now engage in this strawman argument? I was explaining why I posted the paranthetical comments about my father, button-pusher. I guess the aphorism, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink' holds true here. Your hypothesis for WHY I posted what I did was INCORRECT. I CORRECTED it. For you to then make the illogical leap that I am insinuating some sort of relationship between you and another poster is somewhat baffling.
QuoteAgain go back and read my posts throughout this site and you'll see that I am not part of some monolithic polygraph conspiracy. I have my own ideas not always in line with others of my job.
Will you then answer my pointed questions about how you conduct that job? Do you refuse to administer CQT's? Do you alert your superiors as to the fallibility of such an unstanderdized interrogative exam?
QuoteYou are the first person to ever insinuate I have a low self esteem. In fact many say just the opposite. And here's the big news, my self esteem is in no way connected to the rise or fall of polygraph. I was highly accomplishe in my field before my move into polygraphy, and I will continue to do so when I transition back into supervising criminal investigations.
Yes, of course you will. Congratulations on all your success.
QuoteOh and why do you accuse me of knowing very little. Weren't you recently fending off similar attacks which you belittled in reply.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?? My accusation extended only to the discussion at hand between myself and 'The_Breeze'. YOU YOURSELF just posted that what that user posts has nothing to do with you. It's evident you read a late post of mine in that thread and immediately went on the attack without benefit of actually reading the entire thread. Try educating yourself before leaping in with the ad hominem attacks.
Finally, thank you for dodging the only substantive matter in this entire circuitous, wasteful argument:
QuoteHave you brough your opinions to your superiors? Or do you just keep on pluggin' away with the CQT, playing both sides of the issue, snug in your insular world as you criticise your bread & butter here?
Posted by Public Servant
- Oct 11, 2002, 12:27 AMBeech,
Look around on this site. It is only you whose buttons I push. You can't post without an angry tone. You are a magnet for abuse.
What the Breeze says has nothing to do with me. I am my own person, regardless of whether I may agree on some points with certain persons. Again go back and read my posts throughout this site and you'll see that I am not part of some monolithic polygraph conspiracy. I have my own ideas not always in line with others of my job.
You are the first person to ever insinuate I have a low self esteem. In fact many say just the opposite. And here's the big news, my self esteem is in no way connected to the rise or fall of polygraph. I was highly accomplishe in my field before my move into polygraphy, and I will continue to do so when I transition back into supervising criminal investigations.
Oh and why do you accuse me of knowing very little. Weren't you recently fending off similar attacks which you belittled in reply.
Look around on this site. It is only you whose buttons I push. You can't post without an angry tone. You are a magnet for abuse.
What the Breeze says has nothing to do with me. I am my own person, regardless of whether I may agree on some points with certain persons. Again go back and read my posts throughout this site and you'll see that I am not part of some monolithic polygraph conspiracy. I have my own ideas not always in line with others of my job.
You are the first person to ever insinuate I have a low self esteem. In fact many say just the opposite. And here's the big news, my self esteem is in no way connected to the rise or fall of polygraph. I was highly accomplishe in my field before my move into polygraphy, and I will continue to do so when I transition back into supervising criminal investigations.
Oh and why do you accuse me of knowing very little. Weren't you recently fending off similar attacks which you belittled in reply.
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 10, 2002, 11:33 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Oct 10, 2002, 04:47 AM
Beech,
Take a deep breath and calm down. All this anger is bad for your health.
'Public Servant',
Although I'm certain you delight in fancying yourself a master button pusher and something of an agent provocateur on these boards, you will be saddened to learn you are neither, at least where I'm concerned. You have never angered me, nor do I think you could even if you tried-- oh wait, you really ARE trying, aren't you?
QuoteI've picked on you enough today... I usually prefer more constructive posts, but sometimes it's just too fun getting Beech riled up. Hope you don't take it personally.
Well, regardless, your efforts to date to 'rile me up' have been ineffective to say the least.
Perhaps a more accurate description of your activity with regard to this post would be:
"In an effort to bolster my own self-esteem, I've waded into an argument of which I know very little, latched onto a bit of personal info of someone of whom I know nothing, and extrapolated a false hypothesis in an effort to discredit that someone with whom I disagree."
Do you render opinions of polygraph charts with equal zeal towards ignoring anything but your own personal feelings?
QuoteI'm not sure what difference further describing your father demographically would make. I do know that you made reference to military service and NRA because you thought it would win favor and thus prevent any insults directed at your father.
Sigh. Go back and read past posts made by the user 'The_Breeze'. He makes repeated claims of military service, hints at being a member of the NRA, and somehow wishes us to leap to the absurd conclusion that such affiliations make his unresearched opinions on the scientific validity of the polygraph more credible than mine. Tagging on my father's life experience was half joke, half sincere attempt to see 'The_Breeze' stick to the issue at hand rather than digress into ad hominem attacks as is his usual m.o. (oh, sorry to use a 'police term' there breeze).
QuoteAnd for discussion of your use of the term "wholey-discredited", please go to the thread on the NAS report. You may want to re-read the Executive Summary and also remember I am a specific issue proponent.
I see. Have you brough your opinions to your superiors? Or do you just keep on pluggin' away with the CQT, playing both sides of the issue, snug in your insular world as you criticise your bread & butter here?
Posted by Public Servant
- Oct 10, 2002, 04:47 AMBeech,
Take a deep breath and calm down. All this anger is bad for your health.
I'm not sure what difference further describing your father demographically would make. I do know that you made reference to military service and NRA because you thought it would win favor and thus prevent any insults directed at your father. (I personally have great respect for the former quality, but have mixed feelings about the latter). Though some on this site have stooped low, I don't think Mom or Dad jokes would have occurred. My point was simply: if you want to win favor by irrelevant facts, at least make them about yourself. You could have quoted the cliche without bringing up your father at all.
You must have me confused with someone else. Of course I forgot that you seem to categorize all pro-poly (perhaps even pro-government, pro-law enforcement) types into one lump. So of course when you say you, it is aimed at the evil monolith that I represent. If you look back at old threads, you are likely to see you are the only person about whom I have used such descriptions. Oh, and you said lunatic, not me.
It doesn't. Nor does that of a relative. My point exactly. And for discussion of your use of the term "wholey-discredited", please go to the thread on the NAS report. You may want to re-read the Executive Summary and also remember I am a specific issue proponent.
I won't touch the blind squirrel thing any further. I've picked on you enough today. I just wanted to let you all know that I'm still around, though I have not recently posted. I usually prefer more constructive posts, but sometimes it's just too fun getting Beech riled up. Hope you don't take it personally. As I told George once, maybe someday over a beer...
Take a deep breath and calm down. All this anger is bad for your health.
QuoteFortunately for me, I didn't include several of my dad's demographics in my post for such a purpose. Regardless of my strong feelings of love and respect for my father and his intelligence, his military service and association with the NRA makes him no more qualified than I to criticise the recently-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Quote
I'm not sure what difference further describing your father demographically would make. I do know that you made reference to military service and NRA because you thought it would win favor and thus prevent any insults directed at your father. (I personally have great respect for the former quality, but have mixed feelings about the latter). Though some on this site have stooped low, I don't think Mom or Dad jokes would have occurred. My point was simply: if you want to win favor by irrelevant facts, at least make them about yourself. You could have quoted the cliche without bringing up your father at all.
QuoteRantings? Oh that's right, I forgot-- everyone who disagrees with you is a ranting lunatic.
Quote
You must have me confused with someone else. Of course I forgot that you seem to categorize all pro-poly (perhaps even pro-government, pro-law enforcement) types into one lump. So of course when you say you, it is aimed at the evil monolith that I represent. If you look back at old threads, you are likely to see you are the only person about whom I have used such descriptions. Oh, and you said lunatic, not me.
QuotePerhaps you could explain how a military record would make one more knowledgeable about the recently and wholey-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy?
Quote
It doesn't. Nor does that of a relative. My point exactly. And for discussion of your use of the term "wholey-discredited", please go to the thread on the NAS report. You may want to re-read the Executive Summary and also remember I am a specific issue proponent.
I won't touch the blind squirrel thing any further. I've picked on you enough today. I just wanted to let you all know that I'm still around, though I have not recently posted. I usually prefer more constructive posts, but sometimes it's just too fun getting Beech riled up. Hope you don't take it personally. As I told George once, maybe someday over a beer...
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 10, 2002, 03:11 AMQuote from: Public Servant on Oct 10, 2002, 01:11 AMYou, know Ted Williams was also a Marine Aviator and war hero -- a man I admired both in sport and for his call to serve his country. However, his children have done a great job recently of making a public mockery of themselves and their father's memory. In other words, your father being a hero doesn't lend anymore credibility to you.
Fortunately for me, I didn't include several of my dad's demographics in my post for such a purpose. Regardless of my strong feelings of love and respect for my father and his intelligence, his military service and association with the NRA makes him no more qualified than I to criticise the recently-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy.
QuotePerhaps if you had such credentials of service to your country to share, it would lend a little more credibility (or at least forgiveness) to your rantings.
Rantings? Oh that's right, I forgot-- everyone who disagrees with you is a ranting lunatic. I seek neither your forgiveness nor your admiration for my service to my country.
Perhaps you could explain how a military record would make one more knowledgeable about the recently and wholey-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy?
QuoteWhen you heard your father use this term, who was the "blind squirrel" he was most often describing?
Any quarterback for the Washington Redskins, going back to approximately 1979.
Posted by Public Servant
- Oct 10, 2002, 01:11 AMI have been reading the posts on this thread and for the most part it has been most enjoyable -- Downright hilarious at some points.
The first point I would like to make (though somewhat delayed) is that I in no way share Batman's view that jurors are idiots. Juries are diverse in all ways to include intellectual ability. However, potential jurors with expertise in areas of law and investigation are excluded from juries for obvious reasons. Therefore, jurors are sometimes susceptible to defense attorney pleas to ignore solid evidence. This is what often inflames LE types into making such comments. This fact about jurors also plays into the discussion of if suspect interviews should be taped and used as evidence. There are also issues of admissibility of things said, since the interviewer might imply existence of evidence in the interview. Thus portions of a taped interview might cause the jurors hearing the interview to believe the evidence exists (though it may or may not) and be prejudicial to the defense.
Also, to Beech:
You, know Ted Williams was also a Marine Aviator and war hero -- a man I admired both in sport and for his call to serve his country. However, his children have done a great job recently of making a public mockery of themselves and their father's memory. In other words, your father being a hero doesn't lend anymore credibility to you. Perhaps if you had such credentials of service to your country to share, it would lend a little more credibility (or at least forgiveness) to your rantings.
When you heard your father use this term, who was the "blind squirrel" he was most often describing?
The first point I would like to make (though somewhat delayed) is that I in no way share Batman's view that jurors are idiots. Juries are diverse in all ways to include intellectual ability. However, potential jurors with expertise in areas of law and investigation are excluded from juries for obvious reasons. Therefore, jurors are sometimes susceptible to defense attorney pleas to ignore solid evidence. This is what often inflames LE types into making such comments. This fact about jurors also plays into the discussion of if suspect interviews should be taped and used as evidence. There are also issues of admissibility of things said, since the interviewer might imply existence of evidence in the interview. Thus portions of a taped interview might cause the jurors hearing the interview to believe the evidence exists (though it may or may not) and be prejudicial to the defense.
Also, to Beech:
QuoteMy Dad is fond of saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time." That saying applies perfectly with your guilty suspect confessing. And before your broad strokes of epithets reach my father, I will tell you that he is a retired Marine aviator, a Korean war vet, and a lifetime member of the NRA.
Quote
You, know Ted Williams was also a Marine Aviator and war hero -- a man I admired both in sport and for his call to serve his country. However, his children have done a great job recently of making a public mockery of themselves and their father's memory. In other words, your father being a hero doesn't lend anymore credibility to you. Perhaps if you had such credentials of service to your country to share, it would lend a little more credibility (or at least forgiveness) to your rantings.
When you heard your father use this term, who was the "blind squirrel" he was most often describing?
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 09, 2002, 04:42 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Oct 09, 2002, 04:27 PMIt gets worse...several don't even use CQT -- they're still in the dark ages with R/I.
There is no longer any defensible basis for continuing CT polygraph screening at the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA, FBI, DOE, MI, etc or for employee/applicant screening at these organizations and the ATF, USSS, DEA, Customs, etc, or any state or local PD in the country, or the nonsense associated with post conviction testing of convicted sex offenders. The NAS report has provided the evidence and the roadmap—get ready to have your world rocked...
I have a sneaking suspicion they already knew the polygraph was bunk for screening, so they didn't bother with anything more "advanced" than R/I...
Skeptic
Posted by Anonymous
- Oct 09, 2002, 04:27 PMTouche,
I did not question that such a quote might not have existed, but that you did not/have not presented it in any context, and initially presented it without source attribution. What was your rush to do so? Do you really have any question what David Lykken's position is regarding polygraph screening?? If so, you must have existed on the far side of the moon for the last forty years. Nevertheless--no longer (if ever) an important issue...such a quote is the proverbial pimple on the elephant's behind. Have you managed to look at the new elephant that has invaded your playground--the NAS report that completely and forever debunks polygraph screening as a diagnostic instrument?? There is no longer any defensible basis for continuing CT polygraph screening at the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA, FBI, DOE, MI, etc or for employee/applicant screening at these organizations and the ATF, USSS, DEA, Customs, etc, or any state or local PD in the country, or the nonsense associated with post conviction testing of convicted sex offenders. The NAS report has provided the evidence and the roadmap—get ready to have your world rocked...
I did not question that such a quote might not have existed, but that you did not/have not presented it in any context, and initially presented it without source attribution. What was your rush to do so? Do you really have any question what David Lykken's position is regarding polygraph screening?? If so, you must have existed on the far side of the moon for the last forty years. Nevertheless--no longer (if ever) an important issue...such a quote is the proverbial pimple on the elephant's behind. Have you managed to look at the new elephant that has invaded your playground--the NAS report that completely and forever debunks polygraph screening as a diagnostic instrument?? There is no longer any defensible basis for continuing CT polygraph screening at the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA, FBI, DOE, MI, etc or for employee/applicant screening at these organizations and the ATF, USSS, DEA, Customs, etc, or any state or local PD in the country, or the nonsense associated with post conviction testing of convicted sex offenders. The NAS report has provided the evidence and the roadmap—get ready to have your world rocked...
Posted by touche
- Oct 09, 2002, 03:51 PMQuote from: Anonmyous on Oct 08, 2002, 01:36 AM
Touche,
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Dear Anonymous.....I do not think an apology is in order, but this was not nonsense...Dr. Lykken did in fact say this...Gosh do you think this will affect his credibility with you folks who get great pleasure in bashing the polygraph at every turn....you can't play on both sides of the street....Oh, by the way...here is the source attribution:
Psychology Today, 1974 (March)
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 09, 2002, 11:26 AMChew on this, the_breeze et. al.:
"There has been no serious effort by the US Governement to develop the scientific base for the psychophysiological detection of deception by the polygraph or any other technique, even though criticisms of the polygraph's scientific foundation have been raised prominently for decades. The reason for this failure is primarily structural. Because polygraph and other related research is managed and supported by national security and law enforcement agencies that do not operate in a culture of science to meet the needs of detecting deception and that also believe in and are commited to the polygraph, this research is not structured within these agencies to give basic science its appropriate place in the development of techniques for the physiological detection of deception."
I find it irritating and hypocritical that I be accused of lacking knowledge on this subject simply because I am not a Primary Source of (some of) the information I post. As far as I'm concerned, the pro-polygraph law enforcement types on this board better keep up the home-owner's insurance on their glass houses.
Dave
"There has been no serious effort by the US Governement to develop the scientific base for the psychophysiological detection of deception by the polygraph or any other technique, even though criticisms of the polygraph's scientific foundation have been raised prominently for decades. The reason for this failure is primarily structural. Because polygraph and other related research is managed and supported by national security and law enforcement agencies that do not operate in a culture of science to meet the needs of detecting deception and that also believe in and are commited to the polygraph, this research is not structured within these agencies to give basic science its appropriate place in the development of techniques for the physiological detection of deception."
I find it irritating and hypocritical that I be accused of lacking knowledge on this subject simply because I am not a Primary Source of (some of) the information I post. As far as I'm concerned, the pro-polygraph law enforcement types on this board better keep up the home-owner's insurance on their glass houses.
Dave
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 08, 2002, 02:50 AMQuote from: Anonmyous on Oct 08, 2002, 01:36 AM
Touche,
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Anonymous,
I wouldn't count your chickens just yet, but I too am looking forward to the report.
Skeptic
Posted by Anonmyous
- Oct 08, 2002, 01:36 AMTouche,
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Posted by touche
- Oct 08, 2002, 12:52 AMI expect someone will challenge me on the source of this quotation....it is coming..I just wanted to post it......
"Because of the great attraction police work has for the psychopath and other dangerous types, polygraphic screening for jobs on the police force or for other sensitive occupations may be in the public interest."
Dr. David Lykken
"Because of the great attraction police work has for the psychopath and other dangerous types, polygraphic screening for jobs on the police force or for other sensitive occupations may be in the public interest."
Dr. David Lykken
Posted by beech trees
- Oct 07, 2002, 10:15 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Oct 04, 2002, 04:06 PMMy point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here.
I see. Hmm.... An interesting new theory on why you don't have to answer direct questions posed to you. If I am to understand your tortured logic, I also may not make comments about the negative impact rape has on women, because not only have I never raped anyone, I have never been raped, and can only point to psychological textbooks to support my assertion that rape hurts a person physically and mentally.
I may not make the assertion that slavery is a heinous institution because I have never owned slaves, nor have I been a slave. I can only point to the sordid history of the slave trade in the United States (which I read about in books), which apparently leaves me unqualified to challenge someone who promotes slavery. "Have YOU ever owned a slave? Well, then I don't have to answer YOUR questions, you rank amateur!"
I guess comments and questions about the Constitution are right out also, since I didn't author it. Oh well......
And apparently, most incredibly of all, questions I pose about the validity of the polygraph may be dodged because (according to you) I am not a law enforcement officer of (in your eyes) equal stature.
Tell me, are you dodging my direct question concerning Edward Curran's televised statements for the same reason, because you don't like who is asking the question? You remember that question, right? It's the yes-or-no answer one you took two lengthy paragraphs to explain you were far too busy to answer.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Oct 07, 2002, 05:02 PMSkeptic
Regardless, I would like to hear (in a general way) how you fared, what your impression was of your process and results. Im sure others would want specific details of any countermeasure attempt you made.
Im not sure why, but I dont think you intend to use any.
Anyway, I hope in your case you end up where you want to be.
Regardless, I would like to hear (in a general way) how you fared, what your impression was of your process and results. Im sure others would want specific details of any countermeasure attempt you made.
Im not sure why, but I dont think you intend to use any.
Anyway, I hope in your case you end up where you want to be.