In recent weeks, AntiPolygraph.org was subjected to a coordinated effort by a number of polygraphers to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt). Posts were characterized by numerous personal attacks, and the posters ignored repeated personal messages admonishing them to keep it civil. All have been banned from further posting.
AntiPolygraph.org has received confirmation of the identities of some of these posters, and we now present:
The Polygraph Peanut Gallery
A Cast of Characters
- palerider (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=palerider) / Paradiddle (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Paradiddle) was played by Eric S. Johnson, a private polygrapher in Indiana who specializes in sex offender screening;
- Ludovico (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Ludovico) was played by Raymond Nelson, a private polygrapher in Colorado who specializes in sex offender screening:
http://www.raymondnelson.us
- Dragon Lady (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Dragon_Lady) / Wonder Woman (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Wonder_Woman) was played by Donna Taylor, a private polygrapher in Utah who specializes in sex offender screening:
http://www.utahpolygraphservices.com
- Mysterymeat (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Mysterymeat) / S queezecheeze (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Squeezecheeze) was played by Ted Todd, who works for the Contra Costa County, California district attorney's office (http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/da/) and also has a private practice:
http://www.tedtodd.net
- and StudebakerHawk (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=StudebakerHawk) was played by none other than Dr. Louis Irving Rovner, Ph.D.:
http://www.polygraph-west.com
These polygraphers, all well-respected members of the polygraph community, succeeded in demonstrating, in a way that we could not possibly have done, the immaturity and lack of appetite for reasoned discourse that are all-too-prevalent amongst polygraph "professionals."
If our government could penetrate al Qaeda half as well as we have penetrated polygraph organizations, there wouldn't be a terror threat to our country.
Just remember, every time you speak to someone about polygraphy, there is a good chance that the person's loyalty lies with US.
This is probably the most indisputable proof ever that polygraph countermeasures are effective and cannot be detected. Because with the amount of information being leaked to us on a constant basis from so many polygraph organizations, one would think that they would simply run a few polygraph examinations to find out who the leaker is...
Even a random screening program should be able to deter this behavior, right?
Since no one seems to want any part of Dr. Richardson's challenge, how about polygraphing the members of your little stunt here on this message board as of late, and publicly outing the leaker of info here on this forum?
My challenge to operators Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd and Dr. Louis I. Rovner is as follows: conduct specific exams of each other and anyone else that knew about your shenanigans and tell us...
Who's the rat?
yep, won't be missing them anytime soon.
Great work, George and Gino. Nonombre wrongly questioned your research assesment skills. I suppose even he won't be foolish enough to question your nicely rewarded investigative and interrogation skills. If you guys can correlate it, it would be nice to see a listing of some of the more immature postings correlated with the true names of these clowns. All of the victims (and those who will be taking polygraph exams) who come to this site should see such a permanent and well displayed listing. Perhaps Todd's employing district attorney's office might like to see some of his prose. Good job again, guys. The truth shall prevail.
It was certainly interesting to see how many of the recent batch of trolls allowed their personal bias against me to cause them to incorrectly brand me a liar and a poser, simply because I politely and respectfully disagreed with their point of view.
It certainly does nothing to enhance whatever professional reputation they have, to see that anyone who voices an opinion with which they disagree (no matter how politely that opinion is stated) is accused of lying and is subjected to repeated (and completely irrelevant) ad hominem attacks.
I am quite confident that if I had for some reason been willing to let any of them polygraph me, their personal disdain for my opinions would have caused them to conclude I was lying about being a police officer, right up to and probably even after the point where I produced my ID and badge.
It makes me (and probably many others) wonder how much of their DI or NDI conclusions are based on their make-believe science of polygraphy, and how many are simply the result of their personal bias or prejudices...
George,
Well done! I go away for a week and look at all the excitement that I've missed...
Anyhow, I was wondering if you were considering a forum membership agreement that specifically states that personal attacks and intentionally misleading statements would be cause for suspension and possible banishment. It seems to me that this would deflect criticism that you're only banning polygraphers. If people had to agree to membership conditions prior to posting, it might stop further incidents like these recent attacks...
It is also very interesting to see who these people were. I looked at their webpages and with the exception of Dr. Rovner, none had the appearance of any serious graduate education. Again, I think that speaks volumes about who becomes a polygrapher. I wonder in the cases of Honts and Rovner if they were polygraphers before they became researchers as it is very hard sometimes to discard old beliefs, especially when one's identity is wrapped in it...
Keep up the good work...
-digithead
QuoteDigithead: It seems to me that this would deflect criticism that you're only banning polygraphers.
We are actually on the record as having warned and admonished our own supporters when they have behaved abusively toward polygraph examiners who have made respectful posts on this forum.
I don't think that it has ever risen to the level of requiring that someone be banned. When George or I have sent messages to those who have attacked polygraph examiners here personally, the warnings have been heeded and the conduct ceased.
The same cannot be said for polygraph examiners. Multiple warnings were sent out to Raymond Nelson, Ted Todd and Dr. Rovner to cease their conduct. None complied and several warnings were replied to with flippant messages even worse than the originals.
digithead,
Registered users of the message board are presented with AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1791.msg13605#msg13605) at the time they register and must explicitly agree to it. In moderating this forum, we prefer to err in the direction of too little rather than too strict moderation. The decision to ban a poster is an especially difficult one, and we generally prefer to admonish posters privately when they have crossed the line of civil public discourse.
Our posting policy applies to all, regardless of viewpoint. A polygraph critic who was banned after repeated uncivil postings is gelb disliker (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=usersrecentposts;username=gelb_disliker). And no one has ever been banned from this message board merely for expressing an opposing view.
The decision to ban the four posters was made only after repeated violations of our posting policy and after private admonishments were ignored (and in some cases, as Gino mentioned, responded to with flippant remarks). The extraordinary decision to publicly reveal the identities of these posters was made only after it was made known to us that their effort was part of a deliberate and coordinated attempt to hinder, rather than foster, meaningful discussion and debate of polygraph issues.
Since this thread was started, Raymond Nelson (one of the four "outed trolls") has registered using his real name (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=raymond.nelson). He will remain welcome to post here as long as he keeps it civil. And I have extended an invitation to Lou Rovner (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg26607#msg26607) to return to this forum to publicly address the criticisms I raised regarding his recent polygraph examination and testimony in an Ohio criminal case.
On other boards it is common for anyone banned under one screen name to be prohibited from registering again under any screen name.
How do you feel about that? I looked at the posting policy and didn't see that point addressed, though the term "banned" would seem to imply the person, rather than the screen name, has been asked to leave the site permanently.
Maschke and company...
You have lost far more than you think you have gained.
The examiners you "banned" did not engage in any conduct that had not been pointed at them time and time again over the several years this site has been in existance...
What you did do was to engage in what every petty dictator has always done. Silence the opposition. You have done that well. Bravo, you are quite proud I am sure. Quite proud you have silenced the "trolls" I believe you called your opposition? Gee, and I thought you were above name calling...
What you also succeeded in was to forfit any claim you ever had that this was a fair and impartial board. It is now painfully apparent this site is nothing more than "Spin"...Designed to tell just one side of the story. The side of the poor unfortunate sole who actually believed he was "entitled" to FBI employment...
Thank GOD they never hired you, for people of your psychological make-up is just what thieves and traitors are made of (yes, we have learned that through intense research)...I now believe the FBI actually did the right thing in the end and Jack Trimarco was one hell of an agent. I am very proud of his work. His retirement has made the world a less safe place...
I expect to now be "banned" for my "insubordination"... :P
Sergeant1107,
Given the ready availability of anonymous proxies and e-mail accounts (to which we actually point users to facilitate anonymous posting), it is not possible to ban individuals, as they can easily return under a new persona.
Nonombre,
I do believe you are jealous. Maschke and company successfully outed four of your compatriots. You failed miserably in your one attempt to out one ex-polygraph examiner. Not to worry though...that coupled with your research flub regarding Mr. Maschke's education guarantees that you will be around. Who else would provide the comic relief? Chill, kiddo...they might even pay you for guest appearances. ;D
AntiPolygraph.org has received confirmation that the lead role of palerider (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=palerider) / Paradiddle (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=Paradiddle) was played by polygrapher Eric S. Johnson of Indiana, who specializes in sex offender screening. He has been added to the list.
The polygraph "professionals" recently exposed for the "anonymous" fusillade of personal insults and attempts at fear mongering here on this forum have apparently retreated to the safety of a pro-polygraph message board.
Instead of addressing the challenge I posed to them--namely that they use polygraphy to determine who betrayed their identity to us and to publicly identify this person--they have chosen to unleash a new barrage of personal attacks (http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000614.html).
Finally, I've been included along with George. I suppose that I've finally made it in life.
As strange as this sounds... After the shenanigans that have been pulled by this small group of polygraph examiners in recent weeks, I feel the need to speak in defense of polygraph examiners as a whole.
What I want to make clear is that the behavior of these examiners is of a repugnant nature that is out of the ordinary among polygraph examiners. It represents a new low, and should not be considered typical of polygraph examiners in general.
Yes, polygraphy is not backed by good science--especially in the screening context. Yes, the entire procedure is almost always riddled with the examiner making false statements to the examinee. Yes, minor admissions are frequently spun into things that appear to be of far greater significance. Yes, polygraphy is easily defeated by deceptive persons using simply countermeasures.
Still, I don't think that most polygraph operators conduct their business on a daily basis through acts of malice. Most are well-meaning, but in my opinion simply wrong.
A few examiners have actually had the courage to step forward to us and engage in debate on the issues instead of the incessant "sticks and stones" garbage.
The names Elmer Criswell (http://counterdrug.org/polygraph.html#17) and Milton O. "Skip" Webb (at least as of his latest postings here on the forum) immediately come to mind. Of course I disagree with them. Still, they are gentlemen who have earned my respect.
I remind our readers that the instant group is likely lashing out because they know that their careers are in serious jeopardy right now. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes trying to defend the integrity of an examination against an attorney armed with the contents of their posts they made "anonymously" here.
Again, just as how the actions of one corrupt police officer often take on a life of their own through sensationalist media reports that end up painting all officers with the same broad brush...
The behavior of the polygraph examiners currently assailing us is that of a rogue group and should not be taken as representative of the polygraph community as a whole. It is simply a small group individuals who happen to be polygraph examiners that have apparently gone completely out of their minds.
Gino,
I followed your link to polygraphplace. I notice that they refer to your site, but don't give a link to it. No wonder. When I searched Google with "polygraph," (not anti-polygraph, but polygraph) a short while ago, I notice that your site comes up number one (even ahead of the American Polygraph Association's site) and their site came in at number 8. No wonder they are apoplectic. You are the electronic portal to polygraphy for the whole world. You gotta luv it. Keep up the good work, guys! BTW, since they now misrepresent on their site why they were banned from this site, you might still want to put together some sort of a greatest quotes from the peanut gallery to include your warnings to them and their responses.
Nonombre,
I don't understand how you can characterize the behavior of the trolls (their behavior classified them as such, by definition) as "telling another side of the story" or as anything similar. The people who were banned were contemptuous, rude, insulting, and disrespectful from the moment they registered here. I think the five or so people who were recently banned engaged in more ad hominem attacks in the past month than has been seen on this board in the past several years.
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 22, 2007, 09:35 PMThe examiners you "banned" did not engage in any conduct that had not been pointed at them time and time again over the several years this site has been in existance...
Your comment makes it clear that you do not approve of the conduct you feel has been directed at examiners over the past several years. If the behavior is unacceptable (and I do believe personal attacks are unacceptable) it does not become any less so because it is being done by someone with whom you agree. It also does not become any less acceptable if you resort to the schoolyard argument of, "He started it!"
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 22, 2007, 09:35 PMWhat you did do was to engage in what every petty dictator has always done. Silence the opposition. You have done that well. Bravo, you are quite proud I am sure.
This is simply a gross mischaracterization of events. If you want to see an example of petty dictatorship that will instantly silence the opposition, go to PolygraphPlace.com and post a message questioning the validity of the polygraph. The post will be deleted and your account will be banned within minutes.
On the other hand, George allows pro-polygraph posts every day. The people who were banned were banned only after repeated admonishments to keep their discourse civil, and they chose to ignore those warnings and continue their personal attacks on the posters themselves, rather than on the ideas espoused by them.
You and I have engaged in lengthy online debates about various aspects of polygraphy, and I don't ever recall you taking the "anti" side. Your opinion has always been welcome and I don't ever recall questioning your veracity or attacking your character in any way. If George was truly the "petty dictator" you have named him, as soon as you made it known you were not opposed to polygraphy he would have banned you.
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 22, 2007, 09:35 PMQuite proud you have silenced the "trolls" I believe you called your opposition? Gee, and I thought you were above name calling...
Trolls are defined as people who, "regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, 'Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.'"
I understand (though I do not agree with) your justification that the examiners who were recently banned from this forum were merely retaliating for similar behavior that was directed at them for the past several years. I don't see how you can reasonably characterize such retaliatory behavior as anything other than attempts to annoy, attack, and disrupt. Such behavior is, by definition, trolling.
Quote from: nonombre on Oct 22, 2007, 09:35 PMThank GOD they never hired you, for people of your psychological make-up is just what thieves and traitors are made of (yes, we have learned that through intense research)...I now believe the FBI actually did the right thing in the end and Jack Trimarco was one hell of an agent. I am very proud of his work.
And then you finish up with another argumentum ad hominem. You disagree with George's opinion on the polygraph so he must be psychologically similar to thieves and traitors.
I think any objective observer to these proceedings would easily conclude that George, Gino, and Drew conducted themselves with far more grace and class than did any of the examiners and polygraph supporters who were repeatedly attacking their veracity and character.
Fabulous. Now let's set the record straight. George and all have characterized polygraph examiner postings as "a coordinated effort." Such is not true. Being acquanted with fellow examiners and commenting on the site "after hours" regarding the utter lack of robust opinions on this site is hardly "coordinated." Posting research that demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives of the tlbtld "countermeasures" is not disinformation, it is scientific proof. I was bannished not as a result of ad hom attacks (although I've had my share and recieved them too) but I posted a survey on this board asking threaders if they recieved any malware, bots, or trojans----and even giving regards to the fact that alleged problems on this site could be fictitious or unrelated to antipolygraph.org. That my friends and adversaries is what got Paradiddle banished. I am always up for debate, but when posters refuse to acknowledge scientific research, construct validity, and true experience----than such amounts to the twin of ad hom attacks. To further the insult, Gino and George have sold the identities of members for amusement. First the Vipre gang, now the polygraph examiners, next it will be you. I am greatly disappointed in George's paranoid accusation of "coordinated" attacks---which amounted to some field examiners deciding to represent with the exact same argumentative style as you here propogate. Your own soup tastes sour indeed.
Mr. Johnson,
There can be little doubt that yours was a coordinated effort, and a well-informed source has confirmed that you, in fact, were the key player in this endeavor to debase the level of discourse on this message board.
It is true that your posting privileges as Paradiddle were banned after you posted a poll -- a poll calculated to insinuate the false notion that AntiPolygraph.org sends malware to our visitors. But you had disregarded multiple earlier warnings to abide by our posting policy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1791.msg13605#msg13605).
Let anyone who claims to have received malware from AntiPolygraph.org state so openly and provide proof. No one can do so, because we have never sent anyone malware of any kind.
In his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma, videorecorded for evidentiary purposes and played in open court, Dr. Louis Rovner, Ph.D. (one of your group) falsely claimed (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25493#msg25493) that I sent him a virus (a federal crime). I have refuted that claim by posting the complete text of the only e-mail message I have ever sent to him. Any who continue to repeat such false and malicious accusations may find themselves in court.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 23, 2007, 10:40 AMMr. Johnson,
There can be little doubt that yours was a coordinated effort, and a well-informed source has confirmed that you, in fact, were the key player in this endeavor to debase the level of discourse on this message board.
It is true that your posting privileges as Paradiddle were banned after you posted a poll -- a poll calculated to insinuate the false notion that AntiPolygraph.org sends malware to our visitors. But you had disregarded multiple earlier warnings to abide by our posting policy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1791.msg13605#msg13605).
Let anyone who claims to have received malware from AntiPolygraph.org state so openly and provide proof. No one can do so, because we have never sent anyone malware of any kind.
In his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma, videorecorded for evidentiary purposes and played in open court, Dr. Louis Rovner, Ph.D. (one of your group) falsely claimed (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25493#msg25493) that I sent him a virus (a federal crime). I have refuted that claim by posting the complete text of the only e-mail message I have ever sent to him. Any who continue to repeat such false and malicious accusations may find themselves in court.
So now you're reading minds? I made no such insinuations and you know it! A poll is a question, not a statement---and my poll if you are brave enough to post---gave implicit allowance for people to vote that they have recieved no Netherland malware. As a fact, that post was the single most harmless and earnest post I have ever made at this site, period. I too was afraid of false rumors regarding malware as I wanted more polygraph examiners to post here to even out this place---In a private examiner's forum, I stated that "George would not use malware as no-one would put rattlesnakes at their own friont door"--in an attempt to defend your formerly percieved honor-----plus----I was beginning to feel like a liberal at Fox News over here and wanted some balance----and I was afraid that rumors of malware would preclude fearful examiners from coming over for the debates. Do you think polygraph examiners are afraid of you George? No. They are afraid of your site---and now they probably do not trust your anonymity assurances. Your credibility is severely damaged here---and any reassurances of internet security will be under great scrutiny. I am greatly disappointed.
E
Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 10:06 AMFabulous. Now let's set the record straight. George and all have characterized polygraph examiner postings as "a coordinated effort." Such is not true. Being acquanted with fellow examiners and commenting on the site "after hours" regarding the utter lack of robust opinions on this site is hardly "coordinated." Posting research that demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives of the tlbtld "countermeasures" is not disinformation, it is scientific proof. I was bannished not as a result of ad hom attacks (although I've had my share and recieved them too) but I posted a survey on this board asking threaders if they recieved any malware, bots, or trojans----and even giving regards to the fact that alleged problems on this site could be fictitious or unrelated to antipolygraph.org. That my friends and adversaries is what got Paradiddle banished. I am always up for debate, but when posters refuse to acknowledge scientific research, construct validity, and true experience----than such amounts to the twin of ad hom attacks. To further the insult, Gino and George have sold the identities of members for amusement. First the Vipre gang, now the polygraph examiners, next it will be you. I am greatly disappointed in George's paranoid accusation of "coordinated" attacks---which amounted to some field examiners deciding to represent with the exact same argumentative style as you here propogate. Your own soup tastes sour indeed.
If I understand your point of view, when you post a study that supports your opinion, it is "scientific proof." When someone else posts a study or refers to a study that is counter to your opinion, what is that? If you refer to a study it demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives this site is responsible for, but if I refer to the NAS research study or the OTA study from 1983 my cites are shrugged off as being irrelevant?
You write that you are always up for debate, but is that really how you would characterize the majority of your posts here, as debate? Really? You were engaged in a debate?
When I posted my story regarding the polygraph and you questioned my veracity regarding not only my experiences, but also that I was even a police officer, was that a debate? When you continually denigrated not only my opinion, but me personally, simply because I do not agree with you, was that a debate?
If you are so certain that the polygraph is well grounded in science and is a valid method for detecting truth or deception, I would think you could easily refute any contrary opinions without resorting to name calling and accusations of lying.
It is difficult for me to believe that your intention when you came to this site was to engage in a debate about the polygraph. It seems obvious that your intention was to treat anyone who disagreed with you with contempt and disrespect.
For anyone who was unfamiliar with the polygraph and who chose the last month or so to do some research on it, if they visited this message board I have no doubt that they came away with the conclusion that, based on the sample they observed here, polygraph examiners are rude, disrespectful, peremptory in their decisions, and completely unable to intelligently defend their chosen profession without resorting to juvenile personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them.
I doubt that such an impression is accurate for the majority of polygraph examiners, but that, sir, is the impression you and your comrades left over the course of the past few weeks.
QuoteIf I understand your point of view, when you post a study that supports your opinion, it is "scientific proof." When someone else posts a study or refers to a study that is counter to your opinion, what is that? If you refer to a study it demonstrates the complete folly and damage to lives this site is responsible for, but if I refer to the NAS research study or the OTA study from 1983 my cites are shrugged off as being irrelevant?
Honestly, that again? We already went over this. The 83 study was debunked by the researcher as being inadequate. The NAS study is interpretable as that polygraph is not a purley scientific test, but "demonstates far better than chance" results. Here you go again with circular logic-----your but but but but is well, old.
QuoteYou write that you are always up for debate, but is that really how you would characterize the majority of your posts here, as debate? Really? You were engaged in a debate?
I stated that I was always "up for a debate" but this site offers scarce debate, but rather it is on a crusade. Ask the early "heretics" about the Crusader's debates.
QuoteWhen I posted my story regarding the polygraph and you questioned my veracity regarding not only my experiences, but also that I was even a police officer, was that a debate? When you continually denigrated not only my opinion, but me personally, simply because I do not agree with you, was that a debate?
Agreed, because your "story" has (according to the pro-polygraph crowd) a mathematical improbability. 3 examiners 3 tests---wrong each test. According to a very rough calculation, that is a 1 in 25,000 chance---add that with your proclivity to refer to your LIFE as a STORY, your countless hours on this site chasing cops/investigaters, and other oddities---and you have a cake that tastes fishy. Sorry if you became upset, I meant no disrespect---but I did have substantial suspicions---and to deny the above oddities is rather strange in and of itself. My life is my life, a story is something I tell my kids at night night time.
QuoteIf you are so certain that the polygraph is well grounded in science and is a valid method for detecting truth or deception, I would think you could easily refute any contrary opinions without resorting to name calling and accusations of lying.
I did such and examiners such as Nonombre have done so for years----to no avail. If Christ came down and said poly was a good tool for detecting deception, you'd call him the devil. We probably agree there, eh? So what is there to debate? You are your persona, and I was mine---until George and Gino decided to out me for posting a poll to see if the allegations of there being malware here are phony.
QuoteIt is difficult for me to believe that your intention when you came to this site was to engage in a debate about the polygraph. It seems obvious that your intention was to treat anyone who disagreed with you with contempt and disrespect.
Ad hom attack all the way Sarge, the pancake makeup doesn't disguise your feelings. My intentions were to have some fun sharing some sarcastic witicisms with people who support the disengagement of treatment by Sex Offenders, and the supporters of ending polygraph by encouraging citizens to lie to US Sworn Law Officers. Plain-n-simple Sarge.
QuoteFor anyone who was unfamiliar with the polygraph and who chose the last month or so to do some research on it, if they visited this message board I have no doubt that they came away with the conclusion that, based on the sample they observed here, polygraph examiners are rude, disrespectful, peremptory in their decisions, and completely unable to intelligently defend their chosen profession without resorting to juvenile personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them.
More ad hom----calling people who disdain folks that support sexual recidivism and lying to police officers as "juvenile." I can take it, can you? Does sarcasm and sardonic remarks hurt your feelings? At least no one is trying to get you fired from your job because of sarcasm. The outing of polygraph examiners rather than simple banishment is tantamount to slitting tires-----the lowest form of retribution on the internet. Sarcasm is just words, not deeds or instructions.
Quotegetrealalready: When I searched Google with "polygraph," (not anti-polygraph, but polygraph) a short while ago, I notice that your site comes up number one (even ahead of the American Polygraph Association's site) and their site came in at number 8. No wonder they are apoplectic. You are the electronic portal to polygraphy for the whole world.
Even polygraphers cannot deny that that this site is THE address for polygraph related issues on the Web. Our search engine rankings are indeed high. They may disagree with the content here—but they know we are tops with regard to visibility.
What outsiders do not see is the sheer volume of contact we receive from major media organizations, prominent attorneys and others who influence polygraph policy along with the "thank you" notes from those who have successfully employed countermeasures.
QuoteEJohnson: At least no one is trying to get you fired from your job because of sarcasm. The outing of polygraph examiners rather than simple banishment is tantamount to slitting tires-----the lowest form of retribution on the internet. Sarcasm is just words, not deeds or instructions.
Mr. Johnson, despite what you may believe,
our motive in exposing you and your compatriots was not to hurt your careers or tit-for-tat revenge.
In actuality, we were tremendously concerned that the educated readers described above might read the posts of paradiddle & co were and see them as so abusive and off the wall to the point that no group of adults—let alone a group of professionals—could have possibly authored them.
Instead, the only logical conclusion would likely have been that the posts were prepared by George and I in a fraudulent attempt to portray polygraph examiners in a negative light.
We were forced to disclose identities to defend against the well-founded concern that we fabricated the posts to make polygraph examiners look bad.Fortunately, as I have said earlier on this thread, while I certainly have issues with how polygraphs are conducted, THE TOMFOOLERY THAT WENT ON HERE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS.
It was the brainchild of a rogue group of polygraph examiners that was taken to a degree that apparently at least one fellow examiner found reprehensible.
It would appear that (admittedly there are exceptions) there exist some patterns in the demographics of the outed trolls. Level of claimed formal education is not high (Rovner being the exception), the examiners are local and private (not Feds), they have a high degree of involvement in post conviction sexual offender testing (the bottom feeders of the screening world), and they for the most part are located in the Rocky Mountain and western states.
Although we would likely not find valid many of the practices of federal examiners doing specific issue criminal testing and are likely not held in any higher regard by them than by the trolls, we are pleased to know that the feds are either smart enough or principled enough not to get involved in the shennanigans that led to the outing of these trolls.
OK ---let me get this straight----we post that one of your man-crushes was alleged to be the worst examiner in the career of a senior examiner's witness in a lifetime of service---and that Drew was thought to not even have a grasp of the concept of polygraph, despite attending a school which this site portrays as being like that of a barber college (apperently it wasn't so easy). Then, the examiners go on to post a peer reviewed study debunking the efficacy of the countermeasures which this site--ahem---swears by. Some taunts by both sides later---one coming from Bill Cridder who wished that my family were raped in prison for life, lest I forget that I am to "F off" also-----sweet stuff. Insult to injury Cridder's post was not discarded---despite it being as a direct threat to my family. Then you guys in a desperate move to grasp control over your little t-shirt infomercial here, decide to label us all as trolls and reveal our identities-----revealing our identities to people such as your senior user Bill Crider who gives me the whillies. No intelectual discussion on the study----just curious misdirection , study construct insults and unspecific caveats that real scientists apperently thought were good enough. Plus, Drew is still a local hero.
Meanwhile, you claim to be attempting to preserve the dignity of a profession that needs no help from you, and has hollored amongst ourselves "bombs away" with every new development in the now serious study of debunking TLBLD and some of the disinformation we have sat idley by while you spew.
Gino, thanks for keeping our public image in mind. You are a Saint! :P
Gino, you know full well the exposure was due to information that was posted on your 'expert' Drew. You were never forced to disclose identities. It was an act of revenge....plain and simple.
For the record, I received ONE 'civility' warning from GM and that was after I was called a 'whore' by two block. (Hey TB I see you joined the discussion again when you found out we were banned...lol) I do find it interesting that I was banned when I corrected GM - not because of warnings (although I've also had my share and received them too). I didn't use an anonymous proxy to hide from GM. And for the record 1904 'outed' me several weeks ago. You relied on a hack examiner to get your dirty work done. And, by the looks of things, it doesn't look like it stopped any of us from posting? Shake and bake baby!
I hold my head high and feel honored to be part of a rogue group (lol – you AP guys are too much!) of examiners. Ray, Eric, Lou, and Ted – my hat is tipped to you guys. BTW, Nonombre, thanks for the kind words - I hope they don't ban you.
BTW, I see Gino has removed some of his posts. Didn't he say something along the lines of 'the looks on their faces this morning would be like pumping the neighbor's cat? Gino, that is sure an off the wall comment....
So if you are outing people, Gino, why hide your identity? Be a man. You said we didn't have the nads to post under our own name and yet GS is a pseudonym. ;)
Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 12:25 PMThe outing of polygraph examiners rather than simple banishment is tantamount to slitting tires-----the lowest form of retribution on the internet.
And sockpuppetry and coordinated efforts to taint message/discussion boards are generally considered the height of dishonest and reprehensible behavior on message boards of all sorts, and outing the perpetrators is generally par for the course (where possible -- banning, if it's not).
I've spent more than a decade in online argumentation using many venues, and the treatment you've received is not only normal--most netizens would probably consider it well-deserved justice.
The unfortunate fact seems to be that many of the polygraphers who post here engage in some of the most dishonest behavior you can find on the Internet, all the while declaring themselves the guardians of truth. Ironically, while said perpetrators seem to think they're being sneaky, it's actually pretty obvious to outside observers and those of us who actually DO care about truth. The activities on this site have provided rich examples of this over the years.
Color me distinctly unimpressed by your claims that Antipolygraph.org has now, somehow, tainted its reputation by revealing your dishonesty for all to see. In fact, it's barely a remarkable event -- it's happened here time and time (and time) again.
Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Oct 23, 2007, 07:09 PMNonombre, thanks for the kind words - I hope they don't ban you.
For all his abrasiveness, nonombre is, at least, not engaged in game-playing in an attempt to avoid discussion and create false impressions. In fact, his long-time presence here is living proof all of your compatriots' claims that, somehow, Antipolygraph.org is not interested in open discussion ring hollow.
I have no idea whether you actually understand why you as a group were outed. If you do, then you demonstrate (once again) the lack of ethics displayed by so many polygraphers who post here. If not, then in my opinion you have a real blind spot regarding your own behavior.
Donna.Taylor
I lowered myself to respond to your flame-bait statement about "my goat". George admonished me for it because he upholds standards for the site and I asked him to delete that post. Yes, we all hear from him to when we get out of line. Once is enough for the AP's however.
My latest post was to the Sargeant not you.
Don't ever get the mistaken idea that you people could run me off the site. I plan to never again be drawn into your type of flaming. I hope to hold myself above that.
Also, don't get the mistaken idea that I'm against SO monitoring. I am for what ever it takes.
Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 06:19 PM. No intelectual discussion on the study----
Mr. Johnson:
Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.
Gino,
Your posting of names and information on a site that has long touted that it respects the anonymity of those who so choose to post that way shows poor ethics on your part.
Regardless of the disposition of those that posted, the fact of the matter is that they could have simply been banned, as has been done with anti polygraph posters whom have done the same in the past.
I would gather to say that this was not the type of ethical debating nor political strategy taught to you in college. This type of thing amounts to nothing more than mudslinging or negative propaganda based on ad hominem attacks. I would have thought that someone of your intelligence and specific education would not stoop to such a game.
I know that there are anonymous anti polygraph posters who have participated in personal attacks on this site and of which you know the real names of. Will you now post their names and information? Although it might be thought by some to be fair, I do not think it would be any more ethical than aforementioned.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 23, 2007, 09:40 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 06:19 PM. No intelectual discussion on the study----
Mr. Johnson:
Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.
Ah shucks, come on nopoly4me, please call me Eric!---not that "Mr. Johnson" formal stuff! And may I ask what your name is and where you reside?
thought not
Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 10:33 AMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 23, 2007, 09:40 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Oct 23, 2007, 06:19 PM. No intelectual discussion on the study----
Mr. Johnson:
Please feel free to join my attempt at actually having an intellectual discussion on Mr. Hont's study.
Ah shucks, come on nopoly4me, please call me Eric!---not that "Mr. Johnson" formal stuff! And may I ask what your name is and where you reside?
You certainly may ask, and I respectfully decline to answer, which the last time I checked, was within the rules for using this discussion board.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 24, 2007, 12:26 PMMr. Johnson:
I will give an example of why I feel it prudent to keep my identity a secret. Just a moment ago, I googled your name Eric S. Johnson polygraph. I found 4 listings for an Eric S. Johnson with a connection to polygraphy. The first two linked to this website and the fact that you were outed for being a troll. (Not good for reputation, I would submit). The third showed you were a member in good standing of the Indiana Polygraph Association, and the fourth hit produced the following:
----------------------------------------------
"The Effects of Room Color on Polygraph Testing"
Emily Antonides and Eric S. Johnson
Augustana College, Dr. Donald Shaw.
Polygraph tests are not administered in court because of their unreliability. Often the stress of being implicated in a crime is enough to throw off the results. To test this theory we changed the environment in which the test is administered. We hypothesize that by altering the environment, by means of changing the room color to red, the heart rate will be increased and the GSR (galvanic skin response) will be decreased.
----------------------------------
Assuming that this link was actually referring to you, (please set the record straight if this assumption is incorrect) an individual might make the claim that in 2004, you yourself said that "polygraphs were unreliable." Additionally, one might make the claim that in 2004, you yourself stated that the mere "stress of being implicated in a crime is enough to throw off the results."
Please understand that I personally would not make these claims, because I do not have confirmed information that you are the Eric S. Johnson who apparently was a presenter at the 2004 John Deere Chapter of Sigma XI, and made these statements, and these internet statements are in fact contributed to your work product.
So, Mr. Johnson, now you have an example of why I respectfully decline to reveal my identity. Unsubstantiated internet information could result in reputational harm, which concerns me.
ah yes, the ole John Deere Lecture. I also demostrated alongside Emily how to artificailly insiminate a cow----ok, wrong Eric Johnson. By the way, there are thousands of us EJ's and I did not give such a lecture. Incidentally, I wasn't actually attempting to get your identity-----google "sarcasm." Also, I no longer run polygraph testing and haven't done so since September '07. I am retired from polygraph and a stay at home Dad and a student as my wife returns to work after being the stay at home for over 5 years. So, if anyone tries to argue that I am turf protective, forget it.
I didn't give nor contribute to that or any similar lecture. I am not the only Eric Johnson polygraph examiner. There are a number of Eric S Johnsons---noticeably criminal defense attornies. There are even 2 other ESJ's as renters at my local Blockbuster Video store.
Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 24, 2007, 02:37 PMI didn't give nor contribute to that or any similar lecture. I am not the only Eric Johnson polygraph examiner. There are a number of Eric S Johnsons---noticeably criminal defense attornies. There are even 2 other ESJ's as renters at my local Blockbuster Video store.
Thanks for the clarification. I will delete my post.
Of particular interest here is Dennis Prager's article about the destructive effects of internet anonymity:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/10/23/internet_anonymity_is_as_destructive_as_internet_porn
Thank you Mr. Mallah.
Its a good commentary.
r
Interesting read---although I disagree with the author's complete dismissal of people being liberated as anonymous posters. I do however question the precise reason for Mark's link. Are you suggesting that everyone be outed? Are you suggesting that perhaps George should have merely banned myself and others rather than being "outed"----keep in mind that as Palerider, I was far more satirical and sardonic than as my later Paradiddle writings---as when I was banned as Palerider, I corrected a great deal of my attitudes as I did not want to be banned further. Unfortunately, I was banned for an innocent thread poll on whether any posters experienced computer problems---my theory was that no such problems existed. I was banned within 10 minutes of writing that very innocent thread, and I defy George and co. to repost it so others can judge for themselves.
I agree in principle with the read too, which is why I have been overly polite and cautious in all my postings. What is lost though, is the concept that anyone could simply choose a name out of the phone book, or even worse, do a google search for "polygraph" and choose a name to operate under here. This would be unfortunate.
And, given the nature of several people's posts when revealing their polygraph experience, I can understand the rationale for staying anonymous.
I think that there are good reasons for being anonymous under certain circumstances.
The point of linking to the article is to highlight the need to curb certain natural human tendencies toward rudeness and obnoxiousness when posting anonymously.
And frankly, I really don't understand why the professional polygraphers felt the need to post anonymously. Are they professionals or not? If so, why not make their assertions and stand behind those assertions by name? Their names are already out there in the polygraph community. They don't need to hide the fact that they are polygraph examiners who firmly believe in the test and believe that the test is supported by solid scientific research and their own experience, right?
I can't think of any reason for their anonymity other than the fact that they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or somehow uncomfortable to associate themselves with what they have written.
From my limited scan of these posts, it seems like the level of discourse has improved dramatically since they have ceased posting anonymously, which is some evidence of the truth of what Dennis Prager wrote about in that article. On a related note, thank you to Ray Nelson for reading the article and commenting favorably on it.
It has been interesting.
I don't think anyone can deny the tension that exists between polygraph professionals and people who have been subject to them.
Whether things change or not, there is tremendous value in studying human behavior and the complex/obvious/predictable/surprising things that occur when we decide the think and act in some form of concerted community.
I think it was the famed psychoanalyst Karen Horney (thats "horn-"I" like eye - so cleanse your minds folks) who talked about people in movement - towards, against, away, or with each other.
There is obviously much to learn yet.
Thanks again Mr. Mallah, for providing that.
r
Quote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Oct 22, 2007, 10:52 PMThe polygraph "professionals" recently exposed for the "anonymous" fusillade of personal insults and attempts at fear mongering here on this forum have apparently retreated to the safety of a pro-polygraph message board.
Instead of addressing the challenge I posed to them--namely that they use polygraphy to determine who betrayed their identity to us and to publicly identify this person--they have chosen to unleash a new barrage of personal attacks (http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000614.html).
...
Gino,
The thread you linked to, which was started by Lou Rovner and includes contributions from Raymond Nelson, Eric Johnson (whom I understand posts as "stat" at PolygraphPlace.com) and Donna Taylor, has been deleted from PolygraphPlace.com. However, a copy was saved, and I've attached a PDF file of the deleted thread.