- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by warble
- Feb 10, 2004, 10:14 PMDIorNDI writes:
Have your opinion about polygraph, and do what is right to change it, but PLEASE stop teaching rapists how to beat it in order to prove it is inaccurate! For our children's sakes
What an idiot. Perhaps somebody should make an anonymous phone call to the DCSS and make a few false allegations.
Then we can all sit on the side and say, "...If a person claims to have been falsely accused of lying, who is to say that if they lied ..."
Gee. You know I'm glad that lie detector's don't work. That means that the police state cannot do mind reading on me. But of course some morons would prefer that the state have the power to read peoples minds.
Hope I don't meet this moron in real life.....I would be tempted to make that false allegation just to teach the retard a lesson.
Warble
Have your opinion about polygraph, and do what is right to change it, but PLEASE stop teaching rapists how to beat it in order to prove it is inaccurate! For our children's sakes
What an idiot. Perhaps somebody should make an anonymous phone call to the DCSS and make a few false allegations.
Then we can all sit on the side and say, "...If a person claims to have been falsely accused of lying, who is to say that if they lied ..."
Gee. You know I'm glad that lie detector's don't work. That means that the police state cannot do mind reading on me. But of course some morons would prefer that the state have the power to read peoples minds.
Hope I don't meet this moron in real life.....I would be tempted to make that false allegation just to teach the retard a lesson.
Warble
Posted by Activist Warble
- Feb 10, 2004, 09:49 PMQuote from: DIorNDI on Jan 17, 2004, 09:23 PMGeorge, yes I do! You propose as part of poly-bashing that since examiners only receive cracker-jack-box training, that it is not science. Well, I just look at the medical community with the same principle: with 8+years of school and countless hours of hands-on training at the finest Universities, MILLIONS of dollars in equipment, dozens of "support staff" and still ol' Herman Jones gets the wrong operation!!! Or, pieces are left inside, parts removed that were not broken, and how about that girl in North Carolina at what, DUKE, that got organs that wouldn't even work inside her? She lived long enough to tell her family goodbye. How is that for an "accuracy" rate? Now that is science. If all their equipment is infallible and they are the best of the best of the best, then why is Malpractice Insurance even in existence? Aren't they supposed to be 100% accurate? One person getting denied a job vs. one person losing their life? We should have a web site dedicated to forcing doctors to quit killing people with incompetence. So if you ask if Polygraph is science, like doctoring? I sure hope not. If a polygrapher gets a deceptive reading and obtains an admission, you guys will chalk that up to "intimidation" and interrogation, not to polygraph. If a person claims to have been falsely accused of lying, who is to say that if they lied on the poly, that they are not lying when they say they told the truth? Let's pretend that your 3+ year crusade has succeeded and polygraph has gone away. How do we determine if what an applicant says is true? Or do we just expect that everyone is telling the truth? If polygraph prevents one worm from getting a job where thousands of lives are at stake, it is worth one "self proclaimed" innocent person from being denied employment. And I was under the impression that most departments do not deny employment solely based on failed polygraph. It does give the BI a good place to start, though. I am sure others have been denied, but I figure in most cases, it is not the only basis. I do like the blacklist conspiracy theory, where you fail one poly and can NEVER get a job anywhere else in the world. Of course, I passed mine, so I have a biased opinion that telling the truth is the way to go. Must be just me!
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 19, 2004, 06:38 PMAnother Guest
I believe I labeled you in an "Off Topic" post.
If you think the posts of Anonymous are reasonable, then maybe you belong in federal LE. Federal employees are not famous for their great intellect.
When it comes to intelligence, you can't cary my jocky strap.
I am sure you will let us know when you get your DI from your federal polygrapher.
With that, I will end this nonsence on my end.
I believe I labeled you in an "Off Topic" post.
If you think the posts of Anonymous are reasonable, then maybe you belong in federal LE. Federal employees are not famous for their great intellect.
When it comes to intelligence, you can't cary my jocky strap.
I am sure you will let us know when you get your DI from your federal polygrapher.
With that, I will end this nonsence on my end.
Posted by another guest
- Jan 19, 2004, 05:27 PMhey guest, give it up. as far as these last few posts go, all i can see is anonymous making reasonable arguments with twoblock just responding with a bunch of unsupported, half-assed rebuttals.
your kind of post is what separates the intelligent posters from the ones that post because no one listens in the world outside of the old 'puter. you're pathetic, man.
your kind of post is what separates the intelligent posters from the ones that post because no one listens in the world outside of the old 'puter. you're pathetic, man.
Posted by guest
- Jan 19, 2004, 01:35 PMHey Twoblock, take it easy on Anonymous. I think his posts are very entertaining, (he really gets worked up and gets his panties in a wad over every little thing), and informative, (he draws on his vast experience of failing his polygraph tests). He has an opinion on everything and doesn't allow his total lack of knowlege to stop him from giving it.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 19, 2004, 12:20 PMAnonymous
If you are not a politician, you have missed your calling. You do have a nack of rambling and twisting the subject matter. For example, your statement " I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur". Hell bud, I was saying and still say that it DOES occur.
If you have seen my past posts, you know that I can't give legal advice (or is that what you are trying to get me to do) because I am not a lawyer except for myself. I file pro se and win. The info you are asking of me can be found in any law library if one cares to research it.
As far the Mark Zaid suit - actions in the federal court system, nearly always, takes years. Just because YOU haven't heard any news lately doesn't mean that it is not still in progress. Mine didn't take that long because I won in the lower court and left little room for a viable appeal.
You are correct in one way though. Your post was not directed to me and I shouldn't have responded. All I was trying to say is that if (one's) integrity has been slandered, i.e. by being branded a liar by a polygrapher, (one) DOES have recourse if (one) chooses to do something about it.
BTW, it costs $150 bucks to file an action in federal court.
If you are not a politician, you have missed your calling. You do have a nack of rambling and twisting the subject matter. For example, your statement " I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur". Hell bud, I was saying and still say that it DOES occur.
If you have seen my past posts, you know that I can't give legal advice (or is that what you are trying to get me to do) because I am not a lawyer except for myself. I file pro se and win. The info you are asking of me can be found in any law library if one cares to research it.
As far the Mark Zaid suit - actions in the federal court system, nearly always, takes years. Just because YOU haven't heard any news lately doesn't mean that it is not still in progress. Mine didn't take that long because I won in the lower court and left little room for a viable appeal.
You are correct in one way though. Your post was not directed to me and I shouldn't have responded. All I was trying to say is that if (one's) integrity has been slandered, i.e. by being branded a liar by a polygrapher, (one) DOES have recourse if (one) chooses to do something about it.
BTW, it costs $150 bucks to file an action in federal court.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 19, 2004, 12:26 AMTwoblock,
I don't understand why you are questioning my ability to comprehend. Did you or did you not begin your post with 'Anonymous,'? At least to me, that indicates that your post is directed at me.
Secondly, rather than quickly posting personal insults ("your ability to comprehend is lacking," "not having enough guts to defend your integrity," etc.) why not actually contribute something to the debate? In response to my initial post, you simply indicate that some of us have recourse in the form of a lawsuit requiring the federal government to prove that I lied. My response to your suggestion involved several questions regarding that particular means of recourse. All of which you chose not to answer. Reread my post.
However, it seems as though you are not fully reading my posts or it is YOUR ability to comprehend that is lacking. You evade every question or point raised in my posts and move to petty statements seemingly meant to put me in my place. "You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus." Give me a break. You don't like that I called your statements bogus, fine. But don't deliver lines meant to place yourself as an authority on ANY topic. You don't know who I am, what I've studied or what I do.
In any event, I don't think I mentioned anything about becoming a cop, did I? I simply stated I have had success with other LE avenues. Now, if you had truly been able to comprehend that statement, you would actually find that I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur and that one is not ALWAYS precluded from employment after a negative polygraph exam.
The funny thing is, my initial post wasn't even directed at you twoblock. While I'm certainly up to debating a topic such as the polygraph, I'm not going to continue to post when your replies consist only of quick "you can do this or that statements" mixed in with jabs aimed at "all the rest that complains [sic] on these boards."
Have at it, twoblock - the last word is yours. You are clearly quite confident of yourself and of your knowledge of the topic at hand. If a federal lawsuit is viable recourse for one falsely accused of being deceptive, enlighten us. What can one expect expense wise when choosing this method of recourse? How long can one expect to get results? And what will those results be? As I already said, I've yet to hear any recent news on the suit filed by Mark Zaid. I still fail to see how you justify this route as viable.
Once again - the last word is yours.
I don't understand why you are questioning my ability to comprehend. Did you or did you not begin your post with 'Anonymous,'? At least to me, that indicates that your post is directed at me.
Secondly, rather than quickly posting personal insults ("your ability to comprehend is lacking," "not having enough guts to defend your integrity," etc.) why not actually contribute something to the debate? In response to my initial post, you simply indicate that some of us have recourse in the form of a lawsuit requiring the federal government to prove that I lied. My response to your suggestion involved several questions regarding that particular means of recourse. All of which you chose not to answer. Reread my post.
However, it seems as though you are not fully reading my posts or it is YOUR ability to comprehend that is lacking. You evade every question or point raised in my posts and move to petty statements seemingly meant to put me in my place. "You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus." Give me a break. You don't like that I called your statements bogus, fine. But don't deliver lines meant to place yourself as an authority on ANY topic. You don't know who I am, what I've studied or what I do.
In any event, I don't think I mentioned anything about becoming a cop, did I? I simply stated I have had success with other LE avenues. Now, if you had truly been able to comprehend that statement, you would actually find that I was AGREEING with you on the fact that blacklisting does not occur and that one is not ALWAYS precluded from employment after a negative polygraph exam.
The funny thing is, my initial post wasn't even directed at you twoblock. While I'm certainly up to debating a topic such as the polygraph, I'm not going to continue to post when your replies consist only of quick "you can do this or that statements" mixed in with jabs aimed at "all the rest that complains [sic] on these boards."
Have at it, twoblock - the last word is yours. You are clearly quite confident of yourself and of your knowledge of the topic at hand. If a federal lawsuit is viable recourse for one falsely accused of being deceptive, enlighten us. What can one expect expense wise when choosing this method of recourse? How long can one expect to get results? And what will those results be? As I already said, I've yet to hear any recent news on the suit filed by Mark Zaid. I still fail to see how you justify this route as viable.
Once again - the last word is yours.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 18, 2004, 08:58 PMAnonumous
Reread the third paragraph of your response to DIorNDI. You specifically asked "what recourse,etc. etc".
I didn't single you out in the "roll over statement". I lumped you in with all the rest that complains on these boards about telling the truth and being called a liar by a polygrapher and not having the guts to defend your integrity.
You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus.
Your ability to comprehend seems to be lacking. I make reference to you personally only in the first sentence. The second sentence includes all the other posters that have claimed that a failed poly for a federal agency finds its' way to the other agencies.
In conclusion, I don't give a damn whether you become a cop or not.
Reread the third paragraph of your response to DIorNDI. You specifically asked "what recourse,etc. etc".
I didn't single you out in the "roll over statement". I lumped you in with all the rest that complains on these boards about telling the truth and being called a liar by a polygrapher and not having the guts to defend your integrity.
You need to spend as much time studying federal law as I have before you call my statements bogus.
Your ability to comprehend seems to be lacking. I make reference to you personally only in the first sentence. The second sentence includes all the other posters that have claimed that a failed poly for a federal agency finds its' way to the other agencies.
In conclusion, I don't give a damn whether you become a cop or not.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 18, 2004, 03:26 PMTwoblock,
I don't think you see the point of my post. DIorNDI had tried to make a comparison between polygraphy and the practice of medicine. Your suggestion that a victim of false positive has recourse is invalid in this particular discussion.
If "'ol' Herman Jones" as DIorNDI referred to gets the wrong operation, there will be quite a few medical malpractice lawyers willing to take his case on a contigency fee basis. Why is that? If "ol' Herman Jones" comes out of the operating room with the wrong leg missing, that's pretty easy to prove. Is that always the case? Of course not. But we're dealing with many variables in a medical malpractice case (nature of procedure, doctor's history, etc.) and in MANY cases if the wrong procedure is performed that will be proven.
The "recourse" that you refer to for polygraph victims is bogus. How many lawyers are you aware of that will file a civil suit against the federal government on a contingency fee basis? Do you really think many people have the money available to them for the attorney fees involved in a suit like that? Further, take a look at the forum on this site that discusses the "current" civil suit again the federal government filed by Mark Zaid on behalf of a dozen or so victims. When's the last time anyone heard any good news about that suit? Do you REALLY think its going to get anywhere? Perhaps in my previous post I should have stated that we do not have VIABLE recourse.
Regarding blacklisting, I don't think I referred to that in any way. I never mentioned a failed result being "broadcast to all other LE agencies." I simply said that "many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies." Big difference - the statement you claim I made is false, the statement I actually made is true. While a polygraph failure may not be "broadcast" to other LE agencies, you should be aware that in most application processes for federal LE agencies, especially those that use the polygraph for pre-employment screening, an applicant is at some point required to indicate if he or she has been denied employment by the federal government. His or her response would have to be 'yes.' This can often be an automatic disqualifier. Even assuming the applicant is able to reach the polygraph phase for a particular agency, the polygrapher will ALWAYS ask if he or she has submitted to a polygraph examination before. If the answer is 'yes,' the examiner will ALWAYS want to know the results. Would indicating a failure stop the exam right there? Not always. But in some cases, yes. I believe there are several personal statements available on this site that prove this. The disqualification comes from the applicant's own admission rather than a "broadcast" from another agency. I'm not aware of any laws in place to protect an applicant from that. If an agency wishes to disqualify someone they will.
Finally, in reference to "rolling over and playing dead," I don't think I mentioned anything to imply that I have chosen to do that. After all, I do speak out on this board. I do so anonymously, but so do most people here, even those that register with a screen name. I have also successfully persued other avenues for LE positions - many agencies choose to not use a polygraph exam during the application process. So, please do not assume that my post means that I spend my days pouting over a failed polygraph because that isn't the case.
I don't think you see the point of my post. DIorNDI had tried to make a comparison between polygraphy and the practice of medicine. Your suggestion that a victim of false positive has recourse is invalid in this particular discussion.
If "'ol' Herman Jones" as DIorNDI referred to gets the wrong operation, there will be quite a few medical malpractice lawyers willing to take his case on a contigency fee basis. Why is that? If "ol' Herman Jones" comes out of the operating room with the wrong leg missing, that's pretty easy to prove. Is that always the case? Of course not. But we're dealing with many variables in a medical malpractice case (nature of procedure, doctor's history, etc.) and in MANY cases if the wrong procedure is performed that will be proven.
The "recourse" that you refer to for polygraph victims is bogus. How many lawyers are you aware of that will file a civil suit against the federal government on a contingency fee basis? Do you really think many people have the money available to them for the attorney fees involved in a suit like that? Further, take a look at the forum on this site that discusses the "current" civil suit again the federal government filed by Mark Zaid on behalf of a dozen or so victims. When's the last time anyone heard any good news about that suit? Do you REALLY think its going to get anywhere? Perhaps in my previous post I should have stated that we do not have VIABLE recourse.
Regarding blacklisting, I don't think I referred to that in any way. I never mentioned a failed result being "broadcast to all other LE agencies." I simply said that "many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies." Big difference - the statement you claim I made is false, the statement I actually made is true. While a polygraph failure may not be "broadcast" to other LE agencies, you should be aware that in most application processes for federal LE agencies, especially those that use the polygraph for pre-employment screening, an applicant is at some point required to indicate if he or she has been denied employment by the federal government. His or her response would have to be 'yes.' This can often be an automatic disqualifier. Even assuming the applicant is able to reach the polygraph phase for a particular agency, the polygrapher will ALWAYS ask if he or she has submitted to a polygraph examination before. If the answer is 'yes,' the examiner will ALWAYS want to know the results. Would indicating a failure stop the exam right there? Not always. But in some cases, yes. I believe there are several personal statements available on this site that prove this. The disqualification comes from the applicant's own admission rather than a "broadcast" from another agency. I'm not aware of any laws in place to protect an applicant from that. If an agency wishes to disqualify someone they will.
Finally, in reference to "rolling over and playing dead," I don't think I mentioned anything to imply that I have chosen to do that. After all, I do speak out on this board. I do so anonymously, but so do most people here, even those that register with a screen name. I have also successfully persued other avenues for LE positions - many agencies choose to not use a polygraph exam during the application process. So, please do not assume that my post means that I spend my days pouting over a failed polygraph because that isn't the case.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 18, 2004, 01:33 PMAnonymous
You DO have recourse. (Stuck record again) File a federal suit and make them prove that you lied. As far as a failed poly being broadcast to all other LE agencies preventing one from getting employed as a LEO -- THAT IS BLACKLISTING. There are laws against this practice.
You people just keep on rolling over and playing dead and the polygraphers are just going to keep on burying you.
You DO have recourse. (Stuck record again) File a federal suit and make them prove that you lied. As far as a failed poly being broadcast to all other LE agencies preventing one from getting employed as a LEO -- THAT IS BLACKLISTING. There are laws against this practice.
You people just keep on rolling over and playing dead and the polygraphers are just going to keep on burying you.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 18, 2004, 11:22 AMDIorNDI,
You seem to be on the verge of suggesting similarities between clinical medicine and polygraphy in the sense that both practices involve aspects of art. What usually gets lost in such assertions and would become more apparent in any serious analysis of the two (continuing with such an analogy) is that medicine would be revealed to be more akin to an Old Master hanging in the west wing of the National Art Gallery with polygraphy having parallels with the $1.98 bull fighter on velvet in your local grocery store. Get real, bozo
You seem to be on the verge of suggesting similarities between clinical medicine and polygraphy in the sense that both practices involve aspects of art. What usually gets lost in such assertions and would become more apparent in any serious analysis of the two (continuing with such an analogy) is that medicine would be revealed to be more akin to an Old Master hanging in the west wing of the National Art Gallery with polygraphy having parallels with the $1.98 bull fighter on velvet in your local grocery store. Get real, bozo
Posted by Anonymous
- Jan 18, 2004, 01:45 AMDIorNDI,
I told the truth and DIDN'T pass my polygraph. So, while the fact that you told the truth and did pass does not indicate that it's just you, the fact that I along with many others told the truth and didn't pass indicates that it's also not "just me."
I see one major flaw in your analogy of polygraph examiners/polygraphy to medical doctors/the practice of medicine: in each of your examples, you fail to mention one thing. These victims (or their families) of malpractice all have some type of recourse available to them. Whether it be corrective surgery without charge to the more serious cases involving civil litigation, these people may suffer greatly and experience long-term trauma but in the end they have RECOURSE.
Indicate to us all what recourse a truly "honest" person found deceptive through a polygraph "test" has. The opportunity to vehemently deny the implied or explicit accusations of deception? And then what? In the case of pre-employment screening, nothing. Some are lucky enough to get a retest. Many are not. Many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies. And again, what chance do they have to provide a reasonable defense?
Those of "us" in the "victim by false positive" group have in many cases experienced significant trauma by committing to a process that one truly believes will result in the acheivement of a long sought after goal only to be denied this acheivement based on the opinion of one examiner operating a machine designed around an undeniably flawed, pseudoscientific theory that deception can ACCURATELY be detected by monitoring physiological response. I imagine you are thinking at this point something similar to "mellodramatic BS, you don't get the job, so what?" I invite you to ATTEMPT to imagine yourself being falsely accused of deception and then denied not only employment but the fulfillment of a goal and honestly admit that you would not be feeling the same way as many others do. The comparison of losing life or limb to being denied employment does seem somewhat drastic. But remember, you are the one who drew the initial comparison.
Your analogy fails relative to what this site strives to accomplish. The polygraph exam, when used as a pre-employment screening tool, is an unfair, invalid and dangerous method used strictly to "sift" through otherwise qualified candidates in an effort to save the money that would have been used in a costly background investigation. In fact, you are quite mistaken that a failed polygraph result is not used as a sole disqualifier. Take the FBI, for example. Upon the submission and approval of the polygrapher's opinion that a candidate "failed" the polygraph exam, that candidate is issued a letter rescinding the conditional employment offer within ten days. That candidate is typically not contacted before this occurs for an explanation and a background investigation DOES NOT occur. So, you are in fact completely wrong in that the polygraph does not represent a disqualifer in itself.
Further, and again using the FBI as an example, the polygraph was not reinstated for pre-employment screening purposes until 1994. Coincidentally, prior to 1994 the FBI also held a "zero-tolerance" drug policy that resulted in immediate disqualification should an indication that a candidate had used drugs be discovered during a background investigation. That's right, background investigation. You ask, how does any given agency determine if what an applicant says is true? Your answer is through an in-depth background investigation. It seems that it worked before, doesn't it? Equally coincidental, upon adopting the polygraph as a phase of the applicant process, the FBI also eliminated its "zero-tolerance" drug policy with the realization that it is an unrealistic expectation. And yes, FBI representatives have stated that as being the reason for the new policy: http://www.teenliberty.org/FBI.htm
The debates regarding lying vs. telling the truth, using or not using countermeasures, etc. are all secondary to the fact that pre-employment polygraph examinations should be abolished. The "acceptable collateral damage" will continue to speak out.
I told the truth and DIDN'T pass my polygraph. So, while the fact that you told the truth and did pass does not indicate that it's just you, the fact that I along with many others told the truth and didn't pass indicates that it's also not "just me."
I see one major flaw in your analogy of polygraph examiners/polygraphy to medical doctors/the practice of medicine: in each of your examples, you fail to mention one thing. These victims (or their families) of malpractice all have some type of recourse available to them. Whether it be corrective surgery without charge to the more serious cases involving civil litigation, these people may suffer greatly and experience long-term trauma but in the end they have RECOURSE.
Indicate to us all what recourse a truly "honest" person found deceptive through a polygraph "test" has. The opportunity to vehemently deny the implied or explicit accusations of deception? And then what? In the case of pre-employment screening, nothing. Some are lucky enough to get a retest. Many are not. Many are then, as a result, precluded from employment by other agencies. And again, what chance do they have to provide a reasonable defense?
Those of "us" in the "victim by false positive" group have in many cases experienced significant trauma by committing to a process that one truly believes will result in the acheivement of a long sought after goal only to be denied this acheivement based on the opinion of one examiner operating a machine designed around an undeniably flawed, pseudoscientific theory that deception can ACCURATELY be detected by monitoring physiological response. I imagine you are thinking at this point something similar to "mellodramatic BS, you don't get the job, so what?" I invite you to ATTEMPT to imagine yourself being falsely accused of deception and then denied not only employment but the fulfillment of a goal and honestly admit that you would not be feeling the same way as many others do. The comparison of losing life or limb to being denied employment does seem somewhat drastic. But remember, you are the one who drew the initial comparison.
Your analogy fails relative to what this site strives to accomplish. The polygraph exam, when used as a pre-employment screening tool, is an unfair, invalid and dangerous method used strictly to "sift" through otherwise qualified candidates in an effort to save the money that would have been used in a costly background investigation. In fact, you are quite mistaken that a failed polygraph result is not used as a sole disqualifier. Take the FBI, for example. Upon the submission and approval of the polygrapher's opinion that a candidate "failed" the polygraph exam, that candidate is issued a letter rescinding the conditional employment offer within ten days. That candidate is typically not contacted before this occurs for an explanation and a background investigation DOES NOT occur. So, you are in fact completely wrong in that the polygraph does not represent a disqualifer in itself.
Further, and again using the FBI as an example, the polygraph was not reinstated for pre-employment screening purposes until 1994. Coincidentally, prior to 1994 the FBI also held a "zero-tolerance" drug policy that resulted in immediate disqualification should an indication that a candidate had used drugs be discovered during a background investigation. That's right, background investigation. You ask, how does any given agency determine if what an applicant says is true? Your answer is through an in-depth background investigation. It seems that it worked before, doesn't it? Equally coincidental, upon adopting the polygraph as a phase of the applicant process, the FBI also eliminated its "zero-tolerance" drug policy with the realization that it is an unrealistic expectation. And yes, FBI representatives have stated that as being the reason for the new policy: http://www.teenliberty.org/FBI.htm
The debates regarding lying vs. telling the truth, using or not using countermeasures, etc. are all secondary to the fact that pre-employment polygraph examinations should be abolished. The "acceptable collateral damage" will continue to speak out.
Posted by DIorNDI
- Jan 17, 2004, 09:23 PMGeorge, yes I do! You propose as part of poly-bashing that since examiners only receive cracker-jack-box training, that it is not science. Well, I just look at the medical community with the same principle: with 8+years of school and countless hours of hands-on training at the finest Universities, MILLIONS of dollars in equipment, dozens of "support staff" and still ol' Herman Jones gets the wrong operation!!! Or, pieces are left inside, parts removed that were not broken, and how about that girl in North Carolina at what, DUKE, that got organs that wouldn't even work inside her? She lived long enough to tell her family goodbye. How is that for an "accuracy" rate? Now that is science. If all their equipment is infallible and they are the best of the best of the best, then why is Malpractice Insurance even in existence? Aren't they supposed to be 100% accurate? One person getting denied a job vs. one person losing their life? We should have a web site dedicated to forcing doctors to quit killing people with incompetence. So if you ask if Polygraph is science, like doctoring? I sure hope not. If a polygrapher gets a deceptive reading and obtains an admission, you guys will chalk that up to "intimidation" and interrogation, not to polygraph. If a person claims to have been falsely accused of lying, who is to say that if they lied on the poly, that they are not lying when they say they told the truth? Let's pretend that your 3+ year crusade has succeeded and polygraph has gone away. How do we determine if what an applicant says is true? Or do we just expect that everyone is telling the truth? If polygraph prevents one worm from getting a job where thousands of lives are at stake, it is worth one "self proclaimed" innocent person from being denied employment. And I was under the impression that most departments do not deny employment solely based on failed polygraph. It does give the BI a good place to start, though. I am sure others have been denied, but I figure in most cases, it is not the only basis. I do like the blacklist conspiracy theory, where you fail one poly and can NEVER get a job anywhere else in the world. Of course, I passed mine, so I have a biased opinion that telling the truth is the way to go. Must be just me!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 17, 2004, 06:21 PMDIorNDI,
You liken polygraphic lie detection to a medical diagnostic test. Consider then, that which Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., recently told the Albuquerque Tribune: "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
You liken polygraphic lie detection to a medical diagnostic test. Consider then, that which Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D., recently told the Albuquerque Tribune: "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
Posted by DIorNDI
- Jan 17, 2004, 04:33 PMOk, I have now stopped laughing long enough to type - men's issues activist? But that is another website altogether. Regarding Okieboy...man I sure hope your probation is over and you and your wonderful lawyer file the suit. If I read your post correctly, your lawyer assisted you in not only breaking your probation conditions, but knew you were using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph? Can he file a lawsuit and testify on your behalf given the ethical violations he has committed? So much for an oath when there is money to be made. Watched you drink a beer and stay out one minute past curfew just so he can cash in on your future lawsuit. Maybe you could post his name so others on the site can utilize his services. Seems right in line with the theme of this site - whatever it takes, no matter how unethical, to get what I want. And you are right, the law that states that it is illegal to have sex with a 15 year old is merely a suggestion. Hell, since she was going to be 16 (assuming 16 is legal in your state) in a few days, it is no big deal. And he never reoffended, that is good. Too drunk and on coke to remember and you have a problem with the polygraph? Seems that there should be other issues you should concern yourself with. And passing a polygraph by using CM's does not invalidate the test. Assuming you wanted to prove a doctor is incompetent, and you went in and had taken drugs/lied/physical countermeasures to throw off his diagnosis and he is unable to get the diagnosis correct, or calls it something else because of what you did, does that mean he is not a competent doctor? Of course not. And speaking of doctors, with their near decade of school and hands on practice, how about their rate of errors? How many patients are misdiagnosed every day? Who among you would have surgery without a second opinion? Shouldn't they be perfect? I mean, a science that requires all the study, internship and people wager their lives on could not have even 1% error if you look at it from the same angle of the antipoly perspective. What was it, mail order catalog polygraph - still laughing about that too. Have your opinion about polygraph, and do what is right to change it, but PLEASE stop teaching rapists how to beat it in order to prove it is inaccurate! For our children's sakes