AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

A Response to Doug Williams
by George W. Maschke
1 August 2003

Douglas Gene Williams, author of "How to Sting the Polygraph," a manual on polygraph countermeasures that is available for sale on his website, www.polygraph.com (http://www.polygraph.com), has published a veiled attack against AntiPolygraph.org (http://antipolygraph.org) and myself on his Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.polygraph.com/faq.html) page:

QuoteTHERE IS EVEN ONE WEBSITE OUT THERE THAT EQUATES BEING "ANTI" WITH BEING AN EXPERT. HE FREELY ADMITS THAT THE ONLY EXPERIENCE HE HAS WITH THE POLYGRAPH IS THAT HE HAS FLUNKED TWO TESTS. BUT THAT DOESN'T STOP HIM FROM GIVING ADVICE ON HOW TO "BEAT" THE POLYGRAPH. HE EVEN HAS A BULLETIN BOARD WHERE YOU CAN GET "ADVICE" FROM ANONYMOUS POSTS  PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW ANY MORE THAN YOU DO - NOW THAT OUGHT TO MAKE YOU FEEL CONFIDENT! HE'S BASICALLY HARMLESS  JUST ANOTHER POOR POLYGRAPH VICTIM TRYING TO BUILD UP HIS WOUNDED EGO - BUT THE POORLY WRITTEN, CONFUSING, AND OUT OF DATE INFORMATION IN HIS "BOOK" IS NOT SO HARMLESS. AS THE SAYING GOES, "A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING". I HAVE READ HIS STUFF AND IN MY EXPERT OPINION, IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO PREPARE YOU TO PASS THE POLYGRAPH TEST. THE ONLY THING OF VALUE IS WHAT HE GOT FROM AN OLD EDITION OF MY MANUAL  AND HE DIDN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT. BUT AT LEAST IT'S FREE  HE IS SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT HIS INFORMATION IS WORTH. (original emphasis)

It is not clear why Mr. Williams chooses not to name the website and person to whom he is referring above, but it is clear that the website to which he refers is AntiPolygraph.org, and that the "he" to whom he refers is myself. Perhaps the reason Mr. Williams chooses not to name the website of which he speaks is that he would prefer that any who have not yet visited AntiPolygraph.org not discover this non-profit website?

Mr. Williams begins his attack with the claim that AntiPolygraph.org "equates being 'anti' with being an expert." This is utter nonsense. Neither I nor anyone else has equated a person's opposition to polygraphy with a person's being an expert.

Mr. Williams is apparently referring to myself when he writes, "He freely admits that the only experience he has with the polygraph is that he has flunked two tests. But that doesn't stop him from giving advice on how to 'beat' the polygraph." Indeed, it was my experience of "flunking" two polygraph examinations -- when I had in fact been truthful -- that first led me to research polygraphy. It seems that Mr. Williams would like visitors to his website to discount what I have to say about polygraph matters because of my negative experience with the polygraph. But the information about polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures that is available on AntiPolygraph.org, and especially in our free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), is based not on any claimed personal experience -- either my own or that of others -- but rather on extensive research of the polygraph literature. The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is well-annotated with citations that skeptical readers may check for themselves.

Although I make no specific claim to being an "expert," neither would it be correct to characterize me as entirely uninformed with regard to polygraph matters. (At the risk of appearing immodest, I think it appropriate to note that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph (http://antipolygraph.org/nas.shtml) saw fit to invite me to Washington, D.C. to deliver a presentation at the second in their series of public meetings.)

Doug Williams continues: "He even has a bulletin board where you can get 'advice' from anonymous posts  people who don't know any more than you do - now that ought to make you feel confident!" AntiPolygraph.org maintains a message board (http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl) that has become the Internet's leading forum for uncensored discussion and debate of polygraph matters. Everyone is welcome to participate, including both polygraph opponents and supporters. Even Mr. Williams himself has occasionally posted on the AntiPolygraph.org message board. We allow anonymous posting because it fosters the free exchange of ideas, allowing some persons to participate who might otherwise fear retaliation for candidly expressing their views. We even have a forum (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0) dedicated to discussion of The Lie Behind the Lie Detectorwhere everyone is free to post any commentary or criticism they may have. Indeed, we welcome such criticism. Mr. Williams's website, by contrast, provides no such discussion forum.

Mr. Williams characterizes me as "basically harmless  just another poor polygraph victim trying to build up his wounded ego." I am certainly not attempting to cause harm to anyone. But Williams' unsupported allegation that I am just "trying to build up [my] wounded ego" is simply not true. Gino Scalabrini and I created AntiPolygraph.org in order to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. The website exists to educate the public, and especially those who may someday face a polygraph examination. We don't want others to suffer the same harm that we have because of our government's misplaced faith in the pseudoscience of polygraphy. I am particularly troubled by Mr. Williams' characterization of me as "just another poor polygraph victim." Does he genuinely care about the plight of polygraph victims?

Speaking of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, Williams continues "but the poorly written, confusing, and out of date information in his 'book' is not so harmless." It is not clear why Mr. Williams puts the word "book" in quotation marks. Perhaps he is somehow convinced that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not really a book?
Mr. Williams does not tell us just what it is in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that he considers to be "poorly written, confusing, and out of date," so it is difficult to respond to this criticism. Perhaps Mr. Williams would be so kind as to post any specific criticisms he may have on the AntiPolygraph.org message board (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0)? This way, visitors to AntiPolygraph.org would be warned against the harm that Mr. Williams would have them believe may befall them if they read our "book."

Williams contends that in his expert opinion, the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector "is not good enough to prepare you to pass the polygraph test." But he does not explain why he believes this to be the case.

Williams claims that "the only thing of value is what he got from an old edition of my manual  and he didn't even get that right." Not true. The countermeasure information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is based on a variety of sources, including Williams' manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph." But it is also based on other sources, including peer-reviewed countermeasure studies by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, Professor David T. Lykken's seminal treatise, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (http://www.dodpoly.army.mil[/url) documentation, and articles published in the American Polygraph Association (http://www.polygraph.org) quarterly publication, Polygraph. All these sources are appropriately referenced where relied upon in the book and are included in the bibliography.

Williams concludes his diatribe saying, "but at least it's free - he is smart enough to know what his information is worth." Unlike Mr. Williams's website, AntiPolygraph.org is not a profit-seeking enterprise. As Gino Scalabrini and I note in the introduction to The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we have distributed this book in electronic format free of charge in order to reach the broadest audience possible. We didn't write it to make money, and our only request is that if readers find it informative and useful, that they tell others about it.

In summary, I don't think that Mr. Williams has offered any rational argument as to why anyone should disregard any information on AntiPolygraph.org in general or in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector in particular.

Awesome!  You guys should go into entertainment.  Quite amusing.  The anti guys are infighting.  Hell of a knee slapper.  

George, you seem to bolster your credibility on your invitation from the NAS.  I guess Doug could bolster his credibility with his little interview with Diane Sawyer.  Who trumps who?  Ha Ha Ha.

I like the way you slant your website as the moral upstanding helping the poor victim website as opposed to the capitalist money grabbing website that Williams has.

At least you give poor old Doug credit by telling him you used portions of "The Stank" (or whatever he calls it).

Why would you even respond to Williams with this my site is better than your site bullshit?  Is your ego getting in the way your ability to disseminate information to the criminal throngs?

Your post certainly is interesting. ;)

George,

Perhaps Doug was upset about my post (I can't find it now) that questioned his character in regard to the apparent contradictions of his past (thousands of exams run?!) and present polygraph views.  

George, you certainly proved Doug's point about your wounded ego.  It is obvious that you wrote and give your book away free because that is the only way you can get people to visit your site.  They sure wouldn't come just to hear you and the other losers cry about flunking the polygraph tests.
And Saidme is right - you did take his information to put in your book.
And as to your invitation to the NAS, the only thing you have to offer is to cry about being a victim.  You certainly didn't have any expert tesimony to give.  You really are a bitter, pathetic little man and you continue to prove it.

George,

You're being very diplomatic when you state at certain points that it's "not clear" why Doug Williams would write pejoratively about antipolygraph.org or about you.

Of course, it's perfectly clear: he's trying to sell something you are giving away for free.  He's trying to stop the hemorraghing.  He wants to undermine you without giving you any publicity.  He's not interested in reasoned debate, he's interested in sales figures.

Keep up the great work!!

This should be called antianythingoranyonebutgeorge.comejointhepityparty.org  ;D

Whenever I try to persuade someone that polygraphy is a farce, I invite them to peruse the postings on this board, and to contrast the relative intelligence displayed by the pro- and anti-polygraph posters.

This has worked every time so far.  And this thread is already shaping up to be a effective tool in this regard, as well.

So please, pro-polygraph folks, resume your witty remarks!

As for Williams' criticism that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is poorly-written, I'd like to see evidence to support this claim.  The chapters I read were free from any errors that I could see.

QuoteWhenever I try to persuade someone that polygraphy is a farce, I invite them to peruse the postings on this board, and to contrast the relative intelligence displayed by the pro- and anti-polygraph posters.

We hear this all the time. The facts vs. inflammatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks debate on this message board has caused many impartial observers to conclude that polygraphy is a farce. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that we have yet to be accused to employing shills to misrepresent the pro-polygraph position. Sometimes, I look at certain posts made by polygraphers and come to the conclusion that even if we had shills, we couldn't the pro-polygraph side look at bad as some of them do.

QuoteAs for Williams' criticism that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is poorly-written, I'd like to see evidence to support this claim.  The chapters I read were free from any errors that I could see.

Well over 95% of all criticism of AntiPolygraph.org and The Lie Behind the Lie Detector comes in the form of vague negative statements or personal attacks. George and I thrive upon this stuff, as it lets us know that we are being successful.

As far as the angry former 'grapher who appears to be upset that his money train may be derailed (in actuality, what we write here is likely to pique public interest in polygraphy and increase his sales), as George said, this is an open forum. If he wants to "hang with the big dogs," he can post his specific criticisms right here on this site. Otherwise, he can continue to stay on the porch and just bark. The choice is his.

There's nothing like the rhetoric of an angry >:( 'grapher to put an smile on my face at the end of the day.

Wow George and Gino you do go on, and on, and on......Watch out!  You are going to blow your own horn so loudly and so long that you will likely pass out and fall flat on your asses.  What a pair to draw to!! ;D

Amused, once again, it is posts like yours that let us know that we are hitting a nerve in the polygraph community. This type of stuff keeps us going strong. Perhaps you should change your name on this board to "Angered." In any case, your posts on this thread require me to haul out the...

Angry 'Grapher Alert!

No Gino, not angry just amused.  Pukes like you and George don't rate anger, just amusement seasoned with a little disdain.

Quote from: Amused on Aug 02, 2003, 07:25 PMNo Gino, not angry just amused.  Pukes like you and George don't rate anger, just amusement seasoned with a little disdain.

Amused...now THATS what I call amusing...you state that they (George, Gino, etc.) don't "rate anger", yet you resort to name-calling.

I understand your anger though, I'd be angry too, if there were people out there blowing the whistle on the hoax that the polygraph community has perpetrated on the general public. Particularly in regard to poly-screening.

Take care,
PK

Gino

You're a class act.  You and George deserve one another. ;)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call George and Gino's book a book REPORT as opposed to a real book?   In fact  they themselves say they simply reported what others have written.  And now I hear that George is saying that his part is much better written than Gino's part.  And of course Gino is now upset.  :o ::)  Where will it all end?  

BSDETECTOR,

You write:

QuoteAnd now I hear that George is saying that his part is much better written than Gino's part. ?And of course Gino is now upset.

Pray tell, where did you hear that?

In another message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1187.msg9306#msg9306), you made the following false accusation:

QuoteGeorge: ?Your statement that is board is "uncensored" is a blatant lie and you know it. ?I know for a fact that you have blocked people that you don't want posting here.

You appear to be more a spreader of BS, than a detector of it.

Doug Williams has removed the text I quoted from his Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.polygraph.com/faq.html) page.

I would personally be embarassed to call myslef an expert in a field as baseless and transparent as polygraphy.

It is blatently obvious that Doug is just trying to make a buck and feels George is giving away his pie.  If Doug was so keen on exposing the fraud behind the test he would make his info free like you have George.

Keep up the good work.

In fairness, I think I should point out that Doug helped me pass the test long before George even had his site up.  And it should be noted that Doug has expertise both in polygraph testing AND countermeasures.  And he provides his phone number to answer questions thus providing a value added service.  And since when does giving away information make George an expert?  I guess the Canadians are more communistic than I thought since they seem to think capitalism is a dirty word.  Since George has used Doug's information in his book it seems to me he is basically biting the hand that feeds him.  It reminds me of the old chinese proverb - "Why do you hate me, I've never helped you."

Guest where are you coming from and what point are you trying to make?  Your post is way out in left field.

Countermeasures and the info contained in TLBTLD are not propriatary to Mr. Williams.  There is a plethora of info regarding the poly all over the net.

Mr. Williams is trying to discredit George and this page.  From a business stand point, the only reason I can see for Mr. Williams to do so is that George is cutting into Mr. Williams sales.  It would stand to reason therefore that the info George compiled in his book is accurate.  If it wasn't, why would Doug be making such a stink?  Same sort of logic applies for all the polygraphers on this site "warning" others not to use CM's as they claim they are detectable.  If they were, would it not be in the polygraphers best interest to stay quiet on the CM matter and catch people using them redhandedly?

From this Canadians stand point it would appear that George is right on the money regarding his plight to reveal the joke behind the test and the info regarding CM's in his book.

Guest,

My response to Doug Williams, which started this message thread, is in direct answer to the attack on AntiPolygraph.org and myself that he posted on his Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.polygraph.com/faq.html) page.

Mr. Williams apparently has chosen to remove the language I quoted from his website, rather than defend it. Was it your intention to support his now withdrawn attack? That Mr. Williams helped you to pass a polygraph "test" long before AntiPolygraph.org went on-line, that he has expertise both in administering polygraph examination and in countermeasures, and that he provides his phone number does not answer the points I raised in my response to his attack. (Your mentioning these things does, however, raise the question of whether you might be Doug Williams posting in disguise.)

You ask, "And since when does giving away information make George an expert?" Again, in my response to Mr. Williams (you read it, didn't you?),  I make no specific claim to being an "expert." If I have written anything on polygraph matters that you believe to be incorrect, please feel free to post your concerns on this message board.

On a final note, how does our having cited Mr. Williams' manual in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector amount to biting the hand that feeds us?

George your paranoia has reached an all time high even for you.  "They're coming to take me away ha ha, they're coming to take me away...."   Now everyone is out to get you, both pro and anti polygraph guys.  And are you posting under other names in support of your side of this little fight?  As if you would admit it.   What a joke!!!  Go to bed you need some sleep.

No, I am not Doug Williams, but I am happy to say I bought his manual,  called him numerous times for help, and am now employed as a LEO because of him.

bsdetector,

Here is a little tip, take it and run with it if you'd like: ad hominem attacks only work superficially when there is some grain of truth from which to extrapolate your smear against the man; when you manufacture it wholecloth, as you've done here, you only manage to not only make yourself look petty and vicious, but stupid as well. Have a nice day,

dave

Quote from: BSDetector on Aug 05, 2003, 05:11 PMGeorge your paranoia has reached an all time high even for you.  "They're coming to take me away ha ha, they're coming to take me away...."   Now everyone is out to get you, both pro and anti polygraph guys.  And are you posting under other names in support of your side of this little fight?  As if you would admit it.   What a joke!!!  Go to bed you need some sleep.

Beechtrees aka George M., I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my humor but your post makes me certain this is actually George posting under a false name.  Talk about petty and stupid - but very funny.

Now who is the one who appears paranoid? No, 'bsdetector', I'm not George. I'm sure we can arrange a telephonic conference call at your convenience to ease that aforementioned paranoia...

By the way, are any of the other contributors George, or just me? Maybe you think we're ALL George? Seek help bsdetector...

Quote from: BS Detector on Aug 05, 2003, 06:34 PMBeechtrees aka George M., I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my humor but your post makes me certain this is actually George posting under a false name.  Talk about petty and stupid - but very funny.

I'm not George, I'm dave......no, no, wait a minute I'm not dave, I'm the Canadian Crusader....no, no wait a minute, I'm George and I really need everyone to tell me how great I am so I can get well.  These voices, they are getting louder, louder, yes, yes, I really am, I'm King George the Turd.  Bow down you earthlings......no, no, I'm not George........

Someone hook Amused up to a poly so we can get to the bottom of things here!

Better get him to take the MMPI2 first so we can ensure he is mentally capable to take the test.

Quote from: Public Servant on Aug 01, 2003, 12:38 PMGeorge,

Perhaps Doug was upset about my post (I can't find it now) that questioned his character in regard to the apparent contradictions of his past (thousands of exams run?!) and present polygraph views. ?

Public Servant,

I think you're referring here to another reference on Doug Williams' Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.polygraph.com/faq.html) list. Where he speaks of attacks on his character, he is apparently referring to the recently re-designed Passapolygraph.com (http://www.passapolygraph.com) website, which now has an "About Our Competition" (http://www.passapolygraph.com/competition.html) page that refers to Doug Williams without mentioning him by name.

For the record, the various posts in this message thread posted under the names:

amused
Amused
BS Detector
BSDetector
guest

have all originated from the same, shared IP addresses.

And now George is posting as the ADMINISTRATOR too.  Look out everyone.  Don't say anything bad about King George or he will track you down and destroy you.  What a joke!!!!

So Amused-BSDetector-guest bought Doug William's book and made numerous phone calls for advice :o He then used CM's to pass his polygraph test so that he could get a job in LE and subsequently post on this board about how "wrong" it is to lie and cheat on the polygraph  ::)
So much for any posts by this multiple-personality having any credibility whatsoever.

Doesn't get any better than this ;D ;D

Quote from: orolan on Aug 06, 2003, 12:29 PMSo Amused-BSDetector-guest bought Doug William's book and made numerous phone calls for advice :o He then used CM's to pass his polygraph test so that he could get a job in LE and subsequently post on this board about how "wrong" it is to lie and cheat on the polygraph  ::)
So much for any posts by this multiple-personality having any credibility whatsoever.

Doesn't get any better than this ;D ;D

No wonder he fancies himself a detector of bs-- he slings it like a pro!  ::)

Just because George says all these posts came from the same “SHARED” IP doesn’t mean we are all the same person.  I could be a polygrapher stirring up trouble, (and it sure is working) – or I could be George himself building up a paper tiger to fight.  In fact it doesn’t follow that because George posts under many different names that I do too. And further, George really has no clue one way or the other. What he is doing though is to make visitors to this board wonder if there is such thing as “anonymous” posting.
  
But that is not the issue on this thread.  The issue is whether what Doug Williams has said about George and his book is true.  The answer to that is simple.  Who cares!  Let the people read it and decide.  And more importantly decide if you think you can pass the test with it.  George is a prime example of the phrase, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”

And while all this is going on, Doug Williams is probably sitting back laughing and saying, “Keep up the free advertisement, just make sure you spell my name right”.

Amused,
Neil Young said it best in the song "American Dream".

"It don't matter now, you're all washed up."

ust because George says all these posts came from the same SHARED doesn't mean we are all the same person.  I could be a polygrapher stirring up trouble, (and it sure is working), or I could be George himself building up a paper tiger to fight.  In fact it doesn't follow that because George posts under many different names that I do too. And further, George really has no clue one way or the other. What he is doing though is to make visitors to this board wonder if there is such thing as anonymous posting.
  
But that is not the issue on this thread.  The issue is whether what Doug Williams has said about George and his book is true.  The answer to that is simple.  Who cares!  Let the people read it and decide.  And more importantly decide if you think you can pass the test with it.  George is a prime example of the phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
 
And while all this is going on, Doug Williams is probably sitting back laughing and saying, "Keep up the free advertisement, just make sure you spell my name right".

Oh, I get it now. Every post on this site, both pro and con, is generated by George. Including this one. Because George has about 5,000 different personalities, and they argue with each other constantly.
Get real, Amused. Your delusional paranoia is quite disturbing. You really should get some help.
Incidentally, I'm sure that the Administrator could tell you that the IP address for this post is different than my last one, since it is being bounced through a proxy server in Dresden, Germany that is mixing the IP addresses of what currently reads to be 1,161 different users around the world. Anonymity is alive and well, should one choose to use it.

Absolutely priceless!!!!!!!

This person does not need to be in LE or any other job that requires compassion.

Once he employed CM's and passed, he elevated himself above the "losers" who have failed the test.

That is a clear sign of someone who is not capable of empathy and that makes for a dangerous person of authority.

Both Doug Williams and George agree that the polygraph is a fraud.  They have different opinions  about how to beat the machine.  

I enjoy coming to this site because there is an exploration of how the polygraph is used in our society.

Even detractors must agree that the site is well put together and full of information for the curious.  This site is much more than a simple commercial exchange.

Quote from: Amused on Aug 06, 2003, 01:57 PMust because George says all these posts came from the same SHARED doesn't mean we are all the same person.  I could be a polygrapher stirring up trouble, (and it sure is working), or I could be George himself building up a paper tiger to fight.

Why am I not surprised that, as a polygrapher, you a: are here soley to 'stir up trouble', or b: subscribing to still more paranoid delusions of conspiracies?

Amused,

Your write:

Quote...or I could be George himself building up a paper tiger to fight....

You are clearly nothing but a cowardly, self and otherwise deceiving paper tiger...but this attribution is of your own creation and through your own actions, not those of  Mr. Maschke.

If you are a polygrapher Amused, Guest, whoever..  Why are you wasting your time here with us "losers"?

The same question goes for all polygraphers on this board.  Why waste your time if the anti-poly people here are so out to lunch in our ideas and beliefs regarding the poly?

Time and time again I have read polygraphers post here that we are all wasting our time.  The poly is here to stay.  CM's are completely detectable.  We can tell when you lie.  

Seeing polygraphers engage in debate and watch this page tells me that you are a little more concerned with what goes on here beyond pure amusement and to "stir the pot".

The polygraphers who come here to "stir up trouble" do, indeed, make excellent exhibits.  Consider that, in this one thread, we have shining examples of these characteristics:

1) A polygraphers' honesty
2) A polygraphers' maturity
3) A polygraphers' inability to stick to the point
4) A polygraphers' mental state
5) A polygraphers' thoughtlessness
6) The lack of willingness of other polygraphers to disclaim the offender(s)

In general, I've only seen behavior such as this on Usenet from disturbed, angry individuals.  The fact that it shows up so often here is quite possibly indicative of a deep and pervasive problem in the polygraph community.  These are not honest, mature, stable professionals.

When I first came here, I honestly thought the description of polygraphers as professional liars and cheats was a bit knee-jerk, a reaction to polygraph "methodology" as an interrogation trick.  Thanks in large part to the postings I've seen here, I now know better: these guys don't just lie because their profession calls for it, or for the "greater good".  They really are fundamentally dishonest, immature and troubled people, and the idea that any of them sit in judgement or are the gatekeepers for our national security should deeply offend us all.

Skeptic

Quote from: Skeptic on Aug 09, 2003, 05:06 PMThe polygraphers who come here to "stir up trouble" do, indeed, make excellent exhibits.  Consider that, in this one thread, we have shining examples of these characteristics:

1) A polygraphers' honesty
2) A polygraphers' maturity
3) A polygraphers' inability to stick to the point
4) A polygraphers' mental state
5) A polygraphers' thoughtlessness
6) The lack of willingness of other polygraphers to disclaim the offender(s)

In general, I've only seen behavior such as this on Usenet from disturbed, angry individuals.  The fact that it shows up so often here is quite possibly indicative of a deep and pervasive problem in the polygraph community.  These are not honest, mature, stable professionals.

When I first came here, I honestly thought the description of polygraphers as professional liars and cheats was a bit knee-jerk, a reaction to polygraph "methodology" as an interrogation trick.  Thanks in large part to the postings I've seen here, I now know better: these guys don't just lie because their profession calls for it, or for the "greater good".  They really are fundamentally dishonest, immature and troubled people, and the idea that any of them sit in judgement or are the gatekeepers for our national security should deeply offend us all.

Skeptic

Hi Skep,

You hit upon the main reason I haven't posted recently-- the polygraph regulars are doing more for our side of the issue than I could ever hope to do! Keep it up guys! ;D

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2003, 04:34 PMGuest,

My response to Doug Williams, which started this message thread, is in direct answer to the attack on AntiPolygraph.org and myself that he posted on his Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.polygraph.com/faq.html) page.

Mr. Williams apparently has chosen to remove the language I quoted from his website, rather than defend it.

Mr. Mashke,

I just visited Mr. Williams' site.  Looks like he has a new attack.  Do you think the quote below is referring to Antipolygraph.org?

------------------------

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right"

There are new jack-in-the-box jokers springing up every day pushing "knock-off" manuals full of bad, confusing, or misleading information.  Who are these clowns?  Can you check them out?  Can you call them?  What proof do they give you that they have any polygraph experience, or more importantly that they have any expertise at all in teaching you how to pass your test?  I can tell you - you can't check them out, you can't call them, and they don't give you any proof to back up their claims, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA!  Don't you think your test is too important to trust your training to these fools?   If you listen to a fool, you are a fool!  Don't learn from a fool, learn from the expert - get properly prepared!"

Mr. Mashke, for whatever its worth, I do believe Mr. Williams to be a bit "over the top." Although he still insists the "rest of you" don't know have a clue about polygraph.

Just thought I would share...

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

While I don't believe that Mr. Williams's blurb is a specific reference to AntiPolygraph.org, it seems that it is intended to include this website, among others.

hav eyou taken doug williams personal course?