- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 25, 2002, 11:22 PMQuote from: the breeze on Nov 25, 2002, 05:54 PM
Beech Trees
I am not sure if you finally felt a need to prove you are not a desk bound geek or what caused your latest incident of venting, but Im sure we all admire you. I do not believe I seriously talk about dangers I have faced, but you on the other hand may feel you need to prove something. If I have brought up the issue of background, it is because some one that has experience with the polygraph (to me at least) has more credibility when talking about the manner in which it is used.
Breeze,
By any chance, do you have more than one person posting under your name? You seem very unaware of what "you" have posted previously or the context in which people reply to you. In a prior post, "The Breeze" did indeed taunt Beech Trees regarding danger he's faced, saying that "calling [you] a liar" was about the closest he's come to danger.
At the very least, you are sometimes extremely unclear.
Skeptic
Posted by the breeze
- Nov 25, 2002, 05:54 PMBeech Trees
I am not sure if you finally felt a need to prove you are not a desk bound geek or what caused your latest incident of venting, but Im sure we all admire you. I do not believe I seriously talk about dangers I have faced, but you on the other hand may feel you need to prove something. If I have brought up the issue of background, it is because some one that has experience with the polygraph (to me at least) has more credibility when talking about the manner in which it is used. You have instead taken this to mean that I or others are comparing our courage, character, or worth of profession to yours. I have no idea if you are a lion or a weasel, but I do know that you will borrow a passage from a traitor like Ames (Aftergood letter) rather than provide something original. What you do lack in experience you make up for in hysteria and that is why people interact with you poorly. I will just ignore your personal remarks in the last post where you made yourself look like an ass. If you want a lesson in communication without condescension, see most of fair chances responses or even Mark M's. As for replying to me, you have nothing I need.
George?
Since we understand that you are the reserve officer who asked to remain anonymous (asked who?) please explain why you felt it necessary to caution me on authorship. I am who I said I am, as you know. But how can we believe any testamonial presented here in these circumstances? and why not just be up front?? By the way on this topic, what did the agency fail you for, since it was not a test for espionage.
If you want, I can approach my Sheriff about an honorary commission in the reserves, or maybe the mounted patrol. Let me know.
Your other site is quite interesting...
Pissing on nettles indeed!
I am not sure if you finally felt a need to prove you are not a desk bound geek or what caused your latest incident of venting, but Im sure we all admire you. I do not believe I seriously talk about dangers I have faced, but you on the other hand may feel you need to prove something. If I have brought up the issue of background, it is because some one that has experience with the polygraph (to me at least) has more credibility when talking about the manner in which it is used. You have instead taken this to mean that I or others are comparing our courage, character, or worth of profession to yours. I have no idea if you are a lion or a weasel, but I do know that you will borrow a passage from a traitor like Ames (Aftergood letter) rather than provide something original. What you do lack in experience you make up for in hysteria and that is why people interact with you poorly. I will just ignore your personal remarks in the last post where you made yourself look like an ass. If you want a lesson in communication without condescension, see most of fair chances responses or even Mark M's. As for replying to me, you have nothing I need.
George?
Since we understand that you are the reserve officer who asked to remain anonymous (asked who?) please explain why you felt it necessary to caution me on authorship. I am who I said I am, as you know. But how can we believe any testamonial presented here in these circumstances? and why not just be up front?? By the way on this topic, what did the agency fail you for, since it was not a test for espionage.
If you want, I can approach my Sheriff about an honorary commission in the reserves, or maybe the mounted patrol. Let me know.
Your other site is quite interesting...
Pissing on nettles indeed!
Posted by intheknow
- Nov 21, 2002, 11:41 PMDep Dawg,
FYI, if you search the archives of the (I think) Washington Post (maybe the NY Times), Late 1999/early 2000, I do believe you will find an interview conducted with GM concerning polygraph. In this interview the ever mysterious Capt Jones is reveled to be our beloved founder George Maschake.
PS: George update your photo on the UCLA web site http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/
FYI, if you search the archives of the (I think) Washington Post (maybe the NY Times), Late 1999/early 2000, I do believe you will find an interview conducted with GM concerning polygraph. In this interview the ever mysterious Capt Jones is reveled to be our beloved founder George Maschake.
PS: George update your photo on the UCLA web site http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/
Posted by beech trees
- Nov 21, 2002, 06:22 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Nov 21, 2002, 03:14 PM
BT
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down.
It is your fabrication, not mine The Breeze, when you write 'intellectual inferior'. Please do not attribute words or thoughts to me that I have not written.
QuoteYour cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard.
Your characterization, not mine.
QuoteThis is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you.
My goodness detective, are YOU about to lecture me on the rules of decorum? Is there no end to the depths of your arrogance?
QuoteI believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post.
No, I did not detective. I merely questioned seeming inconsistencies within your first few posts and asked for clarification. What is the problem with that?
QuoteIm sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face.
I've made it a consistent rule to not comment in any way about my profession nor my life experiences, because (as I have always asserted), they bring nothing to the validity of the debate surrounding the abuse of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy-- not to mention the fact that my stance could, if discovered, bring an end to my chosen career. Nevertheless, you caught me in an especially cranky mood, breeze.
On September 14th of last year I led a three man team onto the pile that was formerly known as The World Trade Center. The group with whom I went to New York handed out Ultrathermic torches (which burn at 8900 degrees instead of 1800 like an acetylene torch). We handed out IR pole cams, which had a chest monitor and a pole that would extend to about fifteen feet... these could be probed in the pile to see if there were bodies or hazards before they were uncovered. We gased, oiled and handed out small portable generators that could be taken on the pile to run light equipment. We taught ESU and firefighters going on the pile how to use the equipment. We also took the equipment from those coming off the pile, refilled the oxygen tanks, replaced the used batteries with new recharged batteries and re-outfitted the new guys going on the pile. In addition, I worked two thirty-six hour shifts at Ground Zero NYC excavating and searching for survivors.
Guess what? None of the above means jack to our discussion here-- just like the number of times you've faced danger yourself likewise means jack. It's irrelavent. Batman is fond of the piss analogy, so I'll use it here-- it's a pissing contest that has no bearing whatsoever on these discussions.
Posted by beech trees
- Nov 21, 2002, 05:54 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Nov 19, 2002, 05:05 PMIm imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
I find your posts quite lucrative.
QuoteAnd since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?
To the best of my recollection you have only raised one ethical 'conundrum' here, one of your very first postings questioning the ethics of using countermeasures (and by necessity lying about their use) when applying for federal law enforcement (FBI I think). When thoughtful replies concerning that aspect of polygrapy were posted, you somehow morphed our responses into a discussion about the court-sanctioned technique of lying to suspects, or undercover law enforcement lying during the course of an investigation-- a cognitive leap that still leaves me scratching my head.
QuoteHow could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site?
Indeed, how could you? The fact that your vituperative, non-stop boorish spew reflects badly on your character, your department, and most importantly your intelligence would be of little importance to you since you hold everyone on these boards who does not think exactly the way you do (or indeed, is not similiarly employed and does not have the same political affiliations) in utter contempt. I ask you, given the transparency of your loathing, why should we likewise care what you have to say?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2002, 04:03 PMBreeze,
You write in part:
As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings (including your own).
You write in part:
QuoteDeputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder. Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission! It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation. So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.
As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings (including your own).
Posted by Anonymous
- Nov 21, 2002, 03:36 PMWow Breeze...another amazingly short week since we last were subjected to inane commentary from you. Perhaps in the next week (
) you might care to peruse the NAS panel report. It might suggest something meaningful for you to bring to our attention... With regard to your stated intended behavior regarding frequency of message board posts and your credibility deriving from actual practice, I personally could care less. It is not your credibility with regular contributors to this site that is at stake for you though but with those not aligned and whom you might care to influence and who might consider the apparent (or lack thereof) stability of your thoughts and intentions...
) you might care to peruse the NAS panel report. It might suggest something meaningful for you to bring to our attention... With regard to your stated intended behavior regarding frequency of message board posts and your credibility deriving from actual practice, I personally could care less. It is not your credibility with regular contributors to this site that is at stake for you though but with those not aligned and whom you might care to influence and who might consider the apparent (or lack thereof) stability of your thoughts and intentions...Posted by The_Breeze
- Nov 21, 2002, 03:14 PMBT
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down. Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard. This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you. I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post. Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face. I will let others decide if you could ever have anything original to bring here.
Skeptic wonders if I want to debate the polygraph. Check my posts for my interests. I have always been mystified at the sloppy legal advice and guidance given by a few posters here to applicants and others, who are merely trying to educate themselves and unfortunately landed here. My focus has been the ethical considerations, more than the technical. (which I am not qualified to comment on)
Far from being ashamed at what I have written friend skeptic, perhaps someone who has not bought into the victim mindset in vogue here will actually think and consider before gratuitously clenching thier buttcheeks or attempting to manipulate thier breathing. But I think you know this, when you make your attempts to marginalize my comments.
But lets talk about something else, if anonymous agrees.
Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder. Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission! It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation. So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down. Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard. This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you. I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post. Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face. I will let others decide if you could ever have anything original to bring here.
Skeptic wonders if I want to debate the polygraph. Check my posts for my interests. I have always been mystified at the sloppy legal advice and guidance given by a few posters here to applicants and others, who are merely trying to educate themselves and unfortunately landed here. My focus has been the ethical considerations, more than the technical. (which I am not qualified to comment on)
Far from being ashamed at what I have written friend skeptic, perhaps someone who has not bought into the victim mindset in vogue here will actually think and consider before gratuitously clenching thier buttcheeks or attempting to manipulate thier breathing. But I think you know this, when you make your attempts to marginalize my comments.
But lets talk about something else, if anonymous agrees.
Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder. Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission! It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation. So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.
Posted by beech trees
- Nov 19, 2002, 05:37 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Nov 19, 2002, 05:05 PM
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit. Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?
To my knowledge, I have never made an ad hominem attack on these boards in lieu of a reasoned counterpoint to an argument in which I am engaged. If you would care to point out where I have done so, I'd be happy to reconsider that position. When the debate breaks down (as it inevitably does when you or one of your ilk becomes frustrated that the smoke-and-mirrors crap that you're taught to say in polygraph school results in howls of laughter from our side), I usually try to refrain at least for a little while from wallowing in the gratuitous insults.... however...
Pinhead replies beget fullbore retorts. I don't back down from the debate and I certainly don't back down when the bullying starts from your side.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 19, 2002, 05:24 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Nov 19, 2002, 05:05 PM
Skeptic....nice dodge. No one noticed, really.
I'm sorry, Breeze -- was there a point to your complaint about my posting methodology, aside from avoiding what I wrote to you?
QuoteWill you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit. Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?
In fact, IIRC, I have criticized ad hominem attacks made against pro-polygraph people. Of course, "everyone does it" is hardly a defense, wouldn't you agree?
Skeptic
Posted by The_Breeze
- Nov 19, 2002, 05:05 PMAnon.
I believe I have recently said I would minimize involvement.
Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected? How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site? some here need this for validation, some say its relaxing, others say they just like to argue.
Nothing any of you say affects me in the least, and Im sure I wont be on the calendar when it gets published.
Skeptic....nice dodge. No one noticed, really.
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit. Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?
I believe I have recently said I would minimize involvement.
Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected? How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site? some here need this for validation, some say its relaxing, others say they just like to argue.
Nothing any of you say affects me in the least, and Im sure I wont be on the calendar when it gets published.
Skeptic....nice dodge. No one noticed, really.
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit. Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?
Posted by Anonymous
- Nov 19, 2002, 04:26 PMBreeze,
If memory serves correctly, on at least two occasions in the past you have informed us you were leaving us (message board participation) for more meaningful pursuit with the intention of not returning to those who you generally characterized as not appreciating your input. The merits of that input not withstanding, I believe your continual "bad penny" returning act has led to a credibility problem for you (Are you hoping if you do this enough we will eventually beg you to stay??). By contrast nothing, including your cowardly and libelous innuendo, has in any way tarnished George's credibility, unlike your own words that have tarnished yours.
If memory serves correctly, on at least two occasions in the past you have informed us you were leaving us (message board participation) for more meaningful pursuit with the intention of not returning to those who you generally characterized as not appreciating your input. The merits of that input not withstanding, I believe your continual "bad penny" returning act has led to a credibility problem for you (Are you hoping if you do this enough we will eventually beg you to stay??). By contrast nothing, including your cowardly and libelous innuendo, has in any way tarnished George's credibility, unlike your own words that have tarnished yours.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 19, 2002, 04:14 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Nov 19, 2002, 04:06 PM
Skeptic
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about. Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity! I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams". In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion. You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??
Sigh. did you bother to read anything from what I posted, Breeze?
Anything at all?
Really, I was trying to make things as easy for you as I could...rather than post links, I even brought the relevant information here to you for your perusal.
Obviously, it was my mistake to assume you are interested in honest debate regarding the polygraph. Others have evidently picked up on this; I must be a slow learner.
Skeptic
Posted by The_Breeze
- Nov 19, 2002, 04:06 PMSkeptic
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about. Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity! I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams". In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion. You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about. Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity! I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams". In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion. You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 19, 2002, 03:49 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Nov 19, 2002, 03:30 PM
As if someones background, ethics and history would never have a bearing on what they espouse currently.
Breeze,
You'll note that no one has claimed the above -- someone's background may indeed have a bearing on what they espouse. You have simply failed to show how George's background has anything to do with his arguments here. That's called argumentum ad hominem.
For your reading enjoyment, here is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)
Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.
References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80
George didn't come up with the idea that the polygraph is flawed and easily beaten, nor is he remotely alone in his claim that he was wrongly tagged as deceptive. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences said just this in their recent report. Thus,
your assertion that his character in any way influences his message is completely bogus and ad hominem on its face.
And since you said people here claim background never has anything to do with the positions they espouse, let me add the following:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm
Straw Man
Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
Examples:
(i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
Canada.
(ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
should realize that there are more important things than
convenience.
Proof:
Show that the opposition's argument has been
misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
argument. Describe the stronger argument.
References
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138