I have recently took two poly in less than 30 days and was told I failed them both. The first poly I failed only one question out of three. However, I was told because I failed that one question that means I was lying about the other two but I didn't show any lying on those two.
I knew that I haven't violated any conditions of my parole. I couldn't understand why this one question which was so broad can overshadow the the other two question which was specific to what I am on parole for.
The second poly I failed on the same broad question but I also was told I show same strong reaction this time on the other two questions which I passed on the the first poly. Again, I knew by a shadow of doubt I have not violated any condition of my parole concerning any of the three questions. My question than who lying?
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 02:20 PMI have recently took two poly in less than 30 days and was told I failed them both. The first poly I failed only one question out of three. However, I was told because I failed that one question that means I was lying about the other two but I didn't show any lying on those two.
I knew that I haven't violated any conditions of my parole. I couldn't understand why this one question which was so broad can overshadow the the other two question which was specific to what I am on parole for.
The second poly I failed on the same broad question but I also was told I show same strong reaction this time on the other two questions which I passed on the the first poly. Again, I knew by a shadow of doubt I have not violated any condition of my parole concerning any of the three questions. My question than who lying?
You were proabably given a multiple issue maintenance or sexual history examination. If you are deceptive to one the examiner cannot call you truthful to others.
The bigger question is - does your parole stipulations prohibit you from using the internet? My guess is 'yes' and you are in violation by being on this site. So do you want to tell the audience here what question you failed?
First, my parole stipulations does not prohibit me from using the internet.
Second, I would love to inform the audience what question I failed; however, as antipolygraph.org has informed the audience that "polygrahs operators also read the discussions on this message board". Because I am in hot-waters now because of my stand with those who have my fate in their hands to play with, I rather not post too much detail where I would be idenfitied and get in worser hot-waters because of my stand on I know that I have not committed any of the questions which I suppose to have failed.
Last, you still didn't answer my question who is lying when I know the same questions can not give differ answers.
Underjustice:
Hate to say this. But reading your first post once, then again the second post afterwards would leave me to believe your lying. However, since I'm not interviewing, or questioning you. I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Just for your information Under, I'm not a polygrapher. I'm an leo, with Statement analyzation, and I/I qualifications. I'm in support of various poly procedures, including post conviction cases. I've got personal reasons for my beliefs.
Your first post spoke alot about your situation. However it's not a statement, but certain words would leave a leo to wonder.
I wish you luck. However normally a person in your situation is prohibited. Your on here to figure out a way to beat the polygraph for your own personal reason. Bueno, that's your decision.
As always, I'll wish you luck. Face your demons, and the consequences of your actions... STAY AWAY FROM LITTLE KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:(
Sorry George, but I find this disgusting....
Sorry, but I am not going to help a sex offender on the anit-polygraph web site. BTW I am a polygraph examiner certified in sex offender testing (PCSOT).
If you don't have a 'no internet' clause in your parole stipulations - you should have! My bets are you should not be on any sexually explicit web sites or chat rooms! It would be in your best interest to be discussing your questions with your PO or therapist.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 04:10 PMSorry George, but I find this disgusting....
Ditto
The only exceptions which allow paroled sex offenders to visit the internet (in every state I am aware of) are when offenders are in college and they are at the campus computer banks. Unless of course the offender is a minor, living with family who are required to password protect their computers. The restrictions are far more justified by the habitual use of pornography and sexual chat rooms by offenders who are being reconditioned to not view human beings as mere objects for pleasure----the classic trait of errant thinking, narcissistic individuals. :(
QuoteThe restrictions are far more justified by the habitual use of pornography and sexual chat rooms by offenders
Of course, the absolute worse case senario is that an offender falls in the 4-6% category of actually sexually reoffending after their conviction. I hope and pray that you aren't in that hopeless category.
Either way, I am convinced that no matter what state in which you live, you aren't even supposed to have a cell phone with internet access, much less belonging to a chat room or web forum------which a forum such as this presents with underaged minors as members ("Colorado"). Your plight of failing a multi-issue test is unfortunate on many levels, but your apparent lack of recognition of your parole rules places you at a level of risk that you yourself might deny, but data is data.
I can't help but wonder what other kinds of websites you have been surfing. Perhaps it is time for a Monitoring test (recent sex crimes instead of Maintenance/parole stip test), and a sweep of your machine, just for safety reasons. :'(
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 02:20 PMI have recently took two poly in less than 30 days and was told I failed them both. The first poly I failed only one question out of three. However, I was told because I failed that one question that means I was lying about the other two but I didn't show any lying on those two.
I knew that I haven't violated any conditions of my parole. I couldn't understand why this one question which was so broad can overshadow the the other two question which was specific to what I am on parole for.
The second poly I failed on the same broad question but I also was told I show same strong reaction this time on the other two questions which I passed on the the first poly. Again, I knew by a shadow of doubt I have not violated any condition of my parole concerning any of the three questions. My question than who lying?
Underjustice,
Polygraphers are lying when they claim to be able to detect deception. Polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud that depends on the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." False positives are common, and it is not unusual or surprising that a person might "fail" different truthfully-answered questions when the procedure is repeated.
Donna, Eric, (and all polygraphers who read these forums),
The notion that those subjected to polygraph screening can be kept ignorant of the truth about polygraphy is misplaced. If polygraphy were truly a valid and robust technique for the detection of deception, it wouldn't matter what those who are subjected to it know about it, and its being discussed in a public forum should be of no concern.
If you truly had confidence in polygraphy, you should have felt no need to embarrass yourselves -- and your "profession" -- with your recent trolling campaign (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3721.msg26600#msg26600) on these forums.
QuotePolygraphers are lying when they claim to be able to detect deception. Polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud that depends on the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." False positives are common, and it is not unusual or surprising that a person might "fail" different truthfully-answered questions when the procedure is repeated.
Repeating this bunk doesn't make it true Mr. M. Your abstract knowledge of polygraph puts you in the same position as a blind man describing an elephant by holding his trunk. What is clearly lacking in robustness is your knowledge and description of polygraph.
QuoteThe notion that those subjected to polygraph screening can be kept ignorant of the truth about polygraphy is misplaced. If polygraphy were truly a valid and robust technique for the detection of deception, it wouldn't matter what those who are subjected to it know about it, and its being discussed in a public forum should be of no concern.
If knowledge of polygraph operations were required to be such a secret, than perhaps you can explain why polygraph examiners themselves are polygraphed on a regular basis-----and such examinee polygraphers know far more than you about all things relating to polygraph. Don't bother mentioning Mr. Sullivan's run-in with the polygraph, as that was a specific issue test. If countermeasures are so undetectable, shouldn't the nation's leading federal polygraph examiner be using them. Your engine is smoking George, and you know it.
QuoteIf you truly had confidence in polygraphy, you should have felt no need to embarrass yourselves -- and your "profession" -- with your recent trolling campaign on these forums.
I never was embarrassed over my vested interest that ex-pats and rabble-rousers do not attempt to obstruct justice or endanger the lives of kids (my kids especially) by advocating the disengagement from therapeutic treatment and manipulation of supervising officers of and by dangerous sexual predators. I am very confident that your site attracts many child molesters and rapists--and I can safely assume that you'd rather the site's visitors be more heavily composed of "fawns to be fed to the polygraph monster"rather than men who have had repeated sex with children, even sex with infants mind you-----incidentally I have much anecdotal proof of your visitor makeup, as do many colleagues. If one offender rethinks manipulating his supervisors by not disclosing challenges of addiction or other specific areas that a simple polygraph test cannot reveal great details of, than it is worth my time. I have said to you as palerider, and I will say it to you as me.....it really boils down to this site advocating cheating on tests and keeping quiet because you are convinced that the test is invalid. Therefore, you knowingly advocate that sex offenders cheat on their tests; tests that are meant to provide help along with other investigative means to keep kids safe.
You help child molesters manipulate people. This is not inductive, but concrete reasoning.
George, I polygraph sex offenders on probation / parole daily and it is not to line my pocket as one of your posters mentioned earlier. I do it for the safety of our children. If and that is a big IF the SO's are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here. Everyone who lives in America has to deal with SO's crimes; however, when sex offenders come to your website in attempts to learn how to beat the polygraph that is a whole different issue. As stated many times over, go ahead and teach them your tricks – and if you do, you are no better. The guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well. I thought you said you don't help sex offenders.
Also, you list me as a troll because I posted on this forum under an alias....as does at least 98% of your population. Plus you encourage everyone on AP to remain anonymous. So, George, get off the high horse and stop calling me names (remember sticks and stones....) How many people have you contacted to make comments on the Myth Buster show forum of 'Beat the Polygraph'? BTW, you forgot to list BUSTED behind that one. I saw your name and Rhoades (apparently co-founder of AP that changed his listing to AKY_888)...a polygraph examiner and a bunch of alias making posts. Are they trolls? The examiner on Myth Busters (regardless of his 'honorable' Ph.D status) caught the deceptive and called the truthful as such – even with countermeasures! 3 out of 3 isn't bad AND it was better than the MRI portion.
Studies have been listed on this site that when an innocent individual uses countermeasures it increases their chance of being called deceptive.
Am I afraid of you? No.
Am I embarrassed for posting here? Hell no.
Am I irritated at your site? You bet. Especially when you increase the chances of anyone's failure (pre-employments and sex offenders) and you assist sexual predators who are trying to manipulate the system.
Is Polygraph 100% accurate? NO. But as Eric just pointed out and others have time and time again, it is a phenomenal tool to assist the overwhelmed therapists and probation/parole officers manage high caseloads.
Eric,
That polygraphy is pseudoscience is not just my opinion. It reflects the broad consensus of the scientific community. See Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) for a thorough debunking.
That polygraphy depends on examiner deception is also not controversial. These deceptions are documented in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, with ample references to primary sources. Your fellow erstwhile troll (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3721.msg26600#msg26600), Dr. Lou Rovner, testified (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3662.msg25493#msg25493) that the information in this book "is so thorough and complete it's just breathtaking how good and accurate the information is."
That polygraphers in agencies such as the CIA must themselves submit to polygraph screening tells us nothing about polygraph procedure or validity: it is merely a necessary charade.
Regarding the ethical considerations involved in the publication of information about polygraph countermeasures, see my Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=966.msg7147#msg7147).
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 10, 2007, 12:27 AM George, I polygraph sex offenders on probation / parole daily and it is not to line my pocket as one of your posters mentioned earlier. I do it for the safety of our children. If and that is a big IF the SO's are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here. Everyone who lives in America has to deal with SO's crimes; however, when sex offenders come to your website in attempts to learn how to beat the polygraph that is a whole different issue. As stated many times over, go ahead and teach them your tricks – and if you do, you are no better. The guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well. I thought you said you don't help sex offenders.
According to the study that you posted in support of, and that you referenced in your post, TLBTLD does not help the guilty pass a polygraph, though it may cause truthful people to fail. In the post quoted above you wrote,
"The guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well." If you believe the results of the study, and you believe what you wrote yourself, how is this site helping sex offenders? The worst George could be accused of doing, if you believe the study and your own words, is causing people to fail who have previously committed sex offenses but who now are being truthful during their polygraphs. But that can't be what is happening, since you also wrote,
"If and that is a big IF the SO's are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here." It seems that sex offenders who are honest and truthful don't wind up being polygraphed; only the liars are polygraphed, and the study you supported and your own words make it clear that liars who read TLBTLD don't pass their polygraphs anyway.
Given all that, I'd appreciate it if you could explain exactly how this site helps sex offenders.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 10, 2007, 12:27 AM Also, you list me as a troll because I posted on this forum under an alias....as does at least 98% of your population.
I believe George refers to you as a troll because you exhibited typical trolling behavior when you posted under your pseudonym "Wonder Woman." Trolling behavior has nothing to do with posting without using your real name. As defined by Dictionary.com, a troll is someone 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 think any objective review of your behavior and that of your "peanut gallery" comrades would label your behavior as trolling.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 10, 2007, 12:27 AM Is Polygraph 100% accurate? NO. But as Eric just pointed out and others have time and time again, it is a phenomenal tool to assist the overwhelmed therapists and probation/parole officers manage high caseloads.
Eric has also pointed out that he doesn't know of a single polygraph examiner that would bet his or her mortgage on the accuracy of a polygraph test. It is difficult to read a non-endorsement like that and not come to the conclusion that examiners will tout the accuracy of the polygraph when it is of no personal consequence, but back off when the outcome of their supposedly highly accurate exam might have serious personal consequences for themselves or their family.
Your hateful towards SO is right, Nonegusto, to give me the benefit of doubt. I am not "here to figure out a way to beat the polygraph for [my] personal reason." I am here to tell about the hateful and deceitful situation some truthful SO are facing in their so-called treatment with polys. Also, I have face my demons long ago and the consequences of my acation; however, it is this kind of hateful and deceiftful attitude which keep me away from little kids.
D. Taylor, you mind me of some of the "polygraphers cerfified in sex offender testing" in telling the truth "you are not here to help [me] pass this test, instead of, "I am here to help you pass the test and not here to see you fail." As the polygrapher told me during my polys. In other words, the polygrapher was actully saying the same thing you are saying.
EJohnson, you wold love to keep a SO off this kind of forum who does not visit pornography and sexual chat room, instead, is the SO first time chatting on anykind of forum to grivevance his experience to the deceitful polygrphers like the like of D.Taylor and you. However, if this forum has minors chatting on here than I will be the first to leave with no returen whatsoever because I do not lack the recognition of my parole rules which I do not deny, but to deny me no kind of forum to grievance my injustice - "data is data".
George, you are right about polygraphs and polygraphers lying because I have not [fell] in the "4-6% category of actually sexually reoffending after [my] conviction." As a matter of fact, I have been release for awhile. However, the polygrapher's deception in trying to get me to admit to "actually sexually reoffending" when the polygraphers knew that the two question I did not show deception on was "stay away form little kids". Therefore, I have not manipulated but have been manipulating beliving that I have done something when in fact it is being done to me. As D. Taylor said, "unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well... Is polygraph is 100% accurate? No...It is a phenomenal tool to assist the overwhelmed therapists and parole officers" to sent honest SO back to prison on a lie.
So George, keep telling the truth about those who are really actully deceiving some "honest " SO.
Respectfully submitted
Underjustice
Your best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair. Indeed a proud day for you.
QuoteIf you believe the results of the study, and you believe what you wrote yourself, how is this site helping sex offenders? The worst George could be accused of doing, if you believe the study and your own words, is causing people to fail who have previously committed sex offenses but who now are being truthful during their polygraphs. But that can't be what is happening, since you also wrote, "If and that is a big IF the SO's are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here." It seems that sex offenders who are honest and truthful don't wind up being polygraphed; only the liars are polygraphed, and the study you supported and your own words make it clear that liars who read TLBTLD don't pass their polygraphs anyway.
Given all that, I'd appreciate it if you could explain exactly how this site helps sex offenders.
Sarge, I don't think Donna was contending that this site "helps" sex offenders----oh no----this site only serves to claim that polygraph isn't valid, and that examiners are merely doing their job to "fill their pockets." This site provides a web forum for sex offenders on parole and probation----a whining zone online------and lest we forget that every state strictly prohibits web forums of any kind be used by sex offenders "on papers."
TLBTLD implicitly encourages examinee's to be manipulative, and to not disclose information. Information disclosure is a critical key in the treatment and supervision of sex offenders. The e-book states "say nothing, no matter what"----dangerous advice indeed. This site isn't dangerous per se, but the advice and the empty qualifiers i.e."this site is for the innocent" .....is merely boxed and bagged horse shit with a ribbon. Perhaps Sarge's Connecticut lawman brothers and sisters would not be so chummy if they knew that he plays Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders, knowing little to nothing about the challenges of containment interrogation. Go with your gut Sarge, it has worked out great for so many of our leaders. If you want, take a look at some of your supervised offender population in Connecticut at http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2157&Q=294474&dpsNav=|
These are just some of the 150,000 U.S. men and women that you place at lower priority than your "fractional" hobby. But, you are extremely bright....and you will no doubt justify that you are just a guy on a site that has some little oh information----it's all so ubiquitious---and you have no effect.
QuoteEric has also pointed out that he doesn't know of a single polygraph examiner that would bet his or her mortgage on the accuracy of a polygraph test. It is difficult to read a non-endorsement like that and not come to the conclusion that examiners will tout the accuracy of the polygraph when it is of no personal consequence, but back off when the outcome of their supposedly highly accurate exam might have serious personal consequences for themselves or their family
You are quoting me out of context-----and I expect as much from the likes of you. I stated that I nor any examiner I know, would ever bet their mortgage on any test, be it biopsy, drug, IQ, or polygraph----as no test is 100%. Is that clear copper?QuoteRegarding the ethical considerations involved in the publication of information about polygraph countermeasures, see my Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public.
George,
whenever you respond to any arguments centered around ethics, be it unproven countermeasures, or your sex offender outreach program here----I can only classify your historic responses as Inductive reasoned, anecdotal, and for the layman------dodgey.
p.s. Save the Latin for Mass, and I'll save the Yiddish for dinnertime.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 10, 2007, 06:51 AMYour best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair. Indeed a proud day for you.
Do
you think it is fair for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception?
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 09:57 AMQuote from: Underjustin on Dec 10, 2007, 06:51 AMYour best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair. Indeed a proud day for you.
Do you think it is fair for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception?
GM - I think the key word would be without evidence after your site encourage people not to make admissions.
UJ
Don't make statements up and reflect them on me. I have helped numerous SO's through polygraphs and life situations when they are in compliance with their therapeutic & parole conditions. You, however, are on a web site that if known by your PO would result in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation. You committed the crime – you have to do the time. Probation/Parole is a privilege.
By the way, there are grievance procedures with any AP&P and/or therapeutic situations. Instead of going the appropriate direction, you came to a web site chat room that recommends complete denial and manipulation of testing procedures.
Funny thing is, I hope on your next Polygraph the examiner asks if you have been on any internet chat rooms....try to get that one out of your head. Your being here proves you are not in compliance with your AP&P conditions.
Sarge, what point of "The guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well' do you not understand? Then you state: It seems that sex offenders who are honest and truthful don't wind up being polygraphed; only the liars are polygraphed, and the study you supported and your own words make it clear that liars who read TLBTLD don't pass their polygraphs anyway." At no point in time have I ever stated innocent sex offenders do not wind up taking polygraphs.
I find it interesting that you are attacking me over a discussion on a convicted sex offender visiting a site that encourages manipulation and denial. That speaks volumes.
GTG
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 07:23 AMQuotePerhaps Sarge's Connecticut lawman brothers and sisters would not be so chummy if they knew that he plays Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders, knowing little to nothing about the challenges of containment interrogation..
Feel free to find and reference a single post of mine that could possibly be characterized as "playing Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders." You won't be able to, as I have never done such a thing.
I don't believe the polygraph is an accurate detector of deception. That doesn't mean I support or offer advice to sex offenders. It also doesn't mean I counsel people to lie, or that I encourage them to omit information.
I am aware that you and I disagree on the utility of the polygraph. But when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.
Eric,
I cannot recall a single post by Sergeant1107 that could be construed as him playing "Dear Abby" to or mollycoddling persons in post-conviction polygraph screening programs.
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 10:18 AMI find it interesting that you are attacking me over a discussion on a convicted sex offender visiting a site that encourages manipulation and denial. That speaks volumes.
GTG
I find it interesting that you characterize my post as an attack on you. I was merely pointing out the obvious contradiction inherent in your statements; if you believe that TLBTLD does nothing to assist liars in passing the polygraph, then how can you believe George is assisting sex offenders?
What I would characterize as an attack was your blatant assaults on my veracity when you posted under the name "Wonder Woman," which were completely different from my entirely civil post containing questions about an obvious paradox in your writings.
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 10:25 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 07:23 AMQuotePerhaps Sarge's Connecticut lawman brothers and sisters would not be so chummy if they knew that he plays Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders, knowing little to nothing about the challenges of containment interrogation..
Feel free to find and reference a single post of mine that could possibly be characterized as "playing Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders." You won't be able to, as I have never done such a thing.
I don't believe the polygraph is an accurate detector of deception. That doesn't mean I support or offer advice to sex offenders. It also doesn't mean I counsel people to lie, or that I encourage them to omit information.
I am aware that you and I disagree on the utility of the polygraph. But when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.
C'mon! You post on the sex offender section (that IS what this is) with your statements invalidating the tests which are so troublesome for offenders (and effective) in the sex offender treatment and supervision realm. I love your distortion---it is easily identified. Allow me to demonstrate;
Pedophile; I am having trouble with polygraphs---they want me to be interviewed and tested on a regular basis. sob!
Sarge; Yeah, that test they use is completely worthless, and easy to beat.
Pedophile; Wow, so I am taking this stuff serious for nothing?!---'cause my therapist and parole agent says this is dead serious stuff. My therapist keeps telling me he cares about my health, but now I know he is part of a con game. I am done being his sucker! Great, I'll try countermeasures next Spring, but meanwhile, I'll go ahead and do some cocaine and party with my sister's friends.
Sarge; now now, I didn't tell you to do that.
Pedophile; I gotcha. I am a great guy who made a big mistake---and prison made me all better.
Sarge; If you are applying for a position of trust, than you should tell the truth---and use mental countermeasures on your test, and don't do what the examiner tells you----he is a fool. The machine is a prop, don't tell them anything damning---cause that is the only good use for polygraph. Only omit what you know to be unimportant information. Did I ever tell you that I failed 3 previous tests and I.... (trails off)
Pedophile; (laughs) sure....this site is cool buddy.
Sarge; I love it. Hey, by the way, do the right thing! And if you you have another test coming up, swing by for all of your test beating needs----er, that is if you aren't misbehaving, even though statistically you are likely in the 92% of sex offenders who violate their conditions of parole----but I get a sense that you are different (wink.)
Pedophile; Hey, I gotta go, I am on a library computer---i am not supposed to be in a library OR on the internet. Thanks for your compassion!
Sarge; Hey, be careful. You should be in jail, ha ha ha ! Be safe, cause I am a cop. :)...ah young people.
QuoteEric,
I cannot recall a single post by Sergeant1107 that could be construed as him playing "Dear Abby" to or mollycoddling persons in post-conviction polygraph screening programs.
Oh Please. A load of.............
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 12:13 PMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 10:25 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 07:23 AMQuotePerhaps Sarge's Connecticut lawman brothers and sisters would not be so chummy if they knew that he plays Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders, knowing little to nothing about the challenges of containment interrogation..
Feel free to find and reference a single post of mine that could possibly be characterized as "playing Dear Abby to supervised sex offenders." You won't be able to, as I have never done such a thing.
I don't believe the polygraph is an accurate detector of deception. That doesn't mean I support or offer advice to sex offenders. It also doesn't mean I counsel people to lie, or that I encourage them to omit information.
I am aware that you and I disagree on the utility of the polygraph. But when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.
C'mon! You post on the sex offender section (that IS what this is) with your statements invalidating the tests which are so troublesome for offenders (and effective) in the sex offender treatment and supervision realm. I love your distortion---it is easily identified. Allow me to demonstrate;
Pedophile; I am having trouble with polygraphs---they want me to be interviewed and tested on a regular basis. sob!
Sarge; Yeah, that test they use is completely worthless, and easy to beat.
Pedophile; Wow, so I am taking this stuff serious---'cause my therapist and parole agent says this is dead serious stuff. Great, I'll try countermeasures next Spring, but eanwhile, I'll go ahead and do some cocaine and party with my sister's friends.
Sarge; now now, I didn't tell you to do that.
Pedophile; I gotcha. I am a great guy who made a big mistake---and prison made me all better.
Sarge; If you are applying for a position of trust, than you should tell the truth---and use mental countermeasures on your test, and don't do what the examiner tells you----he is a fool. The machine is a prop, don't tell them anything damning---cause that is the only good use for polygraph.
Pedophile; (laughs) sure....this site is cool buddy.
Sarge; I love it. Hey, by the way, do the right thing! And if you you have another test coming up, swing by for all of your test beating needs----er, that is if you aren't misbehaving, even though statistically you are likely in the 92% of sex offenders who violate their conditions of parole----but I get a sense that you are different (wink.)
QuoteEric,
I cannot recall a single post by Sergeant1107 that could be construed as him playing "Dear Abby" to or mollycoddling persons in post-conviction polygraph screening programs.
Oh Please. A load of.............
Eric,
Instead of fabricating a discussion by Sergeant1107, why don't you point us to an actual example of his supposedly playing "Dear Abby" to sex offenders?
I'm starting to see a theory of aplication for polygraphy developing here. It goes like this:
Since a sex offender is a known bad guy and many SO's believe in the accuracy of lie detecting, forcing them to take periodic polygraphs will deter them from their crime. That seems to be the theory.
If the pro-poly community were objective and scientific they would ask: Since not all SO's are required to take periodic polygraphs, what is the recitivism rate for polyed vs. non-polyed SO's?
Perhaps the theory could be expanded to use the fact that a large percentage of people (I assume SO's too) believe in God. We could require them to answer their parole questions before God. This might have an even greater effect!
Either way we wouldn't have a clue if they were really violating their parole, but what torchure it would be for the SO bastards.
QuoteEric,
Instead of fabricating a discussion by Sergeant1107, why don't you point us to an actual example of his supposedly playing "Dear Abby" to sex offenders?
I suppose you
think that sex offenders ONLY come to the preconviction section---and so Sarge's advice of using countermeasures and participating in the general forum on other boards isn't problematic....... via "Dear Abby-ing?"
Pre-emptive retort;
George; Well, I suppose that depends on what the definition of "think" is.
QuoteI'm starting to see a theory of aplication for polygraphy developing here. It goes like this:
Since a sex offender is a known bad guy and many SO's believe in the accuracy of lie detecting, forcing them to take periodic polygraphs will deter them from their crime. That seems to be the theory.
If the pro-poly community were objective and scientific they would ask: Since not all SO's are required to take periodic polygraphs, what is the recitivism rate for polyed vs. non-polyed SO's?
Perhaps the theory could be expanded to use the fact that a large percentage of people (I assume SO's too) believe in God. We could require them to answer their parole questions before God. This might have an even greater effect!
Either way we wouldn't have a clue if they were really violating their parole, but what torchure it would be for the SO bastards.
You make many presuppositions there---all of which are in error. I don't have the time for such lunacy 101. All SO's are required to take polygraph tests in most states---that is to say, in states where there is containment, than all Offenders are required to be tested. I think Alaska might no yet have a containment program, but I could be wrong. The recitivism rate is lower in states that require polygraph testing/containment method(Kim English 2003) and furthermore, a large proportion of offenders do not believe in the accuracy of polygraph----or treatment for that matter. This doesn't negate the fact that both of which (tx and poly) are extremely valuable in protecting the community---alongside other documented means. Your theory is rediculous---and a stretch of the neck.
D.Taylor,
The statement I made isn't made up but reflect your own true statements.
If "[you] have helped numerous SO's through poly and life situations when they are in compliance with their therapeutic & parole conditions" than why do you try to invoke 'fear' in a SO who never said 'I did not do commit the crime (first compliance in treatment) and have serve her/his time (the privilege which was given to her/him). However, you try to invoke fear without any real knowledge of her/his privilege but on only what you think is the normal for all SO:
(1) You are on a wb site that if known by your PO would result in
additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.
(2) I hope on your next poly the examiner asks if you have been
on any internet chat rooms(very broad question) -try to get
that one out of your head (but on one chatting with kids but
with adults).
I would ready tell the examiner the privilege which was given to me does not invoke sanctions and/or possible revocation for being on a web site that have possible grievance procedures where "AP&P and theraputic have not provide such grievance procedures to be fair "for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception." (Thanks George).
I went the appropriate direction to those who like yourself, D.Taylor, only "result[ed] in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation" for bring forth the truth of my privilege to chat on a web site that is known by PO & theraputic providers that inform SO of the "denial and manipulution of testing procedures" without no appropriate direction to grievance. If standing for the truth about who lying than you have not help numerous SO but only help to revoke their parole base on some test you have no truth in it yourself.
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 07:22 PMD.Taylor,
The statement I made isn't made up but reflect your own true statements.
If "[you] have helped numerous SO's through poly and life situations when they are in compliance with their therapeutic & parole conditions" than why do you try to invoke 'fear' in a SO who never said 'I did not do commit the crime (first compliance in treatment) and have serve her/his time (the privilege which was given to her/him). However, you try to invoke fear without any real knowledge of her/his privilege but on only what you think is the normal for all SO:
(1) You are on a wb site that if known by your PO would result in
additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.
(2) I hope on your next poly the examiner asks if you have been
on any internet chat rooms(very broad question) -try to get
that one out of your head (but on one chatting with kids but
with adults).
I would ready tell the examiner the privilege which was given to me does not invoke sanctions and/or possible revocation for being on a web site that have possible grievance procedures where "AP&P and theraputic have not provide such grievance procedures to be fair "for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception." (Thanks George).
I went the appropriate direction to those who like yourself, D.Taylor, only "result[ed] in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation" for bring forth the truth of my privilege to chat on a web site that is known by PO & theraputic providers that inform SO of the "denial and manipulution of testing procedures" without no appropriate direction to grievance. If standing for the truth about who lying than you have not help numerous SO but only help to revoke their parole base on some test you have no truth in it yourself.
Eloquently stated ::)
Sancho Panza
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 07:22 PMD.Taylor,
The statement I made isn't made up but reflect your own true statements.
If "[you] have helped numerous SO's through poly and life situations when they are in compliance with their therapeutic & parole conditions" than why do you try to invoke 'fear' in a SO who never said 'I did not do commit the crime (first compliance in treatment) and have serve her/his time (the privilege which was given to her/him). However, you try to invoke fear without any real knowledge of her/his privilege but on only what you think is the normal for all SO:
(1) You are on a wb site that if known by your PO would result in
additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.
(2) I hope on your next poly the examiner asks if you have been
on any internet chat rooms(very broad question) -try to get
that one out of your head (but on one chatting with kids but
with adults).
I would ready tell the examiner the privilege which was given to me does not invoke sanctions and/or possible revocation for being on a web site that have possible grievance procedures where "AP&P and theraputic have not provide such grievance procedures to be fair "for a truthful person to be wrongly -- and without evidence -- accused of deception." (Thanks George).
I went the appropriate direction to those who like yourself, D.Taylor, only "result[ed] in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation" for bring forth the truth of my privilege to chat on a web site that is known by PO & theraputic providers that inform SO of the "denial and manipulution of testing procedures" without no appropriate direction to grievance. If standing for the truth about who lying than you have not help numerous SO but only help to revoke their parole base on some test you have no truth in it yourself.
Please go talk to your PO or therapist before you are in full cycle.
So EJ doesn't have time for lunacy, huh? Any have time for science? You don'thave to answer that.
This entire discussion reminds me of another pseodoscientific application of a sexual behaviour theory, the plethysmograph.
Check out http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 10, 2007, 01:38 PM
I suppose you think that sex offenders ONLY come to the preconviction section---and so Sarge's advice of using countermeasures and participating in the general forum on other boards isn't problematic....... via "Dear Abby-ing?"
I don't think I have ever counseled anyone to use countermeasures. I have said that I don't believe answer questions truthfully and then doing math in your head is unethical, and I still believe that. Answering questions truthfully fulfills my ethical responsibility. What I think is no one's affair but my own.
Is it truly that difficult for you and your ilk to believe that a person of ethics and conscience can disagree with you about the accuracy and worth of the polygraph and yet not be a supporter of child molesters and liars?
If you look at my past posts you will see that I always counsel people to tell the truth on their polygraphs and on their applications. I don't recall ever counseling anyone to lie, and I don't recall ever counseling anyone to use countermeasures.
My opinion, based on my past experiences and the research I have done, is that the polygraph is simply inadequate as a detector of deception. I post my opinion on this board, as well as on others, and I don't believe that by doing so I am engaging in any sort of unethical behavior.
Do you believe that it would be more ethical of me to remain silent about a process I know, though personal experience, to be inaccurate and worse than worthless? That it would somehow indicate higher morals or a greater sense of honor if I only spoke out in support of whatever issues the majority agreed with, instead of speaking my mind? Because some of my brother and sisters in law enforcement believe in the worth of the polygraph, it is unethical for me to voice my opinion in opposition of theirs?
You are barking up the wrong tree here. I don't think you can find anything in any of my posts to indicate a lack of ethics or a support of liars. There is certainly nothing that indicates a tolerance for, much less support of, sex offenders.
On the other hand, in many posts authored by your and your comrades what is clearly transmitted to the readers is that you seek to vilify, to the detriment of your own credibility, anyone that disagrees with your opinion. I don't see a great deal of ethics in that.
D.Taylor
I have talk to my PO and therapist concerning my full cycle; however, I can tell now that you are not able to go the full cycle who lying.
Nevertheless, I appreicate your thoughtfulness of SO and your make believe tools to punish those SO who are compliance with their Tx by bring whats happen in the lab to the public interest. This SO will not be silent.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 11, 2007, 01:34 AMD.Taylor
I have talk to my PO and therapist concerning my full cycle; however, I can tell now that you are not able to go the full cycle who lying.
Nevertheless, I appreicate your thoughtfulness of SO and your make believe tools to punish those SO who are compliance with their Tx by bring whats happen in the lab to the public interest. This SO will not be silent.
Could we get a translator in here? :-/ I don't understand what this person is saying.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 11, 2007, 09:17 AMQuote from: Underjustin on Dec 11, 2007, 01:34 AMD.Taylor
I have talk to my PO and therapist concerning my full cycle; however, I can tell now that you are not able to go the full cycle who lying.
Nevertheless, I appreicate your thoughtfulness of SO and your make believe tools to punish those SO who are compliance with their Tx by bring whats happen in the lab to the public interest. This SO will not be silent.
Could we get a translator in here? :-/ I don't understand what this person is saying.
allow me to paraphrase
Now how can we argue with that? I think we are all indebted to UJ here for clearly stating what had to be said. And I'm glad the children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish...but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age. - Olsen Johnson Blazing Saddles ::)
Sancho Panza
Underjustice you wrote this yesterday...
Quote
"Posted by: Underjustice Posted on: Yesterday at 3:29am
Your hateful towards SO is right, Nonegusto, to give me the benefit of doubt. I am not "here to figure out a way to beat the polygraph for [my] personal reason." I am here to tell about the hateful and deceitful situation some truthful SO are facing in their so-called treatment with polys. Also, I have face my demons long ago and the consequences of my acation; however, it is this kind of hateful and deceiftful attitude which keep me away from little kids.
D. Taylor, you mind me of some of the "polygraphers cerfified in sex offender testing" in telling the truth "you are not here to help [me] pass this test, instead of, "I am here to help you pass the test and not here to see you fail." As the polygrapher told me during my polys. In other words, the polygrapher was actully saying the same thing you are saying.
EJohnson, you wold love to keep a SO off this kind of forum who does not visit pornography and sexual chat room, instead, is the SO first time chatting on anykind of forum to grivevance his experience to the deceitful polygrphers like the like of D.Taylor and you. However, if this forum has minors chatting on here than I will be the first to leave with no returen whatsoever because I do not lack the recognition of my parole rules which I do not deny, but to deny me no kind of forum to grievance my injustice - "data is data".
George, you are right about polygraphs and polygraphers lying because I have not [fell] in the "4-6% category of actually sexually reoffending after [my] conviction." As a matter of fact, I have been release for awhile. However, the polygrapher's deception in trying to get me to admit to "actually sexually reoffending" when the polygraphers knew that the two question I did not show deception on was "stay away form little kids". Therefore, I have not manipulated but have been manipulating beliving that I have done something when in fact it is being done to me. As D. Taylor said, "unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well... Is polygraph is 100% accurate? No...It is a phenomenal tool to assist the overwhelmed therapists and parole officers" to sent honest SO back to prison on a lie.
So George, keep telling the truth about those who are really actully deceiving some "honest " SO.
Respectfully submitted
Underjustice
End Quote"
Ok, just so you know... It's noMegusto, not noNegust... ;D
I don't care about you. That's a fact. It's obvious, your looking for an avenue to make sure you pass your poly. Been there done that, however I was fortunate to get more information then this website, for very different reason's. That said. I don't believe in SO's(specifically child predators ) are able to change their desires. I again have my reason's. I'm sure some are able to control their desires. Bueno, esta bien. But, I've seen, and know first hand the harm, and pain your desires has caused on other's. As I've stated I'm not a polygrapher, however I do interview, and le questioning (pc word for interrogations). I've read and analyzed countless statements. I watch programming. It's easier to detect a lie (without the use of a polygraph), it's harder to get the suspect to admit to it. Your posts (please a polygrapher here, or someone else known to written analyzation prove me otherwise) lead me to believe again your being deceitful. I highlighted some of my reasoning for it.
Wow, this topic has exploded. I was enjoying a much needed break yesterday.
The highlights are not perfect, and I've changed some ways of scoring, so not to give possible suspects, or convicted criminals, an oppurtunity to figure out how to score. However, different analyzers, have different codes on scoring a subject... Hope your not too confused....
noMegusto,
I am not asking you to care about me. That's a fact. It's obvious, "[I am] not looking for an avenue to make sure pass [my] poly", and
in your confuse analyze do "[you] believe in SOs are not able to change [or] some are able to control their desires"...such a confuse analyzer.
And yes, I too have "seen, know first hand the harm, and pain [my] desires has caused others". However, your interview along with your pc (paleolithic cranium) could not even analyze your own confuse scoring subject(s) some can't and some can control their desires.
Therefore, I stand by your reason "to give [me] the benefit of doubt" to telling about the decitful "analyzers [who are] having different codes on scoring a subject" who truthfulness are facing demons and consequences base on a poly's lie....analyze this score.
Posted by: Underjustice Posted on: Today at 1:22am
noMegusto,
I am not asking you to care about me. That's a fact. It's obvious, "[I am] not looking for an avenue to make sure pass [my] poly", and
in your confuse analyze do "[you] believe in SOs are not able to change [or] some are able to control their desires"...such a confuse analyzer.
And yes, I too have "seen, know first hand the harm, and pain [my] desires has caused others". However, your interview along with your pc (paleolithic cranium) could not even analyze your own confuse scoring subject(s) some can't and some can control their desires.
Therefore, I stand by your reason "to give [me] the benefit of doubt" to telling about the decitful "analyzers [who are] having different codes on scoring a subject" who truthfulness are facing demons and consequences base on a poly's lie....analyze this score.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::) ::) ::) ::)
I'm not even gonna decipher this last post. I don't understand gibberish... ;D ;D ;D
Nomegusto, I can't help but think that for some reason Underjustice is suffering from so much tension he cannot use proper tense. I futher find his post a bit [overbracketed]... (parenthetically speaking)
Never the less I think if we give him a sufficient opportunity to organize and reflect upon his thoughts before posting we may indeed learn what he is trying to say.
Sancho Panza
Eternal Optimist
Alrighty...
Look Under- The original part of the post is who lying.
The answer after careful consideration to your posts, and your history (ie: convicted felon), the liar would be yourself sir.
Including myself, I think other's here whether there pro/anti polygraph can come up with this conclusion. I've posted earlier my reasoning for this conclusion. It's the way your posting, and explaining yourself. Obviously, there is a serious amount of thinking going on with your posts like the bracketing. I'm sure with a basic interview any leo/polygrapher/parole officer wouldn't need a polygraph to catch you in deceptive traits whether it'd be through NVI, or having you write down a formal statement. I've highlighted examples on a previous post. Please if your a LEO, interviewer, polygrapher prove me wrong. I value the fact, that I'm not perfect.
QuoteIf you are deceptive to one the examiner cannot call you truthful to others.
I need a better explanation for that one. How can two questions scored NDI based on the response level as defined by the control questions suddenly be scored as DI because the third question garnered a DI score based on it's response level again as defined by the control questions?
QuoteSorry George, but I find this disgusting....
Well Mr. IDon'tLikeIt, who gives a horse's a** about your useless opinions?
QuoteI'm an leo, with Statement analyzation, and I/I qualifications.
Truly sad. You read suspects' statements and decide if they're being truthful? And yet your ability to spell and construct proper sentences looks like something a 6th-grader would be ashamed of. I bet your Sergeant truly hates reading your reports ;D
QuoteBTW I am a polygraph examiner certified in sex offender testing (PCSOT)
Are we all supposed to somehow be impressed by that? I'm certainly not. Just means you can't get a real job.
QuoteMy bets are you should not be on any sexually explicit web sites or chat rooms!
Maybe he shouldn't be. But last time I looked this board fit neither description.
QuoteThe only exceptions which allow paroled sex offenders to visit the internet (in every state I am aware of) are when offenders are in college and they are at the campus computer banks.
Notice you fail to include a number for those states. I personally know several hundred sex offenders on parole who are allowed on the Internet. They naturally are subject to random searches of their computer to see where they've been. They have other restrictions (against contact with minors for example) that apply at the grocery store, their front yard, and of course the Internet. That's all the PO needs. There are no minors here as far as I know.
Quoteyour apparent lack of recognition of your parole rules places you at a level of risk that you yourself might deny, but data is data.
Your complete and utter arrogance is mind-boggling. Probation and parole conditions are not finite entities. They're defined by sentencing courts and parole boards, often on a case-by-case basis. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't more narcissistic than you claim the sex offenders are.
QuoteI can't help but wonder what other kinds of websites you have been surfing.
And now you're saying that because he Googled "polygraph question" he obviously must be frequenting kids chat rooms and kiddie-porn trading forums as well? Thats some pretty stretched-out logic. ::)
QuoteIf and that is a big IF the SO's are being honest in therapy and in compliance with their parole stipulations they would not be here.
Why not, Ms. Taylor? I'm here. Was here years ago while on supervision too (BTW my PO had FULL knowledge of my presence here and had no problem with it at all. Go figure.) I didn't come here because I failed a poly or wanted t olearn how to pass one. I came here to tell my story of how I thoroughly debunked your idiotic "protect the children" test. BEFORE I ever heard about this site or read George's book. Bo countermeasures for me. Just the truth, ma'am. But the "truth" was not the tangible thing the examiner thought it was, now was it. Turns out I lied on the entire exam and he believed every word. Why? Because like you, he does it to line his pockets. He does it because the laws have basically taken away his ability to earn a living since the poly has limited usages in the private sector these days. I see no reason to believe your reasons are any different. Answer me this. If you didn't do PSOT, what WOULD you do?
QuoteThe guilty will fail and the unfortunate fact is the honest will probably fail as well. I thought you said you don't help sex offenders.
Same drivel, different examiner. If what George offers here is useless and the guilty offender will fail anyway, how can you say he is helping them? Shouldn't you say he is hurting them?
QuoteYour best day Mr. Maschke, sex offenders agree with you regarding polygraph being unfair. Indeed a proud day for you.
Hunter, do you believe in free speech? Freedom of religion? Son of a gun. I thought so. Me too. So it's a proud day for you, because sex offenders agree with you about Constitutional rights ;D ;D
QuoteGM - I think the key word would be without evidence after your site encourage people not to make admissions.
UnderJustice came here AFTER having his finding of truthfulness reversed to deception without valid reason. So how can you blame this site for that?
QuoteYou, however, are on a web site that if known by your PO would result in additional sanctions and/or possible revocation.
You're as arrogant as that other clown. Must run in the polygraph examiner family. I spent TEN YEARS on supervision and never once did my PO have a problem with me frequenting this forum.
QuoteI hope on your next Polygraph the examiner asks if you have been on any internet chat rooms...
Why? This isn't an "Internet chat room". And you have no reason to believe he has been in any chat rooms. But what you DO know is that if you sit here and sow seeds of doubt into his head as to whether or not this is a chat room or a bulletin board, he'll be nervous and confused at that next examination as to how he should answer. Thus giving your colleague an opportunity to say he was deceptive or inconclusive and thus keep him coming back for more examinations.
QuoteBut when you resort to baseless personal attacks like the one quoted above, it only indicates that you have nothing intelligent to say.
And that statement Sarge speaks volumes about you and your integrity. My hat is off to you. Some may say "look, the sex offenders even like you". I'll nip that in the bud right here by saying that I don't know Sarge. And no doubt we have differing opinions on many things. But I do RESPECT him for those opinions and the way he conducts himself.
QuoteAll SO's are required to take polygraph tests in most states---that is to say, in states where there is containment, than all Offenders are required to be tested.
All sex offenders in most states? Or most sex offenders in all states? Or some sex offenders in some states? Your arrogance is showing again. For one thing there is a difference between "sex offender" and "sex offender on state or Federal supervision". The former have no such requirement. For another, most states require polygraphs "as a part of the treatment program". When treatment is finished, so are the polygraphs. In my state a treatment program for an offender runs anywhere between 6 months and 3 years. Some offenders are never in it long enough to even get a polygraph because they're annual. There are thousands of sex offenders on state supervision in my state that haven't seen a polygraph in 5+ years. Funny thing. Even though they are deprived of that invaluable toll to keep them offense-free, 97% of those offenders are somehow doing exactly that. Remaining offense-free. Go figure.
QuoteThe recitivism rate is lower in states that require polygraph testing/containment method(Kim English 2003)
Yeah, Kim and her two-state study of less than 200 offenders that does not definitively say the polygraph is responsible for the lower rate. Matter of fact, the study shows little if any difference between the two states using the poly and the 3rd "control" state that did not. For example you can split hairs and say that 5 out of 60 is "better" than 5 out of 70 but when you get down to it that's a statistically insignificant difference.
Gotta go. I grow weary of the garbage spewed around here by narcissistic polygraph examiners ;)
You are a strange fellow orolan. You say that sex offenders in your state attend treatment for 6 months to 3 years----yet you in another thread claim to be attending treatment for 10 years. Huh?
Also, you claim to have passed all of your polygraphs yet lied on them all-----yet, you are soooooo angry at polygraph, you make George Maschke look like a Bhuddist.
You spew venom and levy accusations of criminal fraud at examiners----who you accuse of being idiots.
So, in a nut shell, you are enraged by idiot polygraph examiners who pose no threat to your masterful yet incidental countermeasures with their ineffective test----and once more, you are intent on insulting and degrading them at every turn. You brilliant and ethical convicted child molester, me dumb and evil polygraph examiner trying to get your riches. Gotcha.
Hypothesis #1
You are a sex offender who lies about your polygraph experience----as your story is fishier than the the dumpster at Red Lobster. You have clearly exagerated your criminal mindedness/criminal uniqueness regarding your poly success----why would a self-proclaimed successful intrepid poly-beater person be so bombastic? It's not like you express any concern for children's safety by virtue of some perceived over-reliance on polygraph. No, you are plain angry. Is it the $300 from your "6 months to 3 yrs of polygraph tests" that ya want----oh wait, you were in high turnover groups for ten years---which suggests a prolonged period of supervision? Prolonged supervision is reserved for people who continually screw up (like Jester) or people who committed crimes that were especially heinous, like prolonged kidnapping with rape, or elements of torture or sexual abuse to infant children as part of your "greatest hits parade." No, I doubt your venom stems from the relative small monetary costs of polygraph. And what about those people who you so boldly accuse of wanting to test you repeatedly for sinister financial gain as you contend? I suspect that that examiner(s) probably would've rather seen you finish your term in prison than recieve your $100 + 3hr whine-inducing headache + report and subsequent report dispatch and/or phone calls-----2 to 3 times a year. You and your story is a hot mess. Wise cracks with no wisdom.
Hypothesis #2
see hypothesis #1 and add lemon juice
You know what I find the most upsetting over this, is the complete ignorance in here that is exactly what the problem with america is.
First off, not all sex offenders are raping little kids.
Not ALL offenders are here to try to beat the system, but rather those who are desperate to find any positive information for someone in their situation and happen upon this site because of all the traffic and ridiculous petty arguements to the point where google reconizes the relevancy of the site and ranks it higher, therefor by all the polygraphers coming in here trying to so call "prevent" all of the sexual predators from violating conditions and reoffending, they are in fact helping the ones who are not good people and who are in fact looking to decieve their polygraph tests. So way to keep the engine going. Fantastic work.
For those who comment on how disgusting all the offenders are, without knowing the exact case or person, just simply shows another aspect of the polygraph that is not scientific, it's called the human factor. Your hatred for sex offenders, and passion to put them further down and continued isolation, just shows how many of the unprofessional polygraphers can use their profession to give false reports to their p.o and/or therapist. For those who use their power illegally, for shame, and I can not wait for you to lose your career.
As for internet access, further showing the ignorance of the people who post here. There are things called safety contracts, and there are things called individualized sentencing. Some have internet restrictions, some have alcohol and drug restrictions, some have no contact with any minor, some have no contact with a specific sex and/or age range. Some even with internet restriction are allowed to access the internet using software that prevents pornographic material or sites that allow contact to minors. Lastly, it's all up to the convicted, the therapist, and the probation officer, on what restrictions they have, don't have, will have, or had initially.
Way to go everyone. Feel proud of how ignorant you are, nothing but fuel to the cause instead of using your education, passion, and anger to further prevention. I am disgusted to be an american.
The truth here is that it is the Polygraph folks are the ones who should be ashamed at putting the public at risk. The fact is that the consensus among the scientific community is that the polygraph does not do what they claim it does. The burden of proof is not on those that agree with the scientific consensus but rather on those that do not. That is the bottom line no matter what is said. So until the consensus changes via proven scientific means then all of your posts are no better than the homeopath trying to convince me that the pure sugar water will cure cancer.
And Ms. Taylor and Mr Johnson it appears you know little more than any normal layperson does about sex offenders. For instance the term "sex offenders" covers a wide variety of criminal acts; many of these "sex offenders" have no restrictions at all about the internet. Not to mention the 4%-6% number quoted is also misleading. 4%-6% of what type of sex offender? 4%-6% of what type over what time span? There are a few types of sex offenders that have over a 50% recidivism rate at 25 years post release. Not to mention the fact that in most cases many victims never speak out and when they do it takes years (average in clergy sexual abuse cases was 12 years) to speak out.
And as a licensed therapist who has assessed and treated high risk offenders I would never rely on a polygraph for anything other than an interrogation tool that it is. And I could care less if the anti-poly or pro-poly crowd is the right one, what I care about is the truth whatever it may be. Right now that truth has been and still is that the polygraph does not do what the pro-poly crowd claims. If consensus changes then and only then would I consider it safe and ethical to use in some of the ways that it is currently being used.
Tyr,
I've been visiting this board for quite awhile. The polygraphers I've met, both online and in the examination room are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met. They know more than the scientific community! And if your reputation has been smeared by their bogus test, and voice your complaint, then your are just a ranting whiner who needs to "take your spanking and get on with your life". Karma baby, karma.
You can review the posts of some of the more pathological polyliars on this board. You might find it interesting and instructive as a professional in field of psychology. They seem to think they know more than Phil Zimbardo, The National Academy of Sciences...etc. Actually they don't, and they know they don't, but will still post for months in a vain attempt to defend polygraphy. Then, they finally give up and resort to slandering the board owner accusing him of aiding terrorists and child molesters.
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on Dec 13, 2008, 02:12 PMTyr,
I've been visiting this board for quite awhile. The polygraphers I've met, both online and in the examination room are amongst the most arrogant people I've ever met. They know more than the scientific community! And if your reputation has been smeared by their bogus test, and voice your complaint, then your are just a ranting whiner who needs to "take your spanking and get on with your life". Karma baby, karma.
TC
Arrogance
and ignorance combine in an exponential manner when creating character flaws in a person (or group of people).
Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Dec 09, 2007, 03:07 PMQuote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 02:20 PM
The bigger question is - does your parole stipulations prohibit you from using the internet?
If this person has paid with their own money for their internet account, then they are legally entitled to use it.
The problem has always been with extreme economic libertarians who preach endlessly in the media about the rights of private ownership and big business to do whatever they want on and with their own property. But, of course, all those who promulgate this rhetoric ultimately mean only to protect those with the most ownership and the most economic power. Their philosophy does absolutely nothing to help those who don't already have power and money and property to gain property.
Hence, all these conservatives and those who support them have NO right to complain about sex offenders or anyone shoving the same philosophies back into their faces.
If Comcast or Yahoo or whoever chooses not to allow this person use their services, then the worst that can be done is they can exercise THEIR property rights to ban this person from their services.
No judge or cop or court has the legal authority to interfere with this person's legal commerce and kidnap them and hold them hostage. That would be terrorism.
A vegan sex-offender who votes for Ralph Nader or Socialist is 100x better than a non-sex-offender religionist or social-conservative extreme-libertarian-economist who hypocritically eats meat.
Whether either type of person "passes" or "fails" a polygraph makes absolutely NO difference in the moral character of tht person.
I have no interest in helping ANY meat-eating Demopublicrat-voter who hypocritically preaches "responsibility" and "self-reliance" get medical treatment. I cheer when they have all their money and property taken away.
1 year in prison is much worse torture than anything anyone suffers on the outside. I can say that objectively as a person who has not even been held hostage in prison yet nor been arrested.
Quote from: EJohnson on Dec 09, 2007, 04:48 PMQuoteThe restrictions are far more justified by the habitual use of pornography and sexual chat rooms by offenders
Of course, the absolute worse case senario is that an offender falls in the 4-6% category of actually sexually reoffending after their conviction. I hope and pray that you aren't in that hopeless category.
You do realize that these statistics usually include non-sex crime offenses, the statistic is even lower for sex crime reoffenses.
Also you do realize that the sex offenders that are beyond hope are going to be the first to break probation, not care about violating their computer clause, and pass all their tests using countermeasures anyway? In turn for passing the test, the courts, probation officers and SOTP will make things easier for them. On the other hand committed to treatment sex offenders get the book thrown out them for being honest and failing.
With that being said. I don't see how anyone thinks this is a good tool for SOTP.
How can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
QuoteHow can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
Polygraphy doesn't work at all, even with people who don't have brain disorders. It's pseudoscience (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml)
Note the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 04, 2015, 02:36 PMQuoteHow can a person with a neorological brain disorder and ASD have a fair test result?
A person with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) brains do not work like the average person. They twitch or clinch fingers, heart rates differently and also proccess speeds differ then the general/average person.
If a person that has this is honest but has these type disabilities, wouldnt their test results always show a non passing result?
Polygraphy doesn't work at all, even with people who don't have brain disorders. It's pseudoscience (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml)
Note the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.
Sorry I was in a hurry and didnt even look at soelling. Thanks for that.
I know from reading that this person will fail. The original court order and doctors advice is that this person should not do these tests as a sure fail because of this persons disabilities. But if a test they would have to be aware of this persons disabilities etc..however the P.O. decided to follow through with doing them.
I am concerned for this person. Disabilities such as what this person has is a new in the legal field and has had ground breaking results in the legal field. However many officers, lawyers, judges and so forth are not trained to understand these types of disabilities. Its been a mountain of climbing. Though I know they do not work at all, what rights does a person have once they are told they must take it?
My concern is the abuse mentioned in other posts from theropists or P.Os if a test is failed towards this person with a brain disability. Just stimuli such as fast paced questions can set a tick of confusion.
Concerned for this persons future and rights.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 04, 2015, 02:36 PMNote the spelling of Asperger Syndrome.
George, Asperger Syndrome falls under the umbrella term "Autism Spectrum Disorder."
*Asd, Probation Officers use the polygraph as a 24 hour tail. I cannot see a judge revoking probation as a result of a stressed polygraph when the probationer suffers from such a disorder.
George is merely saying that your concerns are moot as the polygraph is not scientific regardless of whether one suffers from ASD or not. I am not aware of any research conducted with the polygraph and ASD.
However, some psychophysiological recording may help to study ASD. An interesting study in Finland is looking to see if a fearful expression may be misinterpreted as overly arousing or threatening. This study will use psychophysiological (skin conductance, heart rate, EEG) measurements to explore how children with ASD respond to exaggerated forms of direct eye gaze – either by demonstrating a fearful reaction or a defensive reaction.
Quote from: Underjustin on Dec 09, 2007, 02:20 PMI have recently took two poly in less than 30 days and was told I failed them both. The first poly I failed only one question out of three. However, I was told because I failed that one question that means I was lying about the other two but I didn't show any lying on those two.
I knew that I haven't violated any conditions of my parole. I couldn't understand why this one question which was so broad can overshadow the the other two question which was specific to what I am on parole for.
The second poly I failed on the same broad question but I also was told I show same strong reaction this time on the other two questions which I passed on the the first poly. Again, I knew by a shadow of doubt I have not violated any condition of my parole concerning any of the three questions. My question than who lying?
Well in my situation i told the truth on a post conviction Polygraph and they said i flat out lied. So after that I had to do SO classes yuck so my lawyer told me to go with the flow and I did I didn't know about this website but I figured If i was telling the truth originally then i would start lying on future polygraphs hell I didnt change anything had computers when I wasn't supposed to saw hookers porn did what I pleased but i was careful so then when it came time for the polygraph I simply went in and flat out lied on every question except for the control questions and i went on to pass 8 straight polygraphs. Then I finished up the class and I was released from classes and probation so long story short I was convicted of a he said she said situation and it was my fault as far as going to the cops telling my side and got screwed over royally now I don't trust cops nor will i ever help them I despise them. Oh and the polygraphs are nothing more then a witchhunt and moneymaker i don't care what anyone says whether your a SO or not this system is useless it doesn't help anyone!!