- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Mar 08, 2003, 04:24 AMFair Chance,
Your experiences with the FBI polygraph examiner number 2 should be taken in context. The FBI was one of the last agencies to adopt routine polygraphing of employees, whereas the CIA and NSA have long considered the polygraph a key screening tool. A lot of this at the FBI happened due to political pressure facilitated by the widespread belief the polygraph is almost perfect. As for the spooks, who knows, they are full of bright people who should know better. If you are accepted and join the FBI do so with a view towards having an opportunity to serve with honor to the best of your ability. I have little doubt the agency is populated with honorable folks who feel real pride about the jobs they do for their country and perhaps working with them would take the sting off.
-Marty
Your experiences with the FBI polygraph examiner number 2 should be taken in context. The FBI was one of the last agencies to adopt routine polygraphing of employees, whereas the CIA and NSA have long considered the polygraph a key screening tool. A lot of this at the FBI happened due to political pressure facilitated by the widespread belief the polygraph is almost perfect. As for the spooks, who knows, they are full of bright people who should know better. If you are accepted and join the FBI do so with a view towards having an opportunity to serve with honor to the best of your ability. I have little doubt the agency is populated with honorable folks who feel real pride about the jobs they do for their country and perhaps working with them would take the sting off.
-Marty
Posted by Fair Chance
- Mar 08, 2003, 02:38 AMQuote from: confused on Mar 07, 2003, 06:58 PMDear Confused,
Fair Chance, sorry I took so long but it has been busy lately.
I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one. I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass. I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
Thanks for responding. I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated. Others I have know sympathy for. I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.
My previous posting stated that I have never manipulated my test and to the best of my ability answered all questions honestly. I also stated how I was accused of countermeasures during my second test and was completely ignorant of such knowledge of countermeasures. My second polygraph examiner was completely wrong in his accusations but quite sure that he was "right". This led me to my personal decision that he had no idea how to detect "countermeasures".
If anyone reads my post from number one to this one, they would see that I had respected my first polygraph examiner because he displayed professional conduct and respect to the examinee. All arguments aside about the validity of polygraphs, he was professional. I knew the FBI was going to interrogate me during this process and I expected a little "rough stuff" psychologically. This was a person who was trying to do a job that the government assigned him with class. My first polygraph examiner could have videotaped his complete four hour exam and felt pride that he did not display any personal prejudices or bias conduct independent of the polygraph procedure. He performed his duty as if someone was watching and I felt that at least I was given a "fair chance" and thus my alias on this site.
My second polygraph examiner was of extreme prejudice and bias before I even got into the office. He demonstrated arrogance, poor procedure, bias conduct, aggressiveness, and underestimated his "opponent". The word "opponent" says it all. He did not treat me like a law abiding citizen who applied for a job but as a convicted criminal who needed to be executed. I have certain suspicions that he had some motives behind his conduct which reflected so poorly upon the professionalism of the FBI that I would have stopped my application just because I did not want to be associated with such an unjust person or Justice Department who employed such an individual.
As I stated to Marty, I know the ins and outs of negotiation and government process. The FBI saw this in my appeal letter and allowed me another test.
The third polygraph examiner was extremely professional like the first. I knew that he had to glean information from me but he did so professionally.
My conclusion again being that if all of my polygraph experiences were videotaped and shown to a group of people, most would conclude that my second polygraph was completely different from my first and third.
The FBI needs all of the public support that it can get. I can think of no worse way to destroy this support than to leave such an awful taste in an applicant's mind after a poorly done polygraph procedure.
This website is testimony to the tremendous negative impact of FBI polygraph prescreening.
The FBI has done their background check. They cannot find a single person in my lifetime who says anything bad about me. They almost seem frustrated in their questioning of friends, co-workers, and associated that no one would speak a bad word of me.
I have been going through hoops for almost eighteen months now. I completed my physical with flying colors (and with my current law enforcement status I am well above their initial cut-off age of 37).
I am getting to the point of when they offer me a position after all of this to tell them that I do not think they are worthy of my loyalty and devotion that I have demonstrated to the Constitution of the United States through my whole life. I have placed my life on the line for over eight years with the military and ten years with the Department of Justice in a law enforcement position and this means nothing to the almighty, arrogant FBI. What further proof can I give but a lifetime history of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States?
I am sorry for spouting off like this but my frustration over just wanting to serve my country and being so severely abused in the process is showing.
It has never been about getting a job, IT IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGENCY SHOWING RESPECT TO THE CITIZENS AND APPLICANTS THAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO SERVE! THE CITIZENS DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE THE FBI, THE FBI EXIST TO SERVE THE CITIZENS!
If I take a job with the FBI, it will only be to make sure that I keep the FBI within the guidelines of the Constitution. Maybe I will have to once again "do the hard thing", swallow my pride and take a job with an agency that I might not hold in high regard just to make sure that it is true to the spirit of the Constitution. I have defended this country with my body but I now must use my mind. I do not serve the FBI as a government employee, I serve the Constitution.
Regards.
Posted by Marty
- Mar 07, 2003, 08:41 PMQuote from: confused on Mar 07, 2003, 06:58 PM
..... but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
confused,
As you know, once a person becomes aware of the psychology and expectations of the probable lie comparison question they are more likely to fail absent use of countermeasures. The whole point of the CQT is to reduce the false positives from early R/I tests that have been discredited by the majority of the polygraph community.
As an aside, the DLT (directed lie test) for of the CQT eliminates the normal PLT examiner deception and looks to be useful for testing poly examiners and others that are aware to the processes. Do you concur or not? BTW, have you had a chance to read Kleiner's book? Lot of interesting topics in it.
-Marty
Posted by confused
- Mar 07, 2003, 06:58 PMFair Chance, sorry I took so long but it has been busy lately.
I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one. I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass. I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
Thanks for responding. I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated. Others I have know sympathy for. I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.
Michelle, I doubt that you are even reading this thread anymore and don't realy care. I just wanted you to know that several of your last attacks on me you used quotes that were in response to other people not you. They know who they are and had no problem with what I was saying or at least were willing to listen.
confused
I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one. I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass. I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
Thanks for responding. I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated. Others I have know sympathy for. I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.
Michelle, I doubt that you are even reading this thread anymore and don't realy care. I just wanted you to know that several of your last attacks on me you used quotes that were in response to other people not you. They know who they are and had no problem with what I was saying or at least were willing to listen.
confused
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Feb 27, 2003, 10:30 AMSeeker,
The current field polygraph (different than many research polygraphs) whether it is an analog (paper recording) or digital (computerized) version is typically an instrument for monitoring and recording a few channels of human physiology. The organ systems monitored with this instrument largely reflect various short-term (occurring so as to be time-linked to individual polygraph chart questions which are typically presented with 15 to 20 second interval periods between questions) changes in a part of the nervous system known as the autonomic nervous system. Monitoring and recording this physiology can serve various purposes. Within a law enforcement context, there are generally two different classes of experimental paradigms used for obtaining two different kinds of answers. The first which is widely used in this country and which I believe to be quite unsound (a discussion of why is well beyond the scope of this answer) is a lie detection polygraph test (one of several different formats) in which the examiner seeks to draw conclusions about the examinees emotional state (e.g., he is concerned because he has lied to a relevant question/issue) from physiological response (actually comparisons among various question types). The latter paradigm (which can utilize the same instrument or others monitoring different physiology) and which I and others believe to have a sound foundation for practice and to offer true scientific control is the concealed information test, often referred to as a guilty knowledge test. In this format the examiner seeks to determine if the examinee possesses some form of privileged information, e.g., information that might be known to only the perpetrator or the investigator of a specific crime. Without elaborating further and in answer to your question, I have generally described two experimental paradigms for you (lie detection and concealed information detection) both of which might be accomplished using the same instrument (field polygraph). I support the continued research and application of one (concealed information testing) and barring unseen theoretical developments for the other (lie detection) would recommend that utilization of this latter paradigm be discontinued.
The current field polygraph (different than many research polygraphs) whether it is an analog (paper recording) or digital (computerized) version is typically an instrument for monitoring and recording a few channels of human physiology. The organ systems monitored with this instrument largely reflect various short-term (occurring so as to be time-linked to individual polygraph chart questions which are typically presented with 15 to 20 second interval periods between questions) changes in a part of the nervous system known as the autonomic nervous system. Monitoring and recording this physiology can serve various purposes. Within a law enforcement context, there are generally two different classes of experimental paradigms used for obtaining two different kinds of answers. The first which is widely used in this country and which I believe to be quite unsound (a discussion of why is well beyond the scope of this answer) is a lie detection polygraph test (one of several different formats) in which the examiner seeks to draw conclusions about the examinees emotional state (e.g., he is concerned because he has lied to a relevant question/issue) from physiological response (actually comparisons among various question types). The latter paradigm (which can utilize the same instrument or others monitoring different physiology) and which I and others believe to have a sound foundation for practice and to offer true scientific control is the concealed information test, often referred to as a guilty knowledge test. In this format the examiner seeks to determine if the examinee possesses some form of privileged information, e.g., information that might be known to only the perpetrator or the investigator of a specific crime. Without elaborating further and in answer to your question, I have generally described two experimental paradigms for you (lie detection and concealed information detection) both of which might be accomplished using the same instrument (field polygraph). I support the continued research and application of one (concealed information testing) and barring unseen theoretical developments for the other (lie detection) would recommend that utilization of this latter paradigm be discontinued.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 27, 2003, 10:05 AMQuote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 07:03 PMDear Confused,
Fair chance, would you mind responding to my questions posted previously, please.
I was rereading this thread (which has taken a life of its own) and saw this reference in one of your posts. I believe that I did answer it about five or six post after I saw it the first time, if I did not answer it completely would you please repost your question(s). You have tried your best to be civil in your postings and I will do my best to be the same in mine.
Regards.
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 27, 2003, 08:29 AMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Feb 26, 2003, 10:40 PM
I do not believe that polygraphy should be or need be done away with, but I believe it must be and is not currently (with most lie detection formats) practiced as serious undertaking.
Drew:
Perhaps you have answered this elsewhere, and I am just a tad bit too lazy to sift through all of your posts on here, but would you please be specific as to how you would agree to the polygraph being used?
Could you also explain why the way that you would agree to the use of polygraph would be more effective than in CQT exams?
Regards,
Posted by Michelle
- Feb 27, 2003, 04:20 AMConfused...
I wrote:
I have to take something back here. Instead of "editing" a post I want to "correct" a post with a new post.
I don't think I can prove to you, specifically, about my involvement in outside activities that I believe are wrong an without morality. The WSJ article lists my full name. I am going to be taking a polygraph for a police department. You have made reference to working for a police department. The odds that you will be the same polygrapher are almost close to nothing but I am not willing to take the chance. If you happen to want evidence of my choice to become involved with what I believe to be wrong... I will send my evidence to Skeptic, George, or Marty. I trust them. I shouldn't since I don't know them in real time but I am willing to take that much of a chance if you should happen to request it.
I wrote:
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 27, 2003, 03:36 AM
My group started out with four of us, we are now 10,000 people big, we are speading to places outside the US, our website was voted in the top 10 of its actual type within the US for the 2nd year in a row and we won our class action lawsuit before ever going to court. Pfizer did not want a jury trial because we would have eaten them up for dinner.
I have to take something back here. Instead of "editing" a post I want to "correct" a post with a new post.
I don't think I can prove to you, specifically, about my involvement in outside activities that I believe are wrong an without morality. The WSJ article lists my full name. I am going to be taking a polygraph for a police department. You have made reference to working for a police department. The odds that you will be the same polygrapher are almost close to nothing but I am not willing to take the chance. If you happen to want evidence of my choice to become involved with what I believe to be wrong... I will send my evidence to Skeptic, George, or Marty. I trust them. I shouldn't since I don't know them in real time but I am willing to take that much of a chance if you should happen to request it.
Posted by Michelle
- Feb 27, 2003, 03:56 AMQuote from: confused on Feb 26, 2003, 01:14 PM
Tell me what profession you are in? I am sure someone could find something bad about it. Maybe an anti-site might be started regarding the many wrongs done by your profession to humanity.
Actually I want to readdress this issue because you bring up an excellent point. Let's examine what you have asked.
Let us say that your doc writes an Rx for Lanoxin, a heart med. If you do not need Lanoxin you could die if you take it anyway. I'm using an extreme example on purpose.
Let us also say that you come to me and get your Rx filled. Let us say that I fill it with the wrong drug.
On the paperwork that comes with your medication you can find a place where it describes the exact description of the tablet. You see each drug has a different description so that we can tell exactly what that drug is. Perhaps yours says that it is white, round (vs. oval or square) and has #123 on the tablet. You have the ability to compare what the tablet is *supposed* to look like vs. what it really does look like. If it is a capsule with R3694949 written on it you can be assured it is not the correct drug.
You can also take this drug to your doc, the one who wrote the Rx and you can ask... is this what you wrote the Rx for?? Your very own doc can say yes or no, that is what I wrote the Rx for.
What kinds of guarantees do you have on *your* work?
Quote
I do now and have always tried to be as professional and ethical and I can. Everyone who comes to me for a test gets my best effort and I expect that from all examiners. I am not perfect and never will be but I try. I am the one who has to live with what I do. I sleep pretty well.
This is another point I *should* have addressed and failed.
I actually believe you. If batboy or torpedo would have said the same I would not believe them. But FWIW I do believe you believe this to be true. This is the *only* reason I am rethinking my stand that you and batboy are not one in the same. Batboy could never ever make a claim such as yours.
That does not mean I have more faith in your test, and make no mistake, that is what it takes ... faith. But I do believe you are more apt to try for the truth vs. your buddies on this thread.
Question for you. Really think about this for a moment. If you reread post #1 and that post makes it verrrry clear what my issue and my intent are.... let us say that I end up in your office for a polygraph. How many preconceived ideas would you have as your standard issue human being on this planet?
I take Dexedrine, I don't want to tell you that AND I am not a Xtian.
How fair *can* you possibly be? Since you make it clear that some of the test is not scientific and does indeed depend on the skill of the polygrapher, then it stands to reason that there is some amount of *human* vs science involved in this test. So, how fair can you be as a standard issue human being?
Posted by Michelle
- Feb 27, 2003, 03:36 AMQuote from: confused on Feb 26, 2003, 02:43 PM
According to you, all Polygraphs are unsubstantiated. Obviously I disagree. Do examiners make bad calls? Yes.
Wait a minute. How can something be sooooo scientific if it can depend on a bad call? Doctors do not "do" medicine, they are honest enough to admit to "practicing" medicine. Yet polygraphers claim science is behind their "facts" and clearly you make it obvious that it depends on how a polygrapher calls the shots.
Perhaps you do sleep at night. Spiffy for you. That does not change the fact that you could have easily claimed an innocent person is guilty or maybe you let a child molester go out and molest again. Now I'm thrilled that you can sleep. If I were in your place I could not claim the same.
Quote
Do doctors mis-diagnose? Yes. Do lawyers blow cases and get their clients sent to prison? Yes. Do pharmacy techs ever give out the wrong Rx? Yes. Do Police officers ever arrest the wrong people? Yes. Everybody,especially polygraph examiners are evil when they make a mistake and therefore you can't trust them.
No, my claim is different. You guys are dealing with the lives of human beings. If I submit to YOUR polygraph and I am innocent, what recourse do I have when you call the shots wrong? If a doc or CPhT gives me the wrong drugs I can sue the hell out of them IF it causes me problems within my life. With you.... well, you'll sleep well that night knowing you did your best but I am still screwed.
The *only* issue I want to hide from a polygrapher is something that by law I do not have to disclose but because of social stigmas I react to basic questions of amphetamines. You insist that means I am fibbing and cheating to get a job. I have news for you... it is STILL none of your business that I take Dex and you can't do a damn thing about it. I KNOW how to pass a polygraph in spite of people like you. Deal with it.
Quote
By the way, you didn't say what your profession is. Could it be that it is a very unreliable profession and all of its practicioners are evil?
Yes, I did in the very beginning of the thread. Perhaps post #3 or later, certainly on page one of this thead. I spelled it out for you.
Quote
What makes you think we in the profession don't address what we feel is wrong?
Because it took 5 pages in this thread, over 100 posts before you made it clear that Batman was wrong for calling me a drug abuser. YOU defend him per your own admission. That's why.
Quote
When was the last time you were on tv or in the paper saying " the other people in my profession are incompetent and my profession needs to be cleaned up"?
I'm not in a profession where that is an issue. In my profession there is one other check and balance before a person can be harmed. Unlike you. However, I have gone to bat for something I felt was wrong. I went to bat against Pfizer, the drug company and I won! Class action lawsuit and all. I do fight the battles I believe need fighting. I am not afraid to put myself on the line, morally or legally for what I believe is right.
My group started out with four of us, we are now 10,000 people big, we are speading to places outside the US, our website was voted in the top 10 of its actual type within the US for the 2nd year in a row and we won our class action lawsuit before ever going to court. Pfizer did not want a jury trial because we would have eaten them up for dinner.
My point is that I *do* fight for what is right and I fight to the very end. We beat Pfizer for pities sakes! How many can claim the same? How many can claim front page/feature story of the Wall Street Journal? I can! I *earned* the ability to say that because I do fight for what is right. I might even be willing to share this information with you via email since I can determine you will never know who I am.
Actually, George knows my real time name due to a written Rx from a physician. If anybody would like I'd be happy to send George a link to the WSJ article as it does indeed list my name because I am one of the folks that started this whole thing.
When was the last time you did so, Confused?
Posted by Michelle
- Feb 27, 2003, 03:13 AMQuote from: not confused amused on Feb 26, 2003, 11:46 AM
I think your biggest medical problem is the one that only allows you to read only the parts you want to.
I actually told skeptic I agreed Batman should not have accused you of drug abuse.
Did I suggest otherwise? No, I did not. Care to try again?
Quote
AS for coming to his defense the first time I ever heard of him was in this thread.
Yes, I recall. After he accused me of being a drug abuser you defended his various stands on issues. This is supposed to help you not look silly? How?
Quote
Would I pass a test? As long as I didn't lie. Could I lie and pass, maybe? Rather not take the chance.
Ohhhh my, does that mean you would lie and cheat??? You would need to lie? Or you could take the test and pass even though you are a dishonest person? If taking a chance means that you might pass or you might not, how the hell do you expect to determine when others are telling the truth vs. being dishonest?
Do you understand that you are reinforcing the points of the antipolygraphers? Do you? Do you realize how many times it took asking this question before you responded? Do you have any idea how very telling that is?
Quote
Now I answered your question and you still have not answered mine, just danced around it. Do you think it is wrong to lie and cheat to get a job? I know what your answer is but would like to here you say it. Just a simple yes or no will do.
Sorry cutey, I've answered this one outright. Go back and read the thread and you will see. You will also see that others have attempted to explain this one as well. Seems to me that you simply don't like the answer so you keep asking until you hear what you want to hear. Is that how you conduct polygraphs as well?
Quote
I would discuss polygraph with most of the posters here because they at least have some first hand knowledge or experience.
Yet... you don't. Telling, isn't it?
Quote
By the way, not to long ago we had a dispatcher that had an attack at work and died because no one knew she had an existing medical condition.
How many of your dispatchers reveal all their meds and medical conditions with their supervisor? Are you going to tell me that your doc writes a note to your supervisors explaining anything that might be a medical problem for you?
Go blow your smoke somewhere else. People are looking at you with a raised eyebrow.
Why do you suppose the LAW makes it clear that I should not have to tell idiots like you about my ADHD? Why do you suppose there are such laws? Care to answer question #2 in this ... 5 pages worth of thread? When the law is quite clear that I do not have to tell idiots such as yourself about my ADHD, why should I? It does not cause medical conditions as you would imply.
Again... go blow your smoke elsewhere. People are looking at you with raised eyebrows here.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Feb 27, 2003, 12:30 AMShadow,
I use the term "fear of consequences" to refer to the mechansim for why a probable-lie control question test (CQT) would likely produce false positive results ("not work"). I do this as opposed to/in contrast with the frequently offered (by the polygraph community) "fear of detection" explanation for why that community believes the test (various formats) would "work." I am not aware of this term having been used in this context (admitedly not a quantum leap in theoretical thinking) prior to my use a couple/few years ago.
I use the term "fear of consequences" to refer to the mechansim for why a probable-lie control question test (CQT) would likely produce false positive results ("not work"). I do this as opposed to/in contrast with the frequently offered (by the polygraph community) "fear of detection" explanation for why that community believes the test (various formats) would "work." I am not aware of this term having been used in this context (admitedly not a quantum leap in theoretical thinking) prior to my use a couple/few years ago.
Posted by The Shadow
- Feb 27, 2003, 12:09 AMDrew,
When you say you termed "fear of consequences" a few years ago on this site, exactly what are you implying?
Didn't the late Bill Yankee use that term back in the early 90's in the Yankee Paradigm?
When you say you termed "fear of consequences" a few years ago on this site, exactly what are you implying?
Didn't the late Bill Yankee use that term back in the early 90's in the Yankee Paradigm?
Posted by Marty
- Feb 26, 2003, 11:03 PMDrew,
Yes, I suppose I overstated when saying "fear of consequences" drove development of the CQT. I had seen "fear of consequences" used in Kleiner's manual by one of the authors describing the benefits of the CQT over the older R/I test and incorrectly extrapolated.
I am impressed that you coined it. It seems so appropriate to describe the problems inherent in the R/I.
-Marty
Yes, I suppose I overstated when saying "fear of consequences" drove development of the CQT. I had seen "fear of consequences" used in Kleiner's manual by one of the authors describing the benefits of the CQT over the older R/I test and incorrectly extrapolated.
I am impressed that you coined it. It seems so appropriate to describe the problems inherent in the R/I.
-Marty
Posted by beech trees
- Feb 26, 2003, 10:51 PMQuote from: CONFUSED on Feb 26, 2003, 08:43 PM It is not that hard to catch a liar on a Polygraph.
If you call 'a 50% chance' 'not that hard' then I agree with you.
QuoteI don't know of any Polygraph examiner who feels the test is nearly infallible.
My goodness, you do live in a cave. Regardless, polygraphers routinely make blatant lies on television news programs concerning the accuracy of polygraphs, claiming anything from 100% accuracy to the old Dove Bar 99.97% accurate. Either they are lying or you are lying. Which is it? If I pointed out specific polygraphers who characterize the polygraph as nearly infallible both in print and in the televised media, will you personally take the time to correct them? Let's start with The Nationwide Polygraph Network. They boldy proclaim on their welcome page that the polygraph is '90-95% accurate'. Then in their FAQ they claim U.S. Government studies have concluded that the polygraph exam, conducted properly by a qualified examiner, is 87 to 95 percent accurate. Kind of a large disparity between those two sets of numbers, but oh well-- when did THE TRUTH ever matter to a lying sack of excrement like a polygrapher? Will you drop what you're doing and correct Michael Martin, aka 'The Lie Detector Guy'? Call him at (877) POLY TEST.
QuoteIf I don't lie I won't respond to the questions and they have no basis to say I did.
In the interests of accuracy, you are saying that if you answer 100% truthfully to the Control Questions, you will not be deemed as deceptive with regard to the relevant Questions?
Dave
ps I characterize anyone who lies for a living a lying sack of excrement. Your opinion or characterization may differ-- so be it.