- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Hector Olivera
- Aug 10, 2015, 04:16 PMYou offer a great service
Posted by The_Breeze
- Dec 09, 2002, 12:22 PMMark
Ok thanks. Ill read your statement before making any other comments, or asking questions.
Ok thanks. Ill read your statement before making any other comments, or asking questions.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Dec 06, 2002, 08:43 PMQuoteOn a serious note ( I have not read your personal statement ) what type of test were you given in your ordeal, I presume you failed a specific issue test?
Breeze,
It was a CQT screening test, followed by a few more screening tests.
By the end of the investigation, I had been given a CQT, a directed lie, a peak of tension, a relevant-irrelevant, a stim test, and maybe a few others I blanked out of memory. None was a specific issue CQT.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Dec 06, 2002, 08:32 PMMark
I must confess your evidence seems shakey. I think you took me to task for good investigative procedure and now your merely working like a street cop! Welcome back to LE mark, we could use you. I bet you could pass a screening test to get back in!
On a serious note ( I have not read your personal statement ) what type of test were you given in your ordeal, I presume you failed a specific issue test?
I must confess your evidence seems shakey. I think you took me to task for good investigative procedure and now your merely working like a street cop! Welcome back to LE mark, we could use you. I bet you could pass a screening test to get back in!
On a serious note ( I have not read your personal statement ) what type of test were you given in your ordeal, I presume you failed a specific issue test?
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Dec 05, 2002, 07:07 PMQuoteAnd Mark, I am so disappointed in you, here you purport to have been an attorney and an FBI agent, and the best you cn come up with is a "similarity" in the way words were typed (caps vs lower case) OUCH! Besides, why are you so interested in who I am?
An American,
I am disappointed in you that you are so disappointed in me. I would have thought you would have applauded my suspicion as a good law enforcement trait (which I believe it is, don't you?). Or is it just suspicion of others that's OK?
Notice too that I never stated you were Robin Hood. I cited some facts in place that may suggest it, but it's uncertain. It seems uncertainty is a concept shunned by many polygraphers (it appears you missed it too).
But they will soon have to embrace it, because at the end of a polygraph session without a credible confession, one must be uncertain, based on the charts alone, as to whether the subject was deceptive or not.
Whether you are or are not Robin Hood would not tell anyone your identity. And I agree, it doesn't matter who you are.
I was just engaging, as I believe Skeptic was too, in some half-serious amusement.
Posted by Anonymous
- Dec 05, 2002, 02:23 PMAn American,
I suspect that you have fallen into the truth and that Robin Hood's post (which may or may not be an illegal act itself) does lead one via a link to a copyright violation (a criminal violation). This, though, is neither your nor Mr. Maschke's responsibility to independently determine. If Mr. Williams believes such has occurred (i.e., his material has been properly copyrighted and that copyright has been infringed upon, he (Mr. Williams) should contact proper authorities and when those proper authorities in due course advise Mr. Maschke that they believe a violation of law has taken place, no doubt Mr. Maschke when properly advised (and requested to do so) will remove that (Robin Hood post) which might further said violation. Any removal prior to such time would only set a very poor precedent and allow anyone who did want censorship to scurrilously litter the message board landscape with questionable posts and then call for broad removal of material.
The issue of censorship arises in connection with your name, not because you appear to be a pro-polygraph spokesperson and because we are unaware of a single pro-polygraph site that does not practice censorship, but because of your complete lack of thought process, ensuing reckless allegations and would be censorship regarding the material connected with that which has been entitled Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection. You have only yourself to blame for the perceptions you have created.
I suspect that you have fallen into the truth and that Robin Hood's post (which may or may not be an illegal act itself) does lead one via a link to a copyright violation (a criminal violation). This, though, is neither your nor Mr. Maschke's responsibility to independently determine. If Mr. Williams believes such has occurred (i.e., his material has been properly copyrighted and that copyright has been infringed upon, he (Mr. Williams) should contact proper authorities and when those proper authorities in due course advise Mr. Maschke that they believe a violation of law has taken place, no doubt Mr. Maschke when properly advised (and requested to do so) will remove that (Robin Hood post) which might further said violation. Any removal prior to such time would only set a very poor precedent and allow anyone who did want censorship to scurrilously litter the message board landscape with questionable posts and then call for broad removal of material.
The issue of censorship arises in connection with your name, not because you appear to be a pro-polygraph spokesperson and because we are unaware of a single pro-polygraph site that does not practice censorship, but because of your complete lack of thought process, ensuing reckless allegations and would be censorship regarding the material connected with that which has been entitled Al-Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection. You have only yourself to blame for the perceptions you have created.
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 05, 2002, 02:22 PMAn American
If you noticed my post on "Polygraph Policy" you would know I'm baaaccck. For a little while anyway. BTW, would you like to make an attempt at answering my questions on that thread.
As far as indentifying posters using different names, one doesn't have to have a thesaurus or a degree in sononymy to make the identification. No, I won't (won't, wouldn't, etc., is one indentity to my style of writing) take this any farther. I get a big kick out of it.
As for posting Mr. William's book on this website, I think it's a damn dirty trick, done by a dirty trick professional seeking revenge.
If you noticed my post on "Polygraph Policy" you would know I'm baaaccck. For a little while anyway. BTW, would you like to make an attempt at answering my questions on that thread.
As far as indentifying posters using different names, one doesn't have to have a thesaurus or a degree in sononymy to make the identification. No, I won't (won't, wouldn't, etc., is one indentity to my style of writing) take this any farther. I get a big kick out of it.
As for posting Mr. William's book on this website, I think it's a damn dirty trick, done by a dirty trick professional seeking revenge.
Posted by An American
- Dec 05, 2002, 11:44 AMC'mon guys, give me a break! If you seek to identify who provided that link, for whatever it is worth, Robin Hood and I are NOT (damn, used those caps again) one and the same person. Just to clarify, yes, Skeptic, you sly rascal, I have been absent for some time, but guess why? I have been on vacation. You may have noticed but there have been a numberof people who participate in this site and then are gone for a while (where is Beech Trees, Two Block?) And Mark, I am so disappointed in you, here you purport to have been an attorney and an FBI agent, and the best you cn come up with is a "similarity" in the way words were typed (caps vs lower case) OUCH! Besides, why are you so interested in who I am? I was given to understand that anonimity was a key element to this site. Now listen carefully, whoever posted Doug's manual was not I. Why would I post something and then be the first to bring it to your attention.? That would certainly defy logic don't you think? Another point, someone talked about censorship. I wasn't thinking in terms of censorship, but I think whoever posted that information stepped over the line and the AP.O folks should have caused that link to be pulled because it constituted a violation of the law. I guess now you will say "Methinks he doth protest too much...therefore...." but have your fun.
Posted by Robin Hood
- Dec 05, 2002, 11:42 AMWell, well, well! It looks like the good people of Nottinghamshire will have to go a-googling themselves for the words of "DOUGLAS GENE WILLIAMS," the self-confessed "right-wing terrorist" who pleads "guilty to crimes against humanity". The same "DOUGLAS GENE WILLIAMS" who "tortured thousands of people, documented more forced confessions than most Gestapo Agents, violated countless constitutional rights, and had absolutely no regard for human dignity".
Hey Doug, it looks like the "old version" of your manual is close enough to the "revised edition" to have you sweating bullets!
You say in your manual "I'm from the buckle on the Bible Belt, and out here we are taught that if we sin, we must confess and make restitution before we can expect exoneration - this restitution business is what's driving me nuts."
What the hell kind of "restitution" are you making by charging people $47.45 for your piece of $hit manual?! At least the people who run this website believe in something, however misguided. You, on the other hand, are a goddam hypocrite. "From the buckle of the Bible Belt" my ass! You worship at the temple of the $$$ ALMIGHTY DOLLAR $$$!
Hey Doug, guess what?! If these anti-poly people get there way, YOUR OUT OF BUSINESS!!! Maybe you should "confess and make restitution" to the law enforcement community that you BETRAYED.
Hey Doug, it looks like the "old version" of your manual is close enough to the "revised edition" to have you sweating bullets!
You say in your manual "I'm from the buckle on the Bible Belt, and out here we are taught that if we sin, we must confess and make restitution before we can expect exoneration - this restitution business is what's driving me nuts."
What the hell kind of "restitution" are you making by charging people $47.45 for your piece of $hit manual?! At least the people who run this website believe in something, however misguided. You, on the other hand, are a goddam hypocrite. "From the buckle of the Bible Belt" my ass! You worship at the temple of the $$$ ALMIGHTY DOLLAR $$$!
Hey Doug, guess what?! If these anti-poly people get there way, YOUR OUT OF BUSINESS!!! Maybe you should "confess and make restitution" to the law enforcement community that you BETRAYED.
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 04, 2002, 07:36 PMQuote from: Doug Williams on Dec 04, 2002, 05:38 PM
All that aside. It still doesn't alter the fact that George is wrong in continuing to post this website on the board. It is certainly unethical and may be illegal.
Doug
With all due respect to Mr. Williams and his work, I have to disagree somewhat with the "unethical" part, above. The responsibility here lies squarely on the head of the person who posted the manual in violation of copyright. IMHO this is one of the ways in which the recently-enacted DMCA goes too far.
As for legalities, however, I'm afraid Mr. Williams may indeed be correct, thanks to the afore-mentioned DMCA.
As much as I hate the thought of any censorship here (and there have certainly been many things worthy of such action; just ask "An American" to quote his greatest hits), eliminating clearly illegal material (as opposed to censoring for content) is certainly forgiveable. Contrast this with other polygraph message boards run by polygraphers that censor opposing views, and the difference will still be clearly visible.
I also think it would be worth it to try to track down the person who posted the link here. I'm sure Mr. Williams would be happy to have that information.
Just my $.02.
Skeptic
Posted by Doug Williams
- Dec 04, 2002, 05:37 PMAll that aside. It still doesn't alter the fact that George is wrong in continuing to post this website on the board. It is certainly unethical and my be illegal.
Doug
Doug
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Dec 04, 2002, 04:41 PMQuoteAh, well, I'm not saying "An American" is the author of the post, either. But it is, indeed...interesting.
If this were a polygraph chamber or the polygraph interrogator lounge, there would be more than enough info to nail "An American" as "Robin Hood."
We can't be certain, but the timing is certainly glaring.
Also, I went back and looked at some of "An American's" past posts. I noticed he/she likes to use capitals on one word when emphasizing a point, just as Robin Hood did when he wrote that the Doug Williams' manual is "FREE." Hmmm.
And I agree with Skeptic that the part about us blaming them for the post was curiously defensive. Not just that, it was totally gratuitous, which makes me suspicious.
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 04, 2002, 03:22 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Dec 04, 2002, 11:15 AM
2) It is not clear what side of the polygaph debate "Robin Hood" is on. While I am not suggesting that such is the case, for all we know, you could be the author of the "Robin Hood" post.
It is a remarkable coincidence that after failing to post for several weeks, "An American" promptly showed up immediately after "Robin Hood's" information was posted. I also find his preemptive statement, "At least you can be sure of one thing, it isn't the pro-polygraph folks behind this (now watch them blame us anyway)." curiously defensive. It almost has a guilty tone to it.
Ah, well, I'm not saying "An American" is the author of the post, either. But it is, indeed...interesting.
Skeptic
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 04, 2002, 03:12 PMQuote from: An American on Dec 04, 2002, 09:34 AM
Well, Skeptic, finally we see eye to eye on something.
I imagine that will indeed be rare -- truth and honesty seem a little too far down on your list of priorities for us to agree on things often.
I've made my feelings on this issue quite clear. But I feel the responsibility for this lies entirely with the person hosting the copyrighted material illegally. One of the strengths of antipolygraph.org is the lack of censorship.
Skeptic
Posted by anonymouse
- Dec 04, 2002, 01:15 PMSubpoena the hosting ISP's weblogs, Doug...... count the number of views of the copyrighted page and then sue them for treble damages.