- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Boy1der
- Feb 20, 2003, 12:12 PMGeorgie! You resorted to sercasm. Nonetheless you have been kind enough to acknowledge more than once you disregard any ethical concerns regarding your site. My only response to your argument of accuracy is it doesn't wash the hands of dirt.
By the way I have reviewed the strings you suggested and you do not make any better argument there. Take care.
By the way I have reviewed the strings you suggested and you do not make any better argument there. Take care.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 20, 2003, 08:45 AMBoy1der,
You write:
I see. Perhaps compilot34 was unaware that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is freely available to (egad!) anyone with Internet access. It's a good thing you warned him/her of this dangerous and little-known fact!
Now that compilot34 knows this sordid truth, what inferences should he/she draw regarding the accuracy of anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?
The information about polygraphy available on AntiPolygraph.org can assist criminals only to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscience. That polygraph "tests" are handily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect is reason enough not to rely on polygraphy. Rather than reproaching us for pointing out that the polygraph emperor is naked, perhaps the polygraph community should put some clothes on?
You write:
QuoteMy only advice to compilot34 was to be aware of where he was getting his information; from people who are willing to assist criminals and the like without regard to ethical behavior.
I see. Perhaps compilot34 was unaware that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is freely available to (egad!) anyone with Internet access. It's a good thing you warned him/her of this dangerous and little-known fact!
Now that compilot34 knows this sordid truth, what inferences should he/she draw regarding the accuracy of anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?
QuoteWhat of the criminals you have assisted in making victims out of good and decent people?
The information about polygraphy available on AntiPolygraph.org can assist criminals only to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscience. That polygraph "tests" are handily defeated through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect is reason enough not to rely on polygraphy. Rather than reproaching us for pointing out that the polygraph emperor is naked, perhaps the polygraph community should put some clothes on?
Posted by Boy1der
- Feb 20, 2003, 05:46 AMMy only advice to compilot34 was to be aware of where he was getting his information; from people who are willing to assist criminals and the like without regard to ethical behavior. I am certainly glad you are willing to concede that in the process of helping those you feel to be innocent or potentially hapless victims, you also aide those much less than innocent and criminal. I'm sure it is a cozy blanket you have yourself wrapped up in. You and others have claimed that polygraph has made victims out of good and decent people, hence your justification for this site. What of the criminals you have assisted in making victims out of good and decent people? Using your mentality there should be an "Anti-Antipolygraph" site (which I'm sure you would gladly endorse, free speech and all). This has been fun, but your point has been made: You do not care about the ethical considerations regarding countermeasures and are more than willing to help criminals make "real" victims out of good decent people. No doubt you will have a self-rightious reply and again ask me to argue the accuracy of your information. I posted for the benefit of compilot34 and others reading this string. Be aware that Antipolygraph sets ethical considerations aside to put forth their personal agenda.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 20, 2003, 03:19 AMBoy1der,
You've correctly understood my point that the accuracy of information does not rest upon the ethics or morality of the provider thereof. An unethical person can speak the truth, and an ethical person can be mistaken. You had told compilot34 "...if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted." But this is not a rational argument for disregarding any information on polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures available on AntiPolygraph.org.
You erroneously inferred from my foregoing point that I somehow "agree that (I) and others on this site are socially iresponsible and or lack ethics regarding the information (we) provide." I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
AntiPolygraph.org makes information regarding polygraph policy, procedure, and countermeasures publicly available and free in order to help truthful/innocent persons protect themselves against the significant error associated with this invalid diagnostic technique. This information cannot be provided to those who need it without also making it available to everyone. We make no apology for speaking the truth about polygraphy openly and plainly. (For a more detailed discussion of the ethics of making such information publicly available, see the discussion thread, A word or two from the "other side.")
I note again that you have not given compilot34 any compelling reason to disregard anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
You've correctly understood my point that the accuracy of information does not rest upon the ethics or morality of the provider thereof. An unethical person can speak the truth, and an ethical person can be mistaken. You had told compilot34 "...if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted." But this is not a rational argument for disregarding any information on polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures available on AntiPolygraph.org.
You erroneously inferred from my foregoing point that I somehow "agree that (I) and others on this site are socially iresponsible and or lack ethics regarding the information (we) provide." I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind.
AntiPolygraph.org makes information regarding polygraph policy, procedure, and countermeasures publicly available and free in order to help truthful/innocent persons protect themselves against the significant error associated with this invalid diagnostic technique. This information cannot be provided to those who need it without also making it available to everyone. We make no apology for speaking the truth about polygraphy openly and plainly. (For a more detailed discussion of the ethics of making such information publicly available, see the discussion thread, A word or two from the "other side.")
I note again that you have not given compilot34 any compelling reason to disregard anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by Boy1der
- Feb 19, 2003, 09:58 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 19, 2003, 04:10 PM
By blatantly mischaracterizing my remarks thus, you have provided a vivid illustration of how polygraphers (perhaps unwittingly) may twist innocuous remarks into damaging admissions.
What was innocuous or misleading? You stated (correct me if I misunderstood the point of it) that accuracy and ethicality do not go hand in hand. Just because you feel correct and just, does that absolves you or anyone else here at this site from having to be ethical? The message I got was you are not concerned about the ethicality of providing countermeasures. If you are concerned please describe to me how you justify aiding true criminals in evading law enforcement, even if you do not believe in the validity of polygraph testing. I have read in past postings how you do not take responsibility of who visits your site. Since you are a reasonable man, do you think it is only those truthful people who are trying to ensure they are not wrongly eliminated from a potential Job? Will you concede and admit that your efforts have directly benefited those wishing to evade law enforcement or commit crimes? I hear you beckoning me to disprove anything you say here. Do you here me beckoning you to account for your complicity in assisting criminals or potential threats to our national security? Instead of urging me to discuss this elswhere, just answer the question.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 19, 2003, 04:10 PMBoy1der,
You write:
Not at all. My post indicated no such agreement, either explicitly or implicitly. By blatantly mischaracterizing my remarks thus, you have provided a vivid illustration of how polygraphers (perhaps unwittingly) may twist innocuous remarks into damaging admissions. (This is a reason why all interrogations, including polygraph interrogations, should be video- or audio-recorded.)
If you wish to discuss the ethics of making information about polygraphy (including polygraph countermeasures) publicly available, I'd be happy to address that. Note, however, this is an issue that has been discussed at length in previous message threads, which you may wish to review, and which may be more appropriate for this topic. You can search these boards by clicking on the "
search" button above (or the preceding link) and typing "ethics" as a key word. (Be sure to change the default search parameter from the past seven days to a larger number, like "1000," which will cover all posts on this board to date.)
I note that you have still not given compilot34 any convincing reason to disregard anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Is it the case that you are not able to point to any information therein that you believe to be incorrect?
You write:
QuoteSo you agree that you and others on this site are socially iresponsible and or lack ethics regarding the information you provide.
Not at all. My post indicated no such agreement, either explicitly or implicitly. By blatantly mischaracterizing my remarks thus, you have provided a vivid illustration of how polygraphers (perhaps unwittingly) may twist innocuous remarks into damaging admissions. (This is a reason why all interrogations, including polygraph interrogations, should be video- or audio-recorded.)
If you wish to discuss the ethics of making information about polygraphy (including polygraph countermeasures) publicly available, I'd be happy to address that. Note, however, this is an issue that has been discussed at length in previous message threads, which you may wish to review, and which may be more appropriate for this topic. You can search these boards by clicking on the "
search" button above (or the preceding link) and typing "ethics" as a key word. (Be sure to change the default search parameter from the past seven days to a larger number, like "1000," which will cover all posts on this board to date.)
I note that you have still not given compilot34 any convincing reason to disregard anything contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Is it the case that you are not able to point to any information therein that you believe to be incorrect?
Posted by Taz23
- Feb 19, 2003, 03:13 PMcompilot34,
Man you are trully taken a beating here. Personlly most who have replied (no personal attack on anyone, though I'm sure I'll receive a public lashing for my post too) live in a fantasy where LE officers just do their jobs, and never wonder into the dark side themselves. Ah, Utopia what a beautiful place. Modern Society has decided that marijuana (a hallucigen) is bad and people who use the natural herb are bad. On the other hand alcohol (a depressant)a processed chemical specifically designed to intoxicate our minds is perfectly legal and controlled by our government, both easily accessable for abuse. Little known fact, alot of juries and judges do not convict DWI's for fear that one day it may be them sitting in the defendant's chair.
Personally, I had a real hard time getting into LE. The process really sucks, and the entire decision of wether you get hired or not rests on the hands of one individual, usually a polygrapher or Background Investigator.
If you have trully changed your ways, then use all the resources available to you to fulfill your dreams. At the end of the day you are only accountable to answer to one being for your actions. I think most who have replied previously would have to eternally punish themselves, if they were to measure themselves with the same ruler with which they have measured you. A person's character and "standards" is not based upon wether they have obeyed all the laws written by modern politians. Nope, a person's character is measured by something much higher.
My humble advice, if it doesn't have a paper trail and you are only accountable to yourself and the supreme being, then as far as anyone else is concerned,it never happened.
Regards,
Taz
PS Save your posts about letting serial murders, rapists, robbers, burglars etc getting away with crimes if it doesn't have a paper trail. My post has nothing to do with those type of people. Thx.
Man you are trully taken a beating here. Personlly most who have replied (no personal attack on anyone, though I'm sure I'll receive a public lashing for my post too) live in a fantasy where LE officers just do their jobs, and never wonder into the dark side themselves. Ah, Utopia what a beautiful place. Modern Society has decided that marijuana (a hallucigen) is bad and people who use the natural herb are bad. On the other hand alcohol (a depressant)a processed chemical specifically designed to intoxicate our minds is perfectly legal and controlled by our government, both easily accessable for abuse. Little known fact, alot of juries and judges do not convict DWI's for fear that one day it may be them sitting in the defendant's chair.
Personally, I had a real hard time getting into LE. The process really sucks, and the entire decision of wether you get hired or not rests on the hands of one individual, usually a polygrapher or Background Investigator.
If you have trully changed your ways, then use all the resources available to you to fulfill your dreams. At the end of the day you are only accountable to answer to one being for your actions. I think most who have replied previously would have to eternally punish themselves, if they were to measure themselves with the same ruler with which they have measured you. A person's character and "standards" is not based upon wether they have obeyed all the laws written by modern politians. Nope, a person's character is measured by something much higher.
My humble advice, if it doesn't have a paper trail and you are only accountable to yourself and the supreme being, then as far as anyone else is concerned,it never happened.
Regards,
Taz
PS Save your posts about letting serial murders, rapists, robbers, burglars etc getting away with crimes if it doesn't have a paper trail. My post has nothing to do with those type of people. Thx.
Posted by Boy1der
- Feb 19, 2003, 02:26 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 19, 2003, 01:39 PM
The accuracy of the information presented here and/or the adviseableness of any advice offered here is not dependent upon the social responsibility or ethics of those providing such information/advice.
So you agree that you and others on this site are socially iresponsible and or lack ethics regarding the information you provide. I would again caution anyone who would follow such advice. My advice is to find a more positive avenue in which to discuss your disagreement or disent. Certainly a well educated person such as yourself can think of a more ethical manner in which to protest, or can you? Does it take a national security incident or the victimization of a child to express your concern? No doubt you will not acknowledge any culpability in assisting truely dispicable people. Thats O.K. your own words have made it clear.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 19, 2003, 01:39 PMBoy1der,
You write:
I agree with you that compilot34 should think very clearly about the foregoing. You seemingly suggest that the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures found on AntiPolygraph.org should be disregarded because those providing the information are, in your view, socially irresponsible and/or unethical. However, your reasoning here is fallacy of the ad hominem variety. The accuracy of the information presented here and/or the adviseableness of any advice offered here is not dependent upon the social responsibility or ethics of those providing such information/advice.
If you believe that any of the information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is either untrue or otherwise misleading, why not say so and explain your point of view? (We even have a forum dedicated to such discussion.)
You write:
Quotecompilot34, you should be absolutely honest on your application as everyone here has stated. However, if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted. You made a mistake when you were a few years younger because you were not thinking clearly. Think very clearly about this!
I agree with you that compilot34 should think very clearly about the foregoing. You seemingly suggest that the information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures found on AntiPolygraph.org should be disregarded because those providing the information are, in your view, socially irresponsible and/or unethical. However, your reasoning here is fallacy of the ad hominem variety. The accuracy of the information presented here and/or the adviseableness of any advice offered here is not dependent upon the social responsibility or ethics of those providing such information/advice.
If you believe that any of the information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is either untrue or otherwise misleading, why not say so and explain your point of view? (We even have a forum dedicated to such discussion.)
Posted by Boy1der
- Feb 19, 2003, 10:27 AMTo All,
compilot34 raised a question that has been raised here before and has only been answered in the veil of selfrightiousness. You advocate the circumvention of a legal, acceptable form of investigation (polygraph). It does not matter to those "anti" persons if they assist potential or real spies and terrorist, as long as they can "save one more innocent victim of a false positive examination." They do not care that a child molester may victimize another innocent child, as long as they didn't unzip his pants.
compilot34, you should be absolutely honest on your application as everyone here has stated. However, if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted. You made a mistake when you were a few years younger because you were not thinking clearly. Think very clearly about this!
compilot34 raised a question that has been raised here before and has only been answered in the veil of selfrightiousness. You advocate the circumvention of a legal, acceptable form of investigation (polygraph). It does not matter to those "anti" persons if they assist potential or real spies and terrorist, as long as they can "save one more innocent victim of a false positive examination." They do not care that a child molester may victimize another innocent child, as long as they didn't unzip his pants.
compilot34, you should be absolutely honest on your application as everyone here has stated. However, if you take advice to use countermeasures, remeber where you got it from and who they have undoubtably assisted. You made a mistake when you were a few years younger because you were not thinking clearly. Think very clearly about this!
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 19, 2003, 04:44 AMcompilot34
I believe that any applicant should be totally forthcoming in his or her attempt to acquire a job. This includes any DQ factors that may be painfully or embarassingly a part of one's history.
I do not find fault with anyone who is honest on their application using countermeasures to ensure the results of the polygraph exam. I would have trouble with someone who was deceitful on their application, and then used countermeasures to further skew the results of the poly.
So long as Americans are subjected to this type of luncay and witchcraft, I believe that those who are knowledgable, intelligent, and desire to further the good of our way of life here should not be denied employment paid for by my tax dollars. The polygraph does, in fact, disqualify many honest people and in effect, robs this country of greatly needed assets.
Ultimately the choice to use countermeasures or not is yours.
Best,
I believe that any applicant should be totally forthcoming in his or her attempt to acquire a job. This includes any DQ factors that may be painfully or embarassingly a part of one's history.
I do not find fault with anyone who is honest on their application using countermeasures to ensure the results of the polygraph exam. I would have trouble with someone who was deceitful on their application, and then used countermeasures to further skew the results of the poly.
So long as Americans are subjected to this type of luncay and witchcraft, I believe that those who are knowledgable, intelligent, and desire to further the good of our way of life here should not be denied employment paid for by my tax dollars. The polygraph does, in fact, disqualify many honest people and in effect, robs this country of greatly needed assets.
Ultimately the choice to use countermeasures or not is yours.
Best,
Posted by PeterFonda
- Feb 18, 2003, 10:50 PMBatman,
Sorry, got a little of the point on that!!
Sorry, got a little of the point on that!!
Posted by compilot34
- Feb 18, 2003, 10:20 PMFirst of all, I apologize if someone chose to take it personally. I came to ask a simple question, which, after much reading through other posts, I see has been answered already. I am not "angry" at anyone. I just don't like self-righteous sermons.
While there may be a few true saints on this forum, I am quite certain most people here are just as human and imperfect as myself. I just choose to be forthcoming about my past misdeeds and current intentions. If I thought for a second that the truth would prevail in this situation, I wouldn't have asked in the first place. My problem with this whole fiasco is that it seems people want to judge which lies are bad and which are ok. In a perfect world, none are ok. It's either black or white in Utopia. So someone tell me what justifies a lie? If the majority of people were completely honest with the control questions, wouldn't most of them fail? So we are told to lie because the polygrapher wants us to/expects us to, but these lies are only acceptable for the presumed "honest" people! That's the message I'm getting here. If I had been pointing fingers, I would surely have mentioned names. It wasn't personal.
I think you misunderstood my statement about background investigations. I was referring to their use, and that of drug testing, to weed out applicants in lieu of the poly. I don't believe in the polygraph for employment screening, never have.
No hard feelings intended guys!
While there may be a few true saints on this forum, I am quite certain most people here are just as human and imperfect as myself. I just choose to be forthcoming about my past misdeeds and current intentions. If I thought for a second that the truth would prevail in this situation, I wouldn't have asked in the first place. My problem with this whole fiasco is that it seems people want to judge which lies are bad and which are ok. In a perfect world, none are ok. It's either black or white in Utopia. So someone tell me what justifies a lie? If the majority of people were completely honest with the control questions, wouldn't most of them fail? So we are told to lie because the polygrapher wants us to/expects us to, but these lies are only acceptable for the presumed "honest" people! That's the message I'm getting here. If I had been pointing fingers, I would surely have mentioned names. It wasn't personal.
I think you misunderstood my statement about background investigations. I was referring to their use, and that of drug testing, to weed out applicants in lieu of the poly. I don't believe in the polygraph for employment screening, never have.
No hard feelings intended guys!
Posted by steincj
- Feb 18, 2003, 08:58 PMQuote from: compilot34 on Feb 18, 2003, 04:54 PM
If you guys are going to tell people it's ok to lie about polygraph knowledge and countermeasures then you can't tell someone not to lie about something else in the next breath. You tell that to the ones you "believe" are honest, yet you have no way of knowing they are. So is it ok for "honest" people to lie about the poly knowledge and countermeasures?
If many of them truly had nothing to hide, why would they be coming here looking for advice?
compilot34,
Be careful how you paint a picure of those of us on this website. Your broad brush of accusations may splatter paint where it not need be.
Many on this site do believe in countermeasures, and some don't. Some of those are for the polygraph and some are against. Not everyone who comes to this site has something to hide. Some come here after hearing the horror stories of the falsely accused, and some choose to protect themselves during the polygraph test with countermeasures, even though they have nothing to hide. So be careful where you aim your anger.
Quote
All other crimes would be discovered through a thorough background investigation. Potential employees are not criminals and the fact that so many honest people fail these damn things sickens me. I'd be here even if I believed I didn't have to tell a lie.
I think you are still new to this whole polygraph thing, because as you may or may not know, background investigations are not done when an individual fails a polygraph. They are only done when an individual passes, and little entusiasm is given to the investigation under the guise of "they must be truthful if they passed a polygraph."
Again, these are more reasons why people come to this site. Please don't judge eveyone while in anger over your own situation.
Chris
Posted by Batman
- Feb 18, 2003, 05:27 PMMr. Fonda,
I loved you in Easy Rider dude!
I know that by living in caves and hanging upside down I can get a bit disoriented, but your post down right confused the hell out of me. I read it over a few times and my headache got worse with each reading.
What are you talking about as it relates to my response to Compilot34? Help me out here, please!
Compilot34,
Easy bud, I see a heart attack or worse coming on here! Just go in and lay down the truth on whomever you're dealing with. If they can't live with it, tough shit, but at least you won't continue to got through what you're putting yourself through right now.
Steincj,
Wow! Does this mean I can call you Robin?
Batman
I loved you in Easy Rider dude!
I know that by living in caves and hanging upside down I can get a bit disoriented, but your post down right confused the hell out of me. I read it over a few times and my headache got worse with each reading.
What are you talking about as it relates to my response to Compilot34? Help me out here, please!
Compilot34,
Easy bud, I see a heart attack or worse coming on here! Just go in and lay down the truth on whomever you're dealing with. If they can't live with it, tough shit, but at least you won't continue to got through what you're putting yourself through right now.
Steincj,
Wow! Does this mean I can call you Robin?
Batman