- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Nov 04, 2002, 12:21 AMQuote from: Doug Williams on Nov 03, 2002, 05:38 PM
Skeptic: You seem to have something to say about or to me on a fairly regular basis - but unlike you when I post anything on the board I use my own name.
As to what George and Gino have said about my technique in their book, it is pretty close - not plagarism, but close. However, it does not have many of the important points that are in my revised edition.
Doug Williams
Doug, I have seen your site and find it a reasonably set up commercial venture. As such, you are maximally motivated to keep current with the thinking and practice in the polygraph community. Thus, were I facing a polygraph I would buy and download your product to get a broader view than that presented here. A principal reason is to decide whether I would lie and use countermeasures or simply tell the truth about what I have learned about the deceptive practices of polygraphers and state "gentlemen, I am neither willing to deceive or be deceived"
Still, I very much respect George for putting the incredible effort into maintaining a classy, and accurate* site. True "positives" tend to slink away. George didn't.
Also, Georges' site has the highest level of discourse I have found. I really wish I could find intelligent conversation on a pro-polygraph site. It clearly is difficult to maintain the fiction AND have a decent conversation about the true value of the polygraph in a public arena.
*accurate: As best as I can tell having read Kleiner (2002) and various interrogation books that also highlight the polygraph.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 03, 2002, 11:56 PMQuote from: Doug Williams on Nov 03, 2002, 05:38 PM
Skeptic: You seem to have something to say about or to me on a fairly regular basis - but unlike you when I post anything on the board I use my own name.
Do I? In fact, I believe this is the first time I've mentioned Mr. Williams or his work -- which is fairly easy to verify by searching the message boards.
For the record, I have no problem with Doug Williams or his book, and have never said otherwise. In fact, I'm glad his work is out there; it's one more nail in the coffin of polygraphy.
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether the above person is truly "Doug Williams", since he posted anonymously as a "guest". Anyone may post under the same name with impunity.
By contrast, my posts may always be identified by the fact that I am a registered user posting under the name, "Skeptic".
Regardless, I'm sure Doug Williams understands the desire for some anonymity when it comes to this topic, as he has indicated on his web site.
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 03, 2002, 11:34 PMQuote from: Doug Williams on Nov 03, 2002, 05:38 PM
Skeptic: ?You seem to have something to say about or to me on a fairly regular basis - but unlike you when I post anything on the board I use my own name.
As to what George and Gino have said about my technique in their book, it is pretty close - not plagarism, but close. However, it does not have many of the important points that are in my revised edition.
Doug Williams :-/
Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defines "plagiarize" thus: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (a created production) without crediting the source ~ vi to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source."
Gino Scalabrini and I did not plagiarize Mr. Williams's manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph," which is one of many sources we relied on in researching The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Our book is well-referenced throughout, and we cite Mr. Williams's manual where we have relied on it.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Nov 03, 2002, 05:38 PMSkeptic: You seem to have something to say about or to me on a fairly regular basis - but unlike you when I post anything on the board I use my own name.
As to what George and Gino have said about my technique in their book, it is pretty close - not plagarism, but close. However, it does not have many of the important points that are in my revised edition.
Doug Williams :-/
As to what George and Gino have said about my technique in their book, it is pretty close - not plagarism, but close. However, it does not have many of the important points that are in my revised edition.
Doug Williams :-/
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 03, 2002, 01:46 AMQuote from: tracedbybeech on Nov 02, 2002, 11:55 PM
Fortunately the countermeasure booklet by Doug Williams has not been translated for the terrorists yet, and those who use his method, WHICH IS DIFFERENT AND WORTH PAYING FOR, are not caught as frequently as the morons who download this booklet. The people who wrote this thing are only bitter losers who failed the poly, and Doug is a former polygrapher.
Doug, such bald advertising is ill-befitting
Seriously, those who have reviewed both documents have noted the methodology taught is essentially the same. Readers can judge for themselves how comprehensive and well-researched is The Lie Behind the Lie Detector; it is available for free downloading here:
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Evidently, this book is good enough to be used by the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in discussing countermeasures, as is Doug Williams' work.
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 03, 2002, 01:04 AMQuote from: Marty on Nov 02, 2002, 08:21 PM
George, do you have any estimate of the reasons visitors come to this site? I'm curious if you have seen a change in the ratio of pre-poly and post-poly visitors. Of course there are also the poly people themselves. Some are active FUD spreaders. Then there are the terminally curious that get fascinated in the way such a thing is used and abused by society.
-Marty
Marty,
No, I have no such estimate. The great majority of people who visit AntiPolygraph.org do not post on the message board or e-mail us. What I have noticed is that the number of visits to AntiPolygraph.org roughly doubled between our first year on-line and the second, and that upward trend seems to be continuing.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 03, 2002, 12:38 AMQuote from: Seeker on Nov 02, 2002, 11:56 PM
Once again biggotry abounds. The overwhelming view of the USA held overseas had been one of great respect. USA has been, and still is, considered by many countries to be fair, just, and equitable.
A wrong is a wrong. It does not see race, sex, national origin, religion, or any other factors. Every human being has basic rights. Those rights were the foundation of the great USA.
Translate on in every language around the globe where this nonsense has a hold!
Than, is a duty to the human race.
I'm with you, Seeker: it's time to ignore this low-functioning fool. There's nothing in his posts that really requires refuting, anyway -- the average reader can see his small-minded bigotry for what it is.
He's had more than enough chances to contribute something meaningful. Time to move on.
Skeptic
Posted by Seeker
- Nov 02, 2002, 11:56 PMOnce again biggotry abounds. The overwhelming view of the USA held overseas had been one of great respect. USA has been, and still is, considered by many countries to be fair, just, and equitable.
A wrong is a wrong. It does not see race, sex, national origin, religion, or any other factors. Every human being has basic rights. Those rights were the foundation of the great USA.
Translate on in every language around the globe where this nonsense has a hold!
Than, is a duty to the human race.
A wrong is a wrong. It does not see race, sex, national origin, religion, or any other factors. Every human being has basic rights. Those rights were the foundation of the great USA.
Translate on in every language around the globe where this nonsense has a hold!
Than, is a duty to the human race.
Posted by tracedbybeech
- Nov 02, 2002, 11:55 PMGeorge and Seeker believe it is important to publish this booklet in Arabic to help Al Queda. Fortunately the countermeasure booklet by Doug Williams has not been translated for the terrorists yet, and those who use his method, WHICH IS DIFFERENT AND WORTH PAYING FOR, are not caught as frequently as the morons who download this booklet. The people who wrote this thing are only bitter losers who failed the poly, and Doug is a former polygrapher.
Posted by Seeker
- Nov 02, 2002, 10:45 PMpolylawman-
Kussomak
Kussomak
Posted by polylawman
- Nov 02, 2002, 09:14 PMHi George.
I read your post an translating your book. I can translate into Arabic for you and post it.
After I post it maybe we can email it to our terrorist friends in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. Don't you think thats a good idea George. Or didn't you think about that. Or maybe you did think about it.
I read your post an translating your book. I can translate into Arabic for you and post it.
After I post it maybe we can email it to our terrorist friends in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. Don't you think thats a good idea George. Or didn't you think about that. Or maybe you did think about it.
Posted by Marty
- Nov 02, 2002, 08:21 PMQuote from: ratpatrol on Nov 02, 2002, 06:21 PM
Through your gratuitous ad hominem attacks against Rat Patrol, you have merely succeeded in exposing you as a small-minded, malicious bigot. Your regrettable conduct here reflects poorly upon yourself and the polygraph community.
When you copied George's post and slightly altered it you forget to proofread. Thanks for the laugh.
George, do you have any estimate of the reasons visitors come to this site? I'm curious if you have seen a change in the ratio of pre-poly and post-poly visitors. Of course there are also the poly people themselves. Some are active FUD spreaders. Then there are the terminally curious that get fascinated in the way such a thing is used and abused by society.
-Marty
Posted by ratpatrol
- Nov 02, 2002, 06:21 PMQuoteSo basically, you know nothing of the polygraph or the subject matter we're discussing. You're just here to play games and spew racist crap.
Are you telling us that we can't even get dumb polygraphers to visit us now? We're reduced to incursions from the KKK?
I'm almost hurt.
Skeptic
Through your gratuitous ad hominem attacks against Rat Patrol, you have merely succeeded in exposing you as a small-minded, malicious bigot. Your regrettable conduct here reflects poorly upon yourself and the polygraph community.
By the way, did you pass the poly, Skeptic?
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 02, 2002, 06:06 PMQuote from: ratpatrol on Nov 02, 2002, 05:57 PM
I am not a polygrapher, and have no idea what one would do in that situation. Seems in the testimony on this board, people have LIED and said they did not research polygraph.
So basically, you know nothing of the polygraph or the subject matter we're discussing. You're just here to play games and spew racist crap.
Are you telling us that we can't even get dumb polygraphers to visit us now? We're reduced to incursions from the KKK?
I'm almost hurt.
Skeptic
Posted by ratpatrol
- Nov 02, 2002, 05:57 PMI am not a polygrapher, and have no idea what one would do in that situation. Seems in the testimony on this board, people have LIED and said they did not research polygraph.