I will be taking a polygraph soon for a police dispatcher. Although I haven't done anything I am concerned about and I have no reason to lie there is one issue I would rather they not know about.
I have adult ADHD and I take Dexedrine (amphetamine) for it. It *is* by prescription and I don't even take nearly as many as are prescribed. Abuse isn't an issue as I still have two rx's I have yet to get filled because I still have quite a few.
Anytime I have ever been asked if I take any drugs the thought of Dexedrine being a "meth users dream come true" I feel an instant emotion. Even when I went to a new doc and he asked if I take any meds I said no but I don't think he believed me. Hard to explain but basically I am concerned I am going to blow it even though I really have not taken illegal drugs.
I do NOT want to tell anyone of my ADHD or Dex. It is personal, it is none of their business, and I don't want them to know.
How do I deal with this?
Also, what kinds of questions will be asked for a police dispatcher? I don't steal, I don't do anything illegal, I don't use illegal drugs, I don't fib... I don't see how I have anything to worry about except when it comes to my Dex.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Michelle,
OK, you're applying for a position within a Law Enforcement agency as a Dispatcher. You have been diagnosed with ADHD and are taking prescription medication for it. How is this not any business of your potential employer given the position of responsibility you are applying for? And even if you were to disclose it to them, would they be able to disqualify you as a result? Given all the laws on the books which tie the hands of potential employers, I would venture to say if they failed to hire you after you disclosed your medical situation to them, you could probably sue them. That's always a big winner with several who post here!
How about this, tell them right up front that you are taking this prescription medication and then you can feel free and easy when you are asked any questions about illegal drug use. I know this means being truthful, which is a rather unique concept presented on this site on rare occasions, but give it a try. You might like it, and the results.
Batman
Batman...
>>OK, you're applying for a position within a Law Enforcement agency as a Dispatcher. You have been diagnosed with ADHD and are taking prescription medication for it. How is this not any business of your potential employer given the position of responsibility you are applying for?<<
How *is* it the business of an employer? ADD/ADHD is not going to affect my job, it isn't any of their business.
I used to have the same attitude as you but let me tell you of an experience.
I was working in a pharmacy as a CPhT. I got my Dex Rx's filled there because I did not realize I had something I was supposed to be ashamed of. I thought nothing of telling people. It wasn't a big deal to me.
Well, Dex is a Class II amphetamine. If the Rx is not written *exactly* right the pharmacy staff have to call the doc and verify the Rx. *I* am the one who noticed the error, I told the RPh that I did not want to call the doc to verify it since it was my Rx. He agreed to call the doc's office instead. We were busy at the time and I did not need it right away so he asked if he could call later. That was fine with me.
Long story short this is what happened... when I go to the doc I only have to go 4 times yearly and he gives me three Rx's dated for the following three months. When he recorded this in my chart he made an error. He documented that he gave me 2 Rx's, not three. When the RPh called to verify the directions on the Rx the office staff (vs. the doctor) looked it up to see what it was supposed to be vs. what was on the Rx and they saw that there was no Rx for that date. They asked what the previous fill dates were and the RPh told them, it was then decided that I had forged an Rx. My RPh did not believe this but in a case like this his license is on the line if he does not follow a specific procedure.
He was required to contact the General Manager and he did. He also told him that there was some mistake because per the handwriting and comparing it to previous Rx's, he was sure the doc had written this. It looked very real to him. That still started an investigation. I was put on an unpaid LOA, I was brought into the Executive offices and confronted with my supposed forgery.
I didn't do anything wrong. I got an Rx filled, nothing more. After the unpaid LOA, the horrible and humiliating accusations of forgery (a felony) and then being asked why I take Dex... it was then and only then did they contact the doc and he verified it was HIS error. He merely documented that he gave me 2 rx's vs. 3. It was human error, not a biggie and believe me, in pharmacy that happens ALL the darn time. We would call on incorrect Rx's several times daily. It was not a new thing. If they would have told me up front what was going on and if they would have explained the situation I could have called the doc right then and there and cleared this up without the humiliation. But it wasn't handled that way. Instead I was humiliated beyond description.
This is a HUGE chain pharmacy and it was handled wrong from day one. The RPh should have talked with the doc instead of his staff when a problem was first discovered. He failed to do that. Then the way the exec offices handled it was horrible not to mention illegal. I could have persued it and they knew that. I didn't, I just wanted to find a different job because by that time the story had spread and people I did not even know thought that I forged an Rx. It was embarrassing.
There isn't a chance in the world that I want to repeat that one. It isn't going to happen. By law I do not have to tell them of ADHD because it will not interfere with my job and I do not want protection under the American Disabilities Act. I am not disabled, I am no more disabled than a person with high blood pressure taking antihypertensive meds.
>>I know this means being truthful, which is a rather unique concept presented on this site on rare occasions, but give it a try. You might like it, and the results<<
Excuse me? I have not claimed that I want to be anything other than truthful. By law I do not have to tell them about the Dex. I can deal with the drug screen merely by not taking the drug for a couple of weeks before the test. The polygraph is a different story. I am not suggesting dishonesty, I am saying that my disorder is personal and private and not their business.
Quite frankly you can take your creepy holier than thou attitude and stuff it. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are suggesting that I tell them of something so that I can use it to my advantage when I don't need to and you somehow feel this is a superior moral position? You can't be serious! And you have the balls to knock others on this board? Have you really taken a good look at your shitty attitude, your total lack of morality, your pathetic judgment of others, and your overall nasty attitude? God, after reading your post I want to go wash my eyeballs out with bleach. You may not realize this but you are simply disgusting. Perhaps it is time someone spelled that out for you.
Hi Michelle,
Just playing devil's advocate here, as well as giving you food for thought: What if you stroke out or otherwise require immediate emergency medical attention while behind your console? It is critical that emergency care providers know what is in your system if they are to treat you correctly. Not only would you receive medication and/or dosage of medication that could further injure or kill you, your lack of candor would set up a course of events legally and civilly that would reverberate for quite some time.
If your condition truly does not affect your job performance, create a paper trail conclusively proving that fact and give a copy to any interviewer who challenges the notion. Under the question "Do you have any condition that may affect your abilities to perform your duties?" answer with a clear conscience, "No." Under the question "Are you currently taking any prescription medication?" answer "Yes." (Is it actually Adderall?) Your interview process might be a little more challenging because of the facts you have laid out, but they shouldn't make it impossible for you to get the job you want.
Dave
Dave...
>>Just playing devil's advocate here, as well as giving you food for thought: What if you stroke out or otherwise require immediate emergency medical attention while behind your console? It is critical that emergency care providers know what is in your system if they are to treat you correctly. Not only would you receive medication and/or dosage of medication that could further injure or kill you, your lack of candor would set up a course of events legally and civilly that would reverberate for quite some time<<
That still wouldn't have anything to do with anything. Do you give your employer a list of all your meds in case of an emergency? Nobody does that. I shouldn't have to either just because my issue happens to be ADHD.
>>If your condition truly does not affect your job performance, create a paper trail conclusively proving that fact and give a copy to any interviewer who challenges the notion<<
It isn't any of their business, I should not HAVE to tell them! What about people who have herpes? Genital warts? What if they have erectile disfunction? Inability to have an orgasm? What if they are taking meds for it? Should they be required to tell of their disorder and what drugs they treat it with? Or is it just ADHD? ;o) See what I mean? If I should tell of my Dex, shouldn't they tell of their Acyclovir for herpes? Terazosin for enlarged prostate? What's the difference? Why should I make it a point to prove that my issues won't interfere with my job when someone that cannot ejaculate won't have to prove theirs? Neither one will interfere in an employment setting. I maintain, it is my issue, my business, my choice to tell or not. I won't do it, I will not put myself in the same position as I did one previous time.
Even you... you are suggesting I tell them but would you suggest I tell them if I couldn't reach orgasm? What's the difference? Should *your* employer know that you are taking something to maintain an erection in case of a medical emergency? (Clearly I am pulling examples out of the air, I have never met you and I am not suggesting you have this problem, I'm making up a scenario.) How is it their business? Are you making judgments about a disorder because of the treatment and it sounds weird? It's a proven treatment. I do not act any different from you when I take Dex. Matter of fact, assuming you do not have ADD/ADHD if you take Dex your heart rate will increase, your speech will increase, you'll be jittery and hyper. Not me, my speech slows down, I relax, and I am very calm. Just like everyone else. Nobody ever even knows I'm taking it.
Honestly, I'm not trying to put you on the spot or make it seem as though I don't appreciate your point of view. I'm just making a point with the above.
>>(Is it actually Adderall?)<<
No, as I wrote it is Dexedrine although I have Adderall. I like Dex better and the Adderall is probably too old to even keep around anymore.
>>Your interview process might be a little more challenging because of the facts you have laid out, but they shouldn't make it impossible for you to get the job you want<<
So you acknowledge that it would be harder to get the job if I told of a personal issue, right? And my reason for doing this would be???? ;o)
Dear Michelle,
Your discussion raises many points that are beyond my level of knowledge to evaluate.
I am in law enforcement and my applications in the past have only asked questions regarding "illegal" drugs.
Have any of your prospective employers wanted to know about what "prescription" drugs or over the counter drugs you are taking? I was only asked what prescription drugs that I was taking in relationship to how they would affect my polygraph results. My answers were not documented in any permanent record. At no other times was I asked about legal over-the-counter or prescription drugs.
Is your question about what you need to disclose regarding a specific question on your employment application?
Regards.
Fair Chance...
>>I am in law enforcement and my applications in the past have only asked questions regarding "illegal" drugs.<<
Well, illegal drugs I am not worried about. My concern is that when the issue of my Dexedrine comes up I get a wave of emotion. When it was brought to my attention that what I take is a "meth users dream come true" suddenly I felt weird taking it. I never thought of it in those terms. Since I am assuming that a polygraph measures an emotional response (bp, pulse, etc.) then I am going to react to that question. Five years ago I would not have, but today I probably will. I have Rx's to prove it is for real, I have all that but I don't want to have to tell anyone about it. I don't know how to avoid the emotional response. Now when I think of Dexedrine I think of methamphetamines.
I could well be making something out of nothing. Maybe my emotional response will not be discovered on a polygraph. Heh... right. ;o)
>>Have any of your prospective employers wanted to know about what "prescription" drugs or over the counter drugs you are taking?<<
No, but I have never worked in a place that required a polygraph regarding drug use either. I don't want to be dishonest, but I don't want to provide information that is none of their business. BTDT and not doing it again.
>>I was only asked what prescription drugs that I was taking in relationship to how they would affect my polygraph results. My answers were not documented in any permanent record. At no other times was I asked about legal over-the-counter or prescription drugs.<<
I don't really know how Dex would affect my results, I'm not sure.
>>Is your question about what you need to disclose regarding a specific question on your employment application?<<
I'm just wondering what they will ask. I've never done this before and haven't a clue what to expect.
Michelle,
I'll ignore the strawman arguments and specious comparisons. No one is telling you-- myself included-- that you have to tell any employer anything about ADD if in fact it is a condition that will not affect your job performance. (I do not know anything about the condition so I am going along with your premise.) That's why I suggested responding with a "no" when you're asked if you do in fact have any condition that might affect your job performance. I'm not saying stand up on the interviewer's desk and reveal your innermost shortcomings, nor am I telling you that you should volunteer the fact that you have ADD. Let's set aside the ADD for a moment. My response was with regard to Dex. If your potential employer asks you if you are taking any prescription medication (rather than illegal drugs) answer 'yes' and stop there. If pressed as to what it is, answer 'Dextroamphetamine Sulfate' and leave it at that. If pressed as to why you are taking it, politely tell the interviewer that information is between you and your doctor. Have your doctor's contact info handy so your prescription can be verified.
As others have pointed out, you may not even be questioned concerning prescription medication but it is always good to be prepared.
Don't fall for the old polygraph interrogator's trick of 'are you taking any medication that will affect the results of your polygraph?' Answer "No I am not." The APA itself is incapable of responding to a simple query as to what medications may or may not affect the polygraph interrogation, so you can hardly be expected to know either.
...there are no scientific studies that identify medical conditions of relevance to the polygraph. Further, it is highly unlikely that a Laboratory Employee would suffer from a medical condition so unstable as to preclude attendance at work but not to taking the polygraph. Also, there are no guidelines, textbook chapters, or review articles in any medical, psychology or psychiatry journal that describe medical contra-indications to the polygraph. I have asked both Dr. Ryan and Mr. Renzelman to provide one - just one - such publication, and they have been unable to do so. --Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, Senior Scientist, Center for National Security and Arms Control, Sandia National Laboratories
This "No I am not" is doubly important if your written/oral interviews prior to your polygraph do not touch on prescription medication.
My only other advice would be to read, understand, and implement the physiological/behavioral countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
Dear Michelle,
Your legal drug use is not the issue here.
Your fear (unfounded because they are legal) of how you will react to drug questions on a polygraph is already evident. The polygraph operator is trained to be skeptical of any admissions (legal or otherwise) which are given in light of any "deceptive polygraph" results. In your case, I think that he will be able to sense your body language or something else which might not even be related to polygraph readings due to the tension in your mind about the "unknown" during this process.
If this discussion on this board is raising any tensions in your mind, the polygraph experience will amplify it.
I do not believe in the validity of pre-screening polygraphs but the agencies that use it do.
Maybe you could find a department that does not require one.
Regards.
Michelle,
I would like to direct some questions to you regarding your prescriptions. I have been a Pharmacy Tech for 24 years in CA. In CA, any schedule II controlled susbstance script must be on a CA triplicate prescription form issued by the state, numbered, and with the doc's name preprinted on it. I find it hard to believe that a doctor would issue you additional schedule II scripts to "not be filled" because you have an adequate supply. You do realize that you put yourself in a precarious position by having those prescriptions around the house, you should destroy them or return them to your doctor.
As far as applying for a LE career, I have to agree with the Caped Crusader here. You have to tell them because if your background investigator checks into your medical history, which can happen, you are at risk of being DQ'ed for not dislcosing your ADHD and medication use. BE HONEST WITH YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY. Having ADHD and being medicated for it WILL NOT DQ you. Not disclosing it WILL.
Good Luck
Fred F. ;)
Fred...
>>I would like to direct some questions to you regarding your prescriptions. I have been a Pharmacy Tech for 24 years in CA<<
I am a CPhT.
>>In CA, any schedule II controlled susbstance script must be on a CA triplicate prescription form issued by the state, numbered, and with the doc's name preprinted on it<<
Actually things are quite a bit different in CA. For example, the triplicate Rx requirements are on a state level, not federal. We don't have that here. Rx's for Class II's are on the same Rx format (actually, the same Rx) as any other Rx. Ours are not numbered but the name is preprinted. In my case (from the first post) since you are a Pharm Tech you'll understand the problem with this one. I take 2 tid, #180/month. The doc wrote for #180 2 bid. I get the same thing every month but since it is a Class II it had to be called on for insurance reasons as well as federal law since it is a Class II.
>>I find it hard to believe that a doctor would issue you additional schedule II scripts to "not be filled" because you have an adequate supply<<
Believe whatever you wish, I have little reason to be dishonest here. Now seriously, in this setting what would my reason be for dishonesty?
If I went to the doc for 20 minute med evals 4 times yearly and let's say the date is 2/18/03. He would write three Rx's, one dated 2/18/03, 3/18/03, and 4/18/03. That is the reason for quarterly appointments. Frankly, I questioned the legality of this because it seemed odd to me but I certainly didn't want to change it either. Why would I want to go there every month? That would be silly. I got differing opinions on this but as I said, I certainly didn't want it to change either.
Just recently I started going to a different doc and she does the same thing. Not with 3 rx's but two. My appt was 12/11 and she wrote two rx's both dated 12/11.
In my case I just don't take that many. I don't usually need that many. Matter of fact right now I have a bottle of 180 sitting in my bathroom cupboard, I have about 100 sitting next to me, and I have another rx I have yet to get filled, dated 12/11. (That's how I knew the date.)
All in all I am so sorry you are having a hard time believing this but ... what can I say? I didn't post my question because I wanted people to believe me. I just want to avoid telling a future employer about the drug. I should not have to do that.
I still maintain that it goes back to something like an enlarged prostate and Hytrin. Do men have to reveal that on their pre-employment polygraph? Nope. They don't. It could cause urinary retention and that could interfere with their job. Not likely but it can happen. It is equally as likely that my ADHD will interfere with my job. I shouldn't have to reveal that, it is not their business.
>>You do realize that you put yourself in a precarious position by having those prescriptions around the house, you should destroy them or return them to your doctor<<
We are going to have to agree to disagree about that one. I'm not about to ask if I can go to the doc monthly when I can go quarterly. If you want to go to a doc more often for some reason that is your choice but I have no desire to do so.
Funny thing, the only time I have had a problem with an Rx for Dex is at work. Due to the nature of the drug I would choose not to enter it into the computer or have anything to do with the fill. One time a coworker entered it and then happened to get off work. Later we discovered the Rx was gone. Long story short, she stole the hard copy, had it filled at a different pharmacy and then attempted suicide that night by OD'ing on the drug. It didn't work.
I don't have a problem at home and nobody but close friends even know I take it. I learned years and years ago not to tell people because they disappear out of my purse, they disappear from my home... any time I have a lot of people over they seemed to disappear. So, I take appropriate precautions. Considering I am 40 years old now I feel there is little need for my doc to hold the Rx's for me. Honest, I can keep them and in all these years I haven't lost one yet. Just one stolen Rx and that was in the pharmacy. You know, where they are safe? ;D
>>You have to tell them because if your background investigator checks into your medical history<<
Nahhh... not for a dispatcher. I don't believe they even do that type of a background check for sworn officers.
>>you are at risk of being DQ'ed for not dislcosing your ADHD and medication use. BE HONEST WITH YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY. Having ADHD and being medicated for it WILL NOT DQ you. Not disclosing it WILL<<
Nope, I'm not going to do it. It is personal and it is none of their business. When men start telling their employers of their prostate problems and drug use I might consider talking about ADHD but neither one is an employers business.
If I had a history of a felony, I stole from every employer, I never earned a dime in my life but robbed people instead... sure! That would be different. But my medical conditions are not the business of an employer. I am NOT going to have a repeat of what happened a few years ago. It isn't going to happen. I learned my lesson then, it wasn't just the accusation of forging an Rx... that was easy to prove that I did not do. I was also questioned about how I take it. It is clear from the computer that I did not get it filled on a regular basis ... again because I don't take that many. When I explained that I was then asked why I didn't take them on a regular basis. Lucky for me I had a witness to this conversation (someone outside waiting to see the person questioning me) and considering this was OSCO pharmacy (just bought out by Albertsons at the time) they were afraid of lawsuits and they couldn't be nice enough to me. After I quit they continued paying my insurance for another 6 months. They apologized... they did try to make up for what was done but the damage was done and the humiliation was also done, there was no going back. I could have sued them, instead I just wanted it behind me and I have not told *any* employer of ADHD or Dex since that time. I will not do so in the future.
Michelle, I have to say that everyone, pro and anti-polygraph have given you consistent information that you choose not to accept. That is okay....for it is your choice. I really see two issues here...first (and perhaps foremost) is your health and well being...and the safety of those around you and those who are on the receiving end of your position as a dispatcher (it IS a n extremely important role). I believe someone (my old adversary Beech Trees I think) said that if there was any risk of your having an "event" at work, those around you would need to know how to treat you. You should be able to appreciate that given your background as a phamacy tech. I would disagree with you about divulging other meds. If there wasa problem (you seem to indicate it is a problem when you discuss this "wave" of emotion). If I had a cardiac event and the EMT's wanted to know what meds I was taking so that they could treat me properly, I wouldn't be sqeamish about telling them I was taking something for ED. pharsee the single biggest problem. Secondly, I believe YOU have made this an issue by your defensive discussions posted here. You apparently were not treated correctly (or fairly) by your former employer, but you have chosen to deal with it in the mannner you described. Maybe you should just look at another line of work. Don't make yourself a martyr over this. I am sure you would make an excellent dispatcher, but under all of the circumstances outlined, it probably isn't worth the grief to you. I am just grateful (and pleased to tell the truth)that no one suggested to you that you read "the" book and practice countermeasures....at least the anti-polygraphers have shown some degree of ethical behavior. Thought I would never say this, but I am proud of them....on this point.
Michelle, I have to say that everyone, pro and anti-polygraph have given you consistent information that you choose not to accept. That is okay....for it is your choice. I really see two issues here...first (and perhaps foremost) is your health and well being...and the safety of those around you and those who are on the receiving end of your position as a dispatcher (it IS a n extremely important role). I believe someone (my old adversary Beech Trees I think) said that if there was any risk of your having an "event" at work, those around you would need to know how to treat you. You should be able to appreciate that given your background as a phamacy tech. I would disagree with you about divulging other meds. If there wasa problem (you seem to indicate it is a problem when you discuss this "wave" of emotion). If I had a cardiac event and the EMT's wanted to know what meds I was taking so that they could treat me properly, I wouldn't be sqeamish about telling them I was taking something for ED. pharsee the single biggest problem. Secondly, I believe YOU have made this an issue by your defensive discussions posted here. You apparently were not treated correctly (or fairly) by your former employer, but you have chosen to deal with it in the mannner you described. Maybe you should just look at another line of work. Don't make yourself a martyr over this. I am sure you would make an excellent dispatcher, but under all of the circumstances outlined, it probably isn't worth the grief to you. I am just grateful (and pleased to tell the truth)that no one suggested to you that you read "the" book and practice countermeasures....at least the anti-polygraphers have shown some degree of ethical behavior. Thought I would never say this, but I am proud of them....on this point.
Michelle, I apologize...Iam afraid I "fat fingered" my key board a bit. I will try to clear up any confusion I created.
Please disregard the line which states
" pharsee the single biggest problem". Hope that clears it up.
Torpedo...
>>Michelle, I have to say that everyone, pro and anti-polygraph have given you consistent information that you choose not to accept<<
Well, let's take a look at this one.
I will be applying for a dispatchers position, I have ADHD and I take Dex. I came here *because* I do not want to tell a potential employer about this and I outlined quite a few reasons why I don't want to tell anyone of this. That is WHY I came here. I wanted information on how to keep my private medical issues -- private.
The advice I believe you are referring to is to tell of my ADHD and Dex.
Now why would I come here and ask how I can get around this if I was willing to explain this problem to a potential employer? I keep asking... how can I get around this and the response is ... tell them. I explain why I don't want to tell them and you write a post that makes it sound as though I am refusing every suggestion I receive.
This is the bottem line, I am NOT going to expose private medical information. Not going to do it, no way, no how, I refuse, it isn't going to happen. I honestly don't know how to express my feelings on this issue any more clear than I have. It is private for god's sakes! It isn't any of their business!!! I am not here to debate on the right or wrong of telling them private information, I am here to obtain advice on how to get around this.
Look, I'm not good with words when it comes to message boards. What I write and the perspective I am trying to convey do not always come out the same. I come off a lot stronger than I mean. I'm not trying to be pissy and unappreciative here, I swear I'm not. I just want some simple advice. I *KNOW* I can tell them. I don't want to, that is why I am here.
If I keel over and stroke out and medical help is there it doesn't make a lick of difference if I tell my employer or not. People do not tell their employer of every ailment and medication in their lives. That isn't how it works. If I tell an employer I have ADHD and take Dex that doesn't have a thing in the world to do with if I keel over and stroke out or have ANY other medical issue. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
This is how it works, if I were to have some medical problem it doesn't make the least bit of difference if I tell the paramedics about Dex. They are going to treat symptoms, not the drugs. What matters is if I tell the ER. I don't have to expose an Rx to an employer to obtain medical care in an emergency. It just doesn't work that way. It is NOT like I am going to die if I wait 10 minutes to tell medical staff of a drug I take. The paramedics are going to treat symptoms, not drugs.
This is a non issue. It has nothing to do with anything. I have not read a single post here suggesting that people tell of legal or illegal drugs to a potential employer BECAUSE of medical issues.
>>I wouldn't be sqeamish about telling them I was taking something for ED<<
AAAAHHHH :::beating head on desk:::
Don't you think there is a difference between telling your ER doc about your ED meds vs. my telling my employer about Dex for ADHD?
>>Maybe you should just look at another line of work. Don't make yourself a martyr over this<<
Do you hear yourself? Seriously, do you? I come here for ONE piece of advice. I don't want to make a private medical issue public and you bring up a martyr issue? Do you realize ADHD is protected under the American Disabilities Act? I could USE it to my advantage but I don't think that is right. I don't need special treatment, I don't need special "anything" like someone ... say, in a wheelchair. I personally don't believe it SHOULD be protected under this act because it is a non-issue. Time and time again I am told... just tell them! I am not going to do that. Period. I came here to ask what my alternatives are. TELLING THEM IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE. I swear, I don't know how to spell that out. If I dare to explain why I am now a martyr?
Honest to god, tell me what is not clear here. Obviously it is me not expressing myself well. What have I said that is not clear? I have a disorder, I don't want to tell. What are my options? What am I writing that is not clear?? I am so frustrated right now that I could scream.
You know, I think if I would have come here and been dishonest and said I take illegal drugs and I want to fudge the polygraph, how can I do that. I would have obtained specific advice.
My disorder will not affect my job in the least. I am a very responsible person. My responsibility does not go out the window because I have ADHD. It just doesn't.
michelle,
take it easy, deep breath.... (I'm not being sarcastic). You let a message board get you all worked up. I'm not sure how in depth Background Investigations are for dispatchers, but for the most part, they'll be more focused on other aspects of your life.
If I were in your shoes and chose not to tell them about a medical condition that would not affect my job performance, then I wouldn't. Chances are they won't dig that deep unless you provide them with the information. The only problem with trying to conceal anything in your background that will be insignificant to them is that they will give you the old, "Well if you're trying to hide something so insignificant, what else are you trying to hide". Just have a real legit reason, and maybe they'll let it slide, that is if they ever find out.
Also be aware that you will get a medical exam, usually just a physical like at your normal doctors (to make sure everything is where it is suppose to be). There will also be a drug test, might want to do some research on this, but as far as I know, they test the samples for certain illegal drugs. Not test the sample and then see what comes up. Like I said do a bit more research.
Good Luck,
Taz
Torpedo...
Maybe one of the issues here is that people have a misconception about adult ADD/ADHD. Most people in this world do have misconceptions of ADD/ADHD (aka AD/HD). Most think of a 5 year old ADHD kid screaming at the top of his lungs while climbing the walls and believe me, when I was 5 I did that. My Mom used to say that I could make Christ jump off the cross.
This is not the same for an adult. Yes, I have the hyperactivity part of ADHD. Hyperactivity is the difference between ADD and ADHD. *MY* hyperactivity comes out when I swing my foot, tap my fingernails against a table, something along those lines. ADHD does not affect my logic, my critical thinking skills, or ability to make choices in a serious situation.
I used to run a 75 bed care home. I did it for years. I went back to Pharmacy because running a care home did not afford me the time to go back to school. I want to go and finish my BSN. (Nursing) I'm almost done but I quit for a variety of reasons. I cannot go to school while working 60-70 hours a week. Even I don't have enough hyperactivity to work 60+ hours a week, carry 12 credits, study, AND be on call for the care home. ;)
I have been in retail and hospital pharmacy. The average error rate for a pharmacist is 2.5 errors per month. For CPhT's it is 4.8 per month. In a hospital setting it was possible to measure my errors because everything I did was done via computer and each error I made was documented unlike in retail where most errors are never known. My error rate was 2 in 8 months time. That is less than 1%. My error rate is less than a pharmacist. And I had ADHD when I worked in a hospital too.
I can prove I am a responsible person, I can prove my error rate is not only less than the average CPhT, it is less than an RPh, it is also less than every national average I have ever read and I just read the latest stats less than a week ago.
As you can see, assuming I am not making all this up, and I am not, ADHD does not prevent me from critical thinking skills or the ability to perform a job well under stress. I am an exceptional employee and that is another reason I don't need the Amer. Dis. Act to protect me because of ADHD. I don't need to tell anyone, ADHD does not affect my job, my choices, the way I handle a situation. All Dexedrine does it makes things easier for me. It doesn't take effort for me to think and focus. Either way I can do it, but with Dex it doesn't take effort.
While you (assuming you do not have AD/HD) may be able to sit still and not swing your foot, click your nails, tap your nails on a table, etc. I cannot without Dex. While you may have no problem focusing on a book you are reading and absorbing the information, I do. It takes a lot more effort for me to maintain the same focus and concentration. With Dex I can out read, out work, and out function 99% of employees in the work force today. With Dex my thinking is just like yours or anyone else for that matter.
ADHD does not mean an inability to do a job. It is quite amazing how many people are being treated in this world. Your doc may be taking Dex, your neurosurgeon doing brain surgery might be taking Dex, your banker and lawyer might be taking Dex but you would never know it in a million years because it just doesn't show. There are zero symptoms while taking meds. None, zippo, nada.
There is no danger of an AD/HD person doing a police dispatcher's job. None. It is a non issue. I can't help but to think that many people here have preconceived ideas of what an ADHD'er looks like or behaves like. Most don't have the slightest idea that another has this disorder because nothing shows. There are no problems while the disorder is treated and I'll tell you something else, I was running a care home for 5 years and doing quite well before I was ever diagnosed. My b/f (of 15 years) is a psychiatrist. He always told me I had ADHD and I told him he was nuts, I did not. Long story short he was right. My point is that I have always been quite successful in an employment setting even before I was diagnosed and treated. Now life is simply much easier and much more enjoyable.
I maintain, taking Dex will not affect my abilities to do a job, do it well, and do it safely. Having AD/HD is the same, it will not affect my job... etc. Having this disorder is private information. I did not come here to ask if I should tell or not, I came here to ask how to deal with the fact that I am not going to tell of private medical issues.
And by the way, Torpedo, a martyr does not want to refrain from telling about this, a martyr looks for excuses to tell the whole world how mean the world is. I am trying to avoid telling the world anything at all.
Seems to me that I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. If I don't explain why I don't want to tell... I am being unreasonable and just tell them for goodness sakes! If I explain why I don't want to tell I am a martyr.
You know what? I give up. I completely give up. This is my last effort to explain anything. If someone has suggestions... cool. If someone has anything positive to add to the topic, great! If someone wants to offer thoughts and opinions on how not to tell... fantastic! I'd appreciate that. But to continue telling me to explain private medical issues to an employer is not fruitful. If I was willing to do that I wouldn't be here.
If someone else wants to take pop shots at my honesty or integrity... spiffy. I simply won't respond. If someone wants to continue assuming that I am as capable of doing a dispatchers job as a panda bear... think what you will. I don't care.
Michelle,
I agree with you that this medical condition is none of your employer's business. It won't affect your job performance, isn't anything that can be used to blackmail you, and doesn't reflect on your character. You are taking your medication legally and it has no impact on your job performance or other negative ramifications; thus, there is no reason for this employer to know about it, or DQ you for it. They might as well inquire as to whether your arms are equal length, or whether you have psoriasis.
The best advice you've gotten thus far is to apply for a job with an agency that doesn't require a polygraph, as I agree with you that your emotional response regarding your medication can quite likely influence the outcome of the polygraph, which could be interpreted as you lying about illegal drug use. Just another reason why polygraph pre-screening should be done away-with.
If you really want this job, I see nothing ethically wrong with practicing and employing countermeasures; they can be highly effective. There are no guarantees, though.
Skeptic
Quote from: Taz23 on Feb 19, 2003, 03:41 PM
michelle,
take it easy, deep breath.... (I'm not being sarcastic). You let a message board get you all worked up.
Taz...
Yep, you are right. It is obvious that I am not expressing myself well and when I try then I am dishonest (One cannot believe how I could be honest about how my doctor prescribes meds???) or I am now a martyr. I fully accept that it is me not making myself clear. But I don't know how to make myself any more clear. I truly don't know how to spell it out any more than I have.
>>The only problem with trying to conceal anything in your background that will be insignificant to them is that they will give you the old, "Well if you're trying to hide something so insignificant, what else are you trying to hide". Just have a real legit reason, and maybe they'll let it slide, that is if they ever find out<<
If they find out at a later time that I did not tell them of private medical issues and they fire me over it... so be it. My life won't come to an end. The risk is worth it to me to keep private info private.
You know what amazes me? In light of 9/11 and other terrorist issues the issue of rights have become front page news. How many of our rights do we want to give up in the name of safety? Clearly, that is an issue for an entirely different board but my point is this... so many are complaining that their privacy is being invaded and it is! Yet people here are suggesting that I give up my privacy willingly... just because. Because why! Because I might get sick at work and my employer won't know what to tell paramedics?
Nope, I don't get it. Call me dense, but I still don't get it.
And BTW -- don't be too hard on Torpedo and Batman. As polygraphers, they're trained to believe people owe them their innermost secrets. It's a hard habit to break.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 19, 2003, 04:10 PM
Michelle,
I agree with you that this medical condition is none of your employer's business. It won't affect your job performance, isn't anything that can be used to blackmail you, and doesn't reflect on your character. You are taking your medication legally and it has no impact on your job performance or other negative ramifications; thus, there is no reason for this employer to know about it, or DQ you for it. They might as well inquire as to whether your arms are equal length, or whether you have psoriasis. ...
...If you really want this job, I see nothing ethically wrong with practicing and employing countermeasures; they can be highly effective. There are no guarantees, though.
Skeptic...
Thank you. This is what I have been looking for. I am actually a very honest person and the notion of attempting to fool a polygraph makes me feel somewhat uneasy and I wanted other thoughts on this. Is it immoral? If so, why is it immoral? I am not trying to avoid information they have a right to know, it isn't like that.
I guess one of the issues I was hoping to find here is the potential topic of... is it wrong to keep private info private especially in light of 9/11 and if so, why? Polygraphs play a huge role in privacy issues along with all the other issues I have read here. The error factor, the mental manipulation, etc.
I am still working on d/l'ing the book explaining about countermeasures but since my new computer sucks I am unable to do so.
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 19, 2003, 04:22 PM
And BTW -- don't be too hard on Torpedo and Batman. As polygraphers, they're trained to believe people owe them their innermost secrets. It's a hard habit to break.
Skepticd
HA! I guess I didn't realize Torpedo was a polygrapher. Now it makes a little more sense.
Makes me wonder if they believe religion or religious beliefs should play a role in polygraphs as well. Especially for pre-employment screening. If so, why?
Think they'll take a stab at that one? ;D
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 19, 2003, 04:31 PM
HA! I guess I didn't realize Torpedo was a polygrapher. Now it makes a little more sense.
Makes me wonder if they believe religion or religious beliefs should play a role in polygraphs as well. Especially for pre-employment screening. If so, why?
Think they'll take a stab at that one? ;D
I guess I should include a caveat -- to my knowledge Torpedo has never overtly admitted to being a polygrapher. However, most of his posts on this board have been so derogatory and defensive (much like Batman's) one easily concludes he has
something to feel pretty guilty about.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 19, 2003, 04:22 PM
And BTW -- don't be too hard on Torpedo and Batman. As polygraphers, they're trained to believe people owe them their innermost secrets. It's a hard habit to break.
Skepticd
YIKES! How could I have missed Torpedo's quote and not realized his line of work:
>>at least the anti-polygraphers have shown some degree of ethical behavior. Thought I would never say this, but I am proud of them....on this point.<<
:::smacking self:::
I do believe I will take EXTRA dex on the day of the polygraph just to be more calm and more relaxed so that something like him won't get to me.
That is another good reason for coming here before a polygraph, just seeing their manipulation and twisted logic. I would have never been prepared for that. And you know what? I'm not sure I would have believed the "normals" here had I not seen the polygraphers behave as they do for myself. I'm not sure if they realize what a service they are doing for this board.
I am dead serious when I say that because of their attitudes and behaviors I am MORE prepared to pass this polygraph while keeping private info private. Not sure that is something they want to hear but it's true.
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 19, 2003, 04:34 PM
I guess I should include a caveat -- to my knowledge Torpedo has never overtly admitted to being a polygrapher. However, most of his posts on this board have been so derogatory and defensive (much like Batman's) one easily concludes he has something to feel pretty guilty about.
Heh... good one. It's funny because it is probably very true.
Michelle,
Sounds like you have problems that run far deeper then the medical side.
Go ahead and utilize those countermeasures that folks like Septic recommend. However, I found his statements very interesting, "If you really want this job, I see nothing ethically wrong with practicing and employing countermeasures; they can be highly effective. There are no guarantees, though."
No guarantees. Well if countermeasures are so damn effective, and if polygraph examiners can not detect them with any degree of certainty, then why are there no guarantees?
Download the "Lie..." read it through, and then step into the world of folks like George and Steinjc. You'll most likely fail or get caught using the CM's. Then you'll be disqualified for sure. Then you can come back to this site and complain about how unfair the system is and how your life has been ruined.
I initially advised you to simply go in and lay down the truth. You have made it very clear you had, and have no intention of doing that. All you were looking for is someone like Septic to come along and give you a warm fuzzy that LIEING (just for you Steincj) was OK. How did you put it, "Skeptic...
Thank you. This is what I have been looking for."
Well you got it baby. Press on. Can't wait to read your follow-on posts, you know, the cry of woe is me.
Batman
Batman...
>>Sounds like you have problems that run far deeper then the medical side.<<
No, your posting here has actually helped me a great deal. I have learned more than you realize. At least there won't be any surprises and I can thank you for that.
>>Go ahead and utilize those countermeasures that folks like Septic recommend. However, I found his statements very interesting, "If you really want this job, I see nothing ethically wrong with practicing and employing countermeasures; they can be highly effective. There are no guarantees, though."<<
Yes, I plan to.
>>No guarantees. Well if countermeasures are so damn effective, and if polygraph examiners can not detect them with any degree of certainty, then why are there no guarantees?<<
Batman, there are no guarantees in life. I do tend to believe that the CM's are effective. The key is learning to do them effectively myself. Then the odds are going to be more in my favor.
>>Download the "Lie..." read it through, and then step into the world of folks like George and Steinjc. You'll most likely fail or get caught using the CM's.<<
Nahhhh... I'm not the least bit worried. I have learned a great deal of info here and with each post I read I am more confident in the practice and theory of CM's. I fully admit to being frustrated by the lack of info out there about adult ADHD but my views on the info available to the public regarding ADHD is probably not going to be an issue during the polygraph exam.
See... thing is ... I am an honest person. There is nothing I have done in my past that I am worried about telling them. I tried pot when I was in high school and absolutely hated it. I don't use illegal drugs, I don't sell illegal drugs and matter of fact, I am about as anti-drug as one can be. I don't take things that are not mine, I have a great deal of integrity, I haven't even had a traffic ticket in almost 24 years. I have nothing to hide.
However, from this site I have learned that polygraphers have something to hide and now I am prepared. I have been doing quite a bit of research and I am very confident that I will pass the test with flying colors.
>>Then you'll be disqualified for sure. Then you can come back to this site and complain about how unfair the system is and how your life has been ruined.<<
Oh darl'en, there isn't a chance in the world that a polygrapher can ruin my life! LOL... cute concept but really, your ego is too big.
You really don't get it, do you? You are one of the key people that has given me the information I need to pass this test. I have little doubt that I would not have done well on the test had I not come here first. Now that I see what others are talking about I have a far better understanding of how people like you work and because of that, I am prepared. I would have walked in there blind but now I know better.
But I do have one other comment and that is that I do NOT believe every polygrapher is like you. I have always said that 95% of the population are nice, kind, decent, caring people that work hard and do their thing in life. The other 5% are merely the standard "bad apples" that stick out. I have no reason to believe polygraphers are any different. Sure, there are exceptions to that rule and I would imagine that you are one of those exceptions. But even you have not turned me off to the integrity of all polygraphers.
I do not believe that every polygrapher believes they are screwing people. I think most probably believe that what they are doing has integrity and in that case, the polygrapher has integrity. So if you are attempting to make me believe all polygraphers are as silly as you and if you are trying to get me to cop an attitude about all of them, you just failed.
>>I initially advised you to simply go in and lay down the truth.<<
Yes, you did however it was not good advice.
>>You have made it very clear you had, and have no intention of doing that.<<
Ahhh, finally you get it!
>>All you were looking for is someone like Septic to come along and give you a warm fuzzy that LIEING (just for you Steincj) was OK. How did you put it, "Skeptic...
Thank you. This is what I have been looking for."<<
Yes, intelligent advice, a little support, a better understanding of polygraphs, how some in your profession work, and potential future topics.
>>Well you got it baby. Press on. Can't wait to read your follow-on posts, you know, the cry of woe is me.<<
Care to make a wager on that one? Willing to put your money where your typing fingers are?
Michelle,, it is not an amphetamine you need, despite your ADHD, it is a sedative! You are correct about one thing...you apparently do not express yourself very well...but then again, perhaps I do not either...we all have our shortcomings. First of all, without going into any in-depth discussion about this (you will probably jump all over me again) after reading all of your postings and the responses, I came to the conclusion that you were "on the horns of a dilema". The standard (or at least I presume it to be based on what you provided) for the job that your were applying for was to take a polygraph test. Ostensibly, you would have been asked about drugs that you were taking. You make a conscious descision here...you tell them or you do not...if you do not it is something we call LYING. This fact may escape you, but it is a polygraph test (aka "lie detector") you are taking. Whether you want to accept this or not (I do not really care..especially after your unrelenting attack on me for simply trying to offier assistance) If you lie, it is my job to catch you lying (yes, I am a polygrapher...and damn proud of that fact)...and I will. If you tell me the truth and your statements are within the guidelines established by the employer (I did not set them...they did) then that is what I report and you will probably get your job. If you lie to me before, during, or after the test , I am obligated to report that to the person asing for the test on his behalf. When I said that you should not make yourself a martyr, I was using that expression only because you sounded like you were beating yourself up...hence, my interpretation of martydom...right wrong or indifferent...that is my interpretation. Quite frankly, I did sympathize with you when you described your circumstance, but after absorbing your undeserved tirade...I stand by my previous statement....find another profession. IMHO, and you are not going to like this, you do not have temperment to do something like dispatch for a police department. Yes,I have much experience as a law enforcement officer and I admire the dispatcher who remains cool "under fire"...you lose it in a simple discussion on a chat board. If you do insist on seeking this job, I hope the polygraph examiner is wearing a flack jacket. You have demonstrated what an explosive attitude you possess and when, as I suspect you will now do, and follow dumb-ass Septic's suggestion to use countermeasures, you do and get caught (you will...trust me), you will no doubt attack the examiner, either verbally or physically and then have the gall to blame the system. You my friend are what I like to say, "about 2 cans shy of a six pack". I wish you the best of luck in your employment endeavors, just never in law enforcement!
Torpedo...
I have to tell you that considering your own little temper tantrum here your advice is not really of great value to me. Some here have credibility and some do not. It's a fact of life.
Yes, if I am asked a question that is none of their business I will lie and I feel extremely comfortable that I will not fail. Perhaps the reason that annoys you like a stick up your butt is because you know the CM's work and they can fool you? You cannot do your job effectively while knowing others are being educated on practices such as yours. Emotional intimidation, insults, out and out slams, temper tantrums... you aren't making your profession appear to have a whole heck of a lot of integrity. Too bad because I am still convinced some in your profession do have integrity.
You make me wonder if the only way you can get a "dishonest" value from your polygraphs is using the same techniques you have with me on this board.
I fully admit to losing my temper on this board. No doubt about it. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, I did. Is that a horrible thing? Certainly not. I was clearly not expressing myself well and after repeating the same information over and over again I lost my cool. Would I have reacted that way last week or next week? Probably not. But you know what? It still doesn't matter.
You are merely teaching me some things to expect during a polygraph and I am armed with a great deal of knowledge. Add a little common sense as well as an understanding that not every polygrapher is going to be like you and I feel more than comfortable that I am going to do well.
Bottem line, if it is a lie to keep private info private, so be it. I can live with that because I see no moral problem there.
I still feel that your problem is that you know your silly little test is easy to pass. That means that your job is totally without value, doesn't it?
Have a great day Torpedo!
Quote from: Batman on Feb 19, 2003, 04:47 PM
Michelle,
Sounds like you have problems that run far deeper then the medical side.
Go ahead and utilize those countermeasures that folks like Septic recommend.
That's about enough of the ad hominem crap, "Batman". I could easily do the same thing to you, but I prefer to address the content (what there is) of your posts.
If you can't muster anything more witty than "Septic" as an argument, you've already lost. And as Michelle has already testified, your attitude does far more harm to your cause than I ever could.
QuoteHowever, I found his statements very interesting, "If you really want this job, I see nothing ethically wrong with practicing and employing countermeasures; they can be highly effective. There are no guarantees, though."
No guarantees. Well if countermeasures are so damn effective, and if polygraph examiners can not detect them with any degree of certainty, then why are there no guarantees?
Paraphrased: "if nothing in life is certain, then countermeasures must be crap!". I suppose we can credit your gift of logic for the fact that you are a polygrapher in the first place.
On second thought, you go right ahead and use that "septic" moniker, moron. It's probably about the best you can do, and we wouldn't want to stifle your abilities.
QuoteDownload the "Lie..." read it through, and then step into the world of folks like George and Steinjc. You'll most likely fail or get caught using the CM's. Then you'll be disqualified for sure. Then you can come back to this site and complain about how unfair the system is and how your life has been ruined.
Note -- as Batman so ably noted, there's no evidence countermeasures can be detected more reliably than random chance. Perhaps he'd like to use this as an opportunity to provide that evidence, though...
QuoteI initially advised you to simply go in and lay down the truth. You have made it very clear you had, and have no intention of doing that.
No, Batman. She's made it very clear that she intends to answer all relevant questions truthfully (unless, of course, you think it's relevant to ask for any and all private information, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the job at hand, or is part of the employment criteria -- is that what you believe?).
Quote
Well you got it baby. Press on. Can't wait to read your follow-on posts, you know, the cry of woe is me.
Batman
Funny how few of those we get, despite Batman's rant.
Skeptic
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 19, 2003, 05:49 PM
I still feel that your problem is that you know your silly little test is easy to pass. That means that your job is totally without value, doesn't it?
Have a great day Torpedo!
It's truly remarkable the messages we get from our ernstwhile polygraph representatives. On the one hand, they claim countermeasures don't work and you'll likely get caught using them. On the other, they claim providing that info helps terrorists and criminals get away with their crimes. They even went so far as to call George a traitor.
These guys really are "exhibit A" for the anti-polygraph side.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 19, 2003, 06:09 PM
It's truly remarkable the messages we get from our ernstwhile polygraph representatives. On the one hand, they claim countermeasures don't work and you'll likely get caught using them. On the other, they claim providing that info helps terrorists and criminals get away with their crimes. They even went so far as to call George a traitor.
These guys really are "exhibit A" for the anti-polygraph side.
I wasn't blowing smoke when I wrote about how people like Batman and Torpedo have really shown me something I would have never been prepared for. Their behavior is such that honestly, I don't think I would have believed many of the regulars here had I not seen it for myself. This really does prepare me for the test. I would have never seen this one coming.
I think they contribute more to the boards than they know and they should be encouraged to continue spewing.
Ever notice how a person's on line personality and their screen name work together? Batman? Torpedo? Kinda like ... bigger than a human can stand. Is it any wonder they push their polygraph equipment the same way they do their claims of the test?
Do you think these two polygraphers really believe their test is at all accurate?
Septic:
Good job of "addressing the content of my posts" with the following:
"That's about enough of the ad hominem crap, 'Batman'."
"If you can't muster anything more witty than "Septic" as an argument, you've already lost."
"And as Michelle has already testified, your attitude does far more harm to your cause than I ever could."
"I suppose we can credit your gift of logic for the fact that you are a polygrapher in the first place."
"On second thought, you go right ahead and use that "septic" moniker, moron."
"It's probably about the best you can do, and we wouldn't want to stifle your abilities."
"Funny how few of those we get, despite Batman's rant."
Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of substance there Septic, just a lot of striking out in anger. You rant pretty well too.
You did ask, "...unless, of course, you think it's relevant to ask for any and all private information, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the job at hand, or is part of the employment criteria -- is that what you believe?"
What I believe isn't important in a case like this; it's what Ms. Michelle believes. For whatever reason, she believes this to be a very relevant issue, or she wouldn't be here in the first place. As for it being part of the employment criteria, is it? Maybe it is or Michelle wouldn't be so wound around the axle about it.
By the way Michelle,
You seem to have gone from an innocent little asker of advice to a pretty headstrong poster in just a matter of hours. Something tells me you are hiding information about either who you really are, your real intentions, or exactly what your concerns are. Keep in mind, I'm a pretty good judge of character, proof being I've had Septic pegged as an asshole for some time now.
After all, I am
BATMAN
I'm deleting this post out of respect for the board. Batman, you're just not worth it.
Skeptic
Batman...
>>You seem to have gone from an innocent little asker of advice to a pretty headstrong poster in just a matter of hours. Something tells me you are hiding information about either who you really are, your real intentions, or exactly what your concerns are. Keep in mind, I'm a pretty good judge of character, proof being I've had Septic pegged as an asshole for some time now<<
Hardly. Read my very 2nd post ever posted in this forum. Happens to be in this thread, I believe post #3. I am headstrong, always have been and am quite proud of it.
Care to try again?
Perhaps those little voices in your head aren't so reliable afterall. As for your being a good judge of character, once again you give yourself far too much credit.
Cheers
Michelle,
I, for one, am impressed for you seemed to have absorbed the essence of what polygraphy is and isn't remarkably fast. You should consider career opportunities beyond dispatcher that could better employ your talents. I think many would jump at hiring you though you probably should spend the most time first deciding if you want to work for them.
Batman,
Admit it, you are way outclassed.
-Marty
Michelle and others,
I want to make sure I have this right. You do not want to tell a LEA you have a medical problem and take prescription medication. They don't care and won't ask but if they do you will lie. You don't think that is immoral, of course we all tell some lies but I don't think that means it is not immoral (thou shalt not lie is not amended by, unless "its none of their business"). So you have decided to lie if asked and you wonder how you can hide this lie. so based on advice from this forum you have now decided to not only lie but to cheat on the test to hide your lie.
Please explain to me how lying and cheating is not immoral? I would never say that I have never lied or cheated but I would also admit when I did it was immoral.
I am sure they will not ask about prescribed medication so you are preparing to lie, cheat and be immoral for nothing. I agree that your medical problems are your own but absolutely disagree that you should ever lie,cheat or be immoral to get a job. After all what else would you lie, cheat or be immoral about?
confused
Quote from: confused on Feb 19, 2003, 08:27 PM
Michelle and others,
I want to make sure I have this right. You do not want to tell a LEA you have a medical problem and take prescription medication. They don't care and won't ask but if they do you will lie. You don't think that is immoral, of course we all tell some lies but I don't think that means it is not immoral (thou shalt not lie is not amended by, unless "its none of their business"). So you have decided to lie if asked and you wonder how you can hide this lie. so based on advice from this forum you have now decided to not only lie but to cheat on the test to hide your lie.
I don't think I understand your objection. Refusing to answer a question isn't lying. Likewise, privacy is a valid concept. Perhaps she can correct me, but I don't believe Michelle is talking about lying -- she intends to answer relevant questions truthfully, and feels no need to volunteer additional information about her life that the employer doesn't need to know. Lying doesn't come into the picture.
As for the polygraph, isn't it supposed to be a "lie detector"? If she's not lying, and the "test" registers that fact, what possible problem could one have with the situation?
Skeptic
Confused....
>>I am sure they will not ask about prescribed medication so you are preparing to lie, cheat and be immoral for nothing. I agree that your medical problems are your own but absolutely disagree that you should ever lie,cheat or be immoral to get a job. After all what else would you lie, cheat or be immoral about<<
There is nothing in my background I am concerned about the police department knowing. Nothing when it comes to stealing, cheating, etc. That means that I will pass the polygraph and I will pass the background check. I am not doing anything illegal.
The *only* reason they could possibly want to know about ADHD or Dex is for discrimination reasons. It sure doesn't have anything to do with my job, why would I give them a reason to discriminate? I could use the Amer. Dis. Act and go that route but I am not concerned about discrimination because I am not going to tell them about ADHD or Dex.
Considering there is absolutely no reason they need to know about my issues and the ONLY thing they can possibly do with that information is to discriminate, no... I have no problem keeping that to myself in whatever manner I must do so.
>>(thou shalt not lie is not amended by, unless "its none of their business").<<
Isn't America the most wonderful country in the world? We are not all required to follow your god. Some of us can depend on morality and critical thinking skills instead. Isn't that wonderful? :D
I must say, whether she intended it to or not, Michelle's situation has illustrated beautifully one of the main problems I see with the polygraph (pre-employment screening, mainly): the fact that it is influenced by a myriad of variables, including the subject's own perceptions. It thus becomes a tool for delving into material that a potential employer has no right in which to delve; yet, the subject is in danger of being found "deceptive" if he or she refuses to divulge the information.
Despite the "hotkeyed" responses we got from our resident polygraphers, Michelle is not talking about lying. She is talking about her right to keep private information private, despite the fact that it causes the polygraph to "misfire". In order for polygraphers to insist that she should "fess up", they must claim the right to delve into virtually any private matter regardless of relevance, if the subject doesn't want to suffer the consequences. Simultaneously, by urging Michelle to tell the polygrapher about an irrelevant private concern rather than reassuring her that the polygraph won't mistake that for a lie, they've essentially admitted that the polygraph has a problem with false-positives. As Batman said, "What I believe isn't important in a case like this, it's what [she] believes".
It's not about lying; it's about prying. Our poly-guys, ever-ready with their knee-jerk responses, seem to have fallen into quite a trap (unintentional, I'm sure, but still pretty darn interesting).
By the way -- I wanted to post my agreement with what Michelle said about polygraphers in general. Although I do tend to paint them with a broad brush at times (especially when flipping crap at Batman and Torpedo), I completely agree that many (and perhaps most) polygraphers, like the rest of us, are likely good people who at some level believe in what they do. I believe they're badly misguided, but that doesn't make them bad people.
Skeptic
Skeptic...
>>I must say, whether she intended it to or not, Michelle's situation has illustrated beautifully one of the main problems I see with the polygraph (pre-employment screening, mainly): the fact that it is influenced by a myriad of variables, including the subject's own perceptions. It thus becomes a tool for delving into material that a potential employer has no right in which to delve; yet, the subject is in danger of being found "deceptive" if he or she refuses to divulge the information<<
Very true. By law I do not have to tell of AD/HD or Dex. My employer does not have the right to ask me for that information unless I choose to share it. Yet from the polygraphers thinking I have to tell of information that I do not legally have to tell so that they will know they have no right to know that information.
Now seriously, how much sense does that make? I am supposed to feel uneasy about this? Hardly, my moral position is superior to that of the one that might insist on knowing that information.
I'm so glad I came here. Now I know what to expect and how to handle it once and for all.
I am not adept at bulletin boards, I am sure that makes me inferior in some minds, and don't know how to show parts of posts but if you are not going to lie then why bother to cheat? I guess we can all give rationalizations as to why we do things wrong but they are still wrong.
As far as religion, I am not very but you brought that up not me. You are right about the ADA. Asking about medical conditions would be a violation so they don't ask. However I believe that if they give you a conditional offer of employment they can ask.
Still confused, "none of their business" "not going to tell them" "my private medical situation", you haven't been asked, will probably (can't understand why they would) will not be asked but you wwant to know how to "get around this on the test" and will cheat if necessary??????? Lying and cheating is immoral but liars and cheats don't usually have a problem morality.
Why not see what happens? Maybe you don't want to lie but you sure are eager to learn how to cheat if it becomes necessary. I doubt if you are a liar or a cheat. Why not just be honest? If the Polygraph guy calls you a liar at least you won't be.
>>I am not adept at bulletin boards, I am sure that makes me inferior in some minds, and don't know how to show parts of posts<<
Inferior? Oh please. Look at the top of this message. See "quote" and click on it. Poof, you can quote now.
>>but if you are not going to lie then why bother to cheat? I guess we can all give rationalizations as to why we do things wrong but they are still wrong.<<
Wrong is subjective. I think it is wrong to use a polygraph to get around the law regarding ADHD and Dex. I am told I will be asked about any drugs I take. Period. What am I supposed to say? Yeah, I take amphetamines daily! Then I can either explain it and tell about ADHD or I can refuse and look like a drug abuser. Not much of a choice. I think that is without morality.
Per your bible you also need to follow the laws of the land and the law of this land is that they cannot ask me questions that put me in a position to discuss ADHD or Dex. They have found a way around that. I maintain that I have absolutely no problem at all defending my right in *any* way I choose. If you don't like that.... I guess I have to tell you that I don't care.
>>As far as religion, I am not very but you brought that up not me.<<
Excuse me? I brought up a generality of religion and polygraphs. You are the one quoting the big 10. Understand one thing 'Oh confused one, xtianity is NOT the only religion in this country and quite frankly there are a variety of gods so to assume the term 'religion' means xtianity is very wrong.
>>You are right about the ADA. Asking about medical conditions would be a violation so they don't ask.
In a way they do as explained in an earlier post to Skeptic.
>>However I believe that if they give you a conditional offer of employment they can ask.<<
No, they cannot. They *can* verify that I am healthy and able to perform the job. They can verify that I am not currently using illegal drugs via a drug screen. They can verify that I have no contagious diseases but they cannot give me a conditional offer of a job based on if I tell them of private medical issues at a later date. It doesn't work that way.
>>Lying and cheating is immoral but liars and cheats don't usually have a problem morality.<<
Didn't we go through this one a few times so far?
>>Why not see what happens? Maybe you don't want to lie but you sure are eager to learn how to cheat if it becomes necessary. I doubt if you are a liar or a cheat. Why not just be honest? If the Polygraph guy calls you a liar at least you won't be.<<
Have you actually read this thread? Have you? I'm not going to continue repeating myself. See above and above and above and above. That will answer your questions that have been previously answered.
Quote from: confused on Feb 19, 2003, 10:20 PMI guess we can all give rationalizations as to why we do things wrong but they are still wrong.
Knowing that a polygraph interrogator will absolutely lie to his interrogation subject, do you also hold their morals up to the same scrutiny?
QuoteWhy not see what happens? Maybe you don't want to lie but you sure are eager to learn how to cheat if it becomes necessary. I doubt if you are a liar or a cheat. Why not just be honest? If the Polygraph guy calls you a liar at least you won't be.
You *are* aware that a polygrapher *expects* you to lie during the polygraph, right?
Michelle, maybe you should go back and read what you posted on "all" of your posts. You should also read what everyone else says. THEY WILL NOT ASK ABOUT PRESCRIBED MEDICATION.
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding religion. I simply pointed out that lying is a choice we make and just because we chose to lie doesn't make it right or moral.
Obviously I should have stayed out of this discussion. You want to lie and cheat because it benefits you, go ahead its your choice. That does not make it ok no matter how much you want it to be. Sounds like if it helps you you will lie and or cheat as you see fit. that sounds wrong to me.
I was not talking about the person giving the test. Lying and cheating to get a job is wrong and unnecessary. If the examiner is lying is it to hurt you? What reason would they have to do that. Maybe they are lying to help you? Maybe they are not lying at all.
Its your test do what you want, personally I wouldn't want to hire anyone who lied or cheated to get a job but that's just me. Obviously some people on this site not only would but encourage it.
I am glad I found this site, very interesting.
confused
Very Confused...
>>Michelle, maybe you should go back and read what you posted on "all" of your posts. You should also read what everyone else says. THEY WILL NOT ASK ABOUT PRESCRIBED MEDICATION<<
Read post #1.
>>I have no idea what you are talking about regarding religion.<<
Really? I spelled it out for you but I will do so again. You quoted the xtian god and I explained to you that not everyone believes in your god. There are a garden variety of gods out there, the xtian god is just one of them. What part of that don't you comprehend?
>>I simply pointed out that lying is a choice we make and just because we chose to lie doesn't make it right or moral.<<
And I already explained to you that what is "moral" is subjective. What is moral to you is seriously lacking in morality for me and vice versa.
>>Obviously I should have stayed out of this discussion. You want to lie and cheat because it benefits you, go ahead its your choice.<<
Hey, if it trips your little trigger to interpret this entire thread in that way, that is your problem darl'en, not mine.
>>That does not make it ok no matter how much you want it to be.<<
Then I would suggest you not do it.
>>Sounds like if it helps you you will lie and or cheat as you see fit. that sounds wrong to me.<<
So? Are you under the impression that if you repeat yourself enough times it will somehow make a difference to me?
>>I was not talking about the person giving the test. Lying and cheating to get a job is wrong and unnecessary. If the examiner is lying is it to hurt you? What reason would they have to do that. Maybe they are lying to help you? Maybe they are not lying at all.<<
Do you people still use the inside walls of your cave for artwork? Or have you discovered the joy of picture hangers yet?
>>Its your test do what you want, personally I wouldn't want to hire anyone who lied or cheated to get a job but that's just me. Obviously some people on this site not only would but encourage it.<<
See now... I wouldn't want to hire someone with a reading comprehension problem. It would make written instructions more than annoying.
Quote from: confused on Feb 20, 2003, 12:06 PM
Michelle, maybe you should go back and read what you posted on "all" of your posts. You should also read what everyone else says. THEY WILL NOT ASK ABOUT PRESCRIBED MEDICATION.
Confused,
You might want to download and read
The Lie Behind The Lie Detector -- it could clear up a couple of issues here.
The problem is not just what may be asked explicitly. The problem is that Michelle thinks she may register a response to questions about illegal drugs due to the fact that she has an emotional reaction to the question thanks to her legal medication. This is an entirely valid concern, as false-positive results on the polygraph (for a variety of reasons) are a well-known problem.
Were such to occur, pressure would be put on her to discuss "whatever is bothering her" in order to "clear things up" -- which means delving into private medical issues.
She could try having some sort of throw-away rationale ready for whatever reactions she may generate, but that would be dishonest, right?
And if she failed to provide an explanation and continued to show a reaction on the question, she would be considered "deceptive" and "fail" the "test".
QuoteI have no idea what you are talking about regarding religion. I simply pointed out that lying is a choice we make and just because we chose to lie doesn't make it right or moral.
You specifically quoted one of the 10 Commandments with a slight alteration ("thou shalt not bear false witness"), which is part of a religious doctrine.
QuoteI was not talking about the person giving the test. Lying and cheating to get a job is wrong and unnecessary. If the examiner is lying is it to hurt you? What reason would they have to do that. Maybe they are lying to help you? Maybe they are not lying at all.
Again, iit seems to me you need to learn more about the polygraph. The "test" relies upon the polygraph operator misleading the subject through outright dishonesty.
Skeptic
Skeptic, thanks
Michelle, I'll put my IQ against yours anyday, Sweety.
I don't care whose morality you use if your society (you do know what that means don't you) condones lying and cheating thats your problem not mine. I live by the morals and values of the society that I live in, they don't condone lying and cheating when it serves your needs. You want to keep throwing insults do it with someone who cares what you think I don't
no longer confused, at least about who and what you are.
BTW, wrong is subjective only to people making excuses for doing wrong.
not confused now convinced.
This little love fest between Michelle and Septic is getting old.
Michelle,
I'll put good money on this; you have abused you Dex, and that is what is really bugging you about this whole thing. You are very confident when you speak about "illegal" drugs, but you sure are hung up on what to many is a non-issue.
Let's consider your following statements from your very first post:
- "Abuse isn't an issue as I still have two rx's I have yet to get filled because I still have quite a few."
- "Anytime I have ever been asked if I take any drugs the thought of Dexedrine being a "meth users dream come true" I feel an instant emotion."
- "Even when I went to a new doc and he asked if I take any meds I said no but I don't think he believed me."
In the first statement you denied abusing your script before it even became an issue. It's the Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it!" syndrom. Nobody asked.
Your second statement explains why you abuse your script, your hooked.
Your third statement is a real teller, denial. You don't even want to tell a doctor that you take these meds. Big indicator baby. You don't need to be getting a job, you need to be in drug rehab.
If you take that polygraph you don't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of getting past the illegal drug use question. Abuse of a script is illegal. You're going to nail it! I would suggest you use the best countermeasure of all, don't take the polygraph. At least then you won't fail.
Good Luck. Maybe you can get someone to take it for you. How about it Septic, you game?
Batman
Yet another in a long series of fine examples. To any guests reading this thread, imagine what it would be like to take a polygraph with someone as cynical and accusatory as our "Batman", here. You'd be guilty until proven innocent. If you doubt it, I invite you to read other posts by "Batman", as well -- you'll also find a remarkable willingness to mislead people, as well as a bias against women. There's nothing that says a polygrapher has to be a good person.
Perhaps most polygraphers aren't as generally hateful, paranoid and unsympathetic as "Batman", here. But if it's your bad luck to get one like this, you'd have no recourse.
Polygraph screening should be abolished period, and polygraph interrogation should be confined to guilty knowledge testing.
Skeptic
Septic,
To quote the great Mike Tyson, "Of course I respect women, my mother was a woman." (add the lisp)
How'd I know you would respond for Michelle, I'm starting to think that maybe you are Michelle.
Hateful? Not really.
Unsympathetic? Only towards folks that want to sit and cry the blues about how bad the system is and how they got screwed, and those who can't simply fess up and be honest, and multimillionare sports figures, and Democrats, and liberals, and folks who park in hadicapped spaces but aren't really handicapped, and ....
Paranoid? Maybe, on ocassion, when I think someone is watching me, or listening to my conversations, or following me, or out to get me, or when those space aliens are after me, etc....
Hey Sep, did you just launch another one of those ad hominominominim attacks on me again?
Michelle,
Whatcha think, you hooked on your prescription medication? How do you think you'll do when asked about using illegal drugs knowing that everytime you hear that question you'll be thinking about all that Dex you popped when you really didn't need it? Try countermeasures, but remember, no guarantees, right Sep?
Batman
Quote from: confused on Feb 20, 2003, 03:45 PM
Skeptic, thanks
Michelle, I'll put my IQ against yours anyday, Sweety.
I don't care whose morality you use if your society (you do know what that means don't you) condones lying and cheating thats your problem not mine. I live by the morals and values of the society that I live in, they don't condone lying and cheating when it serves your needs. You want to keep throwing insults do it with someone who cares what you think I don't
no longer confused, at least about who and what you are.
Darl'en, you have a long way to go before attempting to match IQ's.
Have you read the material Skeptic suggested or are you still confused? It appears you still fail to understand the issues here. Now isn't that a big surprise! ;D
Quote from: confused on Feb 20, 2003, 03:48 PM
BTW, wrong is subjective only to people making excuses for doing wrong.
not confused now convinced.
Hmmm.... I am not as experienced as others here in spotting the polygraphers faking an innocent persona but this one smells funny to me. Fights anything negative about the test, won't even read the material suggested, bases the entire test on ... if you are honest you have nothing to worry about and anyone who doesn't trust the nice polygrapher is immoral.
Seems to me confused is perhaps more confused about his identity.
Quote from: confused on Feb 20, 2003, 03:45 PM
I don't care whose morality you use if your society (you do know what that means don't you) condones lying and cheating thats your problem not mine. I live by the morals and values of the society that I live in, they don't condone lying and cheating when it serves your needs.
How does 'your' society feel about polygraphers lying and cheating *every time* they administer a test? Just curious... you seem full of venom for the examinee who would deceive the deceiver-- what about the professional liar, the one who does it for a living?
Quote from: Batman on Feb 20, 2003, 06:48 PM
Hey Sep, did you just launch another one of those ad hominominominim attacks on me again?
Not at all. Your evinced attitude towards others is very much the point, and despite any protests you make, your unprovoked attack-filled posts speak for themselves.
The prospect of having such an arbitrary person (and I'm sure you're not alone out there) conduct anyone's subjective, unrecorded polygraph session should scare the hell out of people, and go a long ways towards convincing the average person that polygraphy should be abolished.
Skeptic
Batman...
>>I'll put good money on this; you have abused you Dex, and that is what is really bugging you about this whole thing. You are very confident when you speak about "illegal" drugs, but you sure are hung up on what to many is a non-issue.<<
Hmmm... How much money? What would it take to prove to you otherwise? Seriously, you are willing to accept proof, aren't you? I can't say that I trust you but if you and I can both agree on a 3rd party, one that we both trust, I would be more than happy to scan my most recent Rx dated 12/11 (I believe it is 12/11, it is in my purse) and if I abuse this drug surely I would get it filled the very day I could legally do so, right? Or, I could photograph the bottles of tablets I have currently with dates and tablets to prove what the drug is and you can see how many I have and the dates of the bottles.
Willing to put up or shut up? Huh??? I would scan this stuff and send it to George, Skeptic, ... one other person, I can't think of his name right now. Or... someone that George or Skeptic suggest considering I don't know anyone here.
Before you start talking out your back side you should probably know that to abuse Dex ... I couldn't swear to it but I would think it would be quite impossible for me to do. I don't react to Dex the way you probably would. If you take it you might cop a high, feel jittery, anxious, ready to run laps somewhere. When I take it I get *really* focused. Now doesn't that sound like enjoyable abuse to you?? If I take Dex on the weekends (and usually I don't, it's a Dex break per se) then when I get really focused I want to clean out my cupboards! HA! Think I'm kidding? I am not. Is that your idea of enjoyment? The kind one would get from abusing drugs?
As for narcotics such as Morphine, Hydrocodone, Codeine,... I am probably allergic to them because I break out in hives when I take narcotics. Now there's some fun!!
>>Let's consider your following statements from your very first post:
- "Abuse isn't an issue as I still have two rx's I have yet to get filled because I still have quite a few."
- "Anytime I have ever been asked if I take any drugs the thought of Dexedrine being a "meth users dream come true" I feel an instant emotion."
- "Even when I went to a new doc and he asked if I take any meds I said no but I don't think he believed me."
In the first statement you denied abusing your script before it even became an issue. It's the Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it!" syndrom. Nobody asked.<<
Everybody asks. Everyone who does not understand AD/HD and amphetamines asks that question. It is an innocent question for most. I don't know how much you know about the disorder or how many ADHD'ers you know so I don't know if your question is innocent or not. Point being, *everyone* asks about addiction issues in cases like mine. Go to any AD/HD board and see how many times that question is asked. It becomes annoying and it is easier to say up front that addiction is not an issue instead of having to educate people such as yourself in a situation such as this message board.
Besides, if I wanted to lie in a polygraph test, what good would it do for me to come HERE and lie about what I will lie about? I can obtain far better info if I am honest, wouldn't you think? What do I have to lose here by being honest? Seems to me that people that are honest piss you off as much as those who are dishonest. Says something about your character, don't you think? How fair can a polygrapher be when he assumes that everyone is dishonest? A little biased attitude there, obviously.
>>Your second statement explains why you abuse your script, your hooked.<<
Again, I am not sure if you are asking innocent questions out of ignorance or if you are game playing again. Do your research, AD/HD people don't become addicted to Dexedrine or Ritalin. It doesn't work that way. If I am hooked, it is pretty clear I am not going to have a whole lot of drugs left, right? How many addicts forget to take their pills? Seriously, how many do you know?
The last time I researched addiction and ADHD/Dex/Ritalin was probably about 5 years ago. At that time there was not one documented case of addiction to Dex or Ritalin for any person that really has AD/HD. It doesn't happen. There are plenty of anti-amphetamine people regarding AD/HD that make claims but as of 5 years ago they were unable to prove it and amphetamines have been around for many many years. In a non-ADHD person, you could be correct, in an ADHD person you are wrong. Again.
>>Your third statement is a real teller, denial. You don't even want to tell a doctor that you take these meds. Big indicator baby. You don't need to be getting a job, you need to be in drug rehab.<<
No, I don't like the ignorance such as yours about the disorder and just because someone is a physician does not mean they are up to date on ADHD. Besides, I work for my insurance company (HMO). I do not want my employer to know about Dex. I've been pretty honest about that as well.
As for rehab, if I was hooked I'd be taking them all!! I would be unable to have them around and not take them. That is how a drug addiction works. You find a willing 3rd party that we both trust (again, I don't trust you) who I can send photos of all the pills I am addicted to, Rx labels, and a yet unfilled Rx and then you will owe me an apology.
>>If you take that polygraph you don't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of getting past the illegal drug use question. Abuse of a script is illegal. You're going to nail it! I would suggest you use the best countermeasure of all, don't take the polygraph. At least then you won't fail.<<
Willing to put a wager on that? How much? Com'on, put up or shut up.
>>Good Luck. Maybe you can get someone to take it for you. How about it Septic, you game?<<
Don't need it. However your behavior here shows me more and more what George and Skeptic are talking about regarding how polygraphers lie and use (attempted) intimidation and dishonesty to get what they want from their clients. You spell it out so clearly it is amusing. Thanks, now I know what to expect when I take the test.
Who will the disinterested person that we can both trust be to show my photos? I'll even provide my insurance card or Driver License to show that the Rx's do indeed belong to me.
Put up or shut up Batman. If I am fibbing you can run around telling everyone that you were right for once. If I am telling the truth then you have to start a whole new thread just for the purpose of apologizing to me. Groveling, if you will.
Are you all talk? Let's see once and for all, shall we?
Batman...
>>Whatcha think, you hooked on your prescription medication? How do you think you'll do when asked about using illegal drugs knowing that everytime you hear that question you'll be thinking about all that Dex you popped when you really didn't need it? Try countermeasures, but remember, no guarantees, right Sep?<<
Oh, I am more than willing to prove my case. Right here, right now. I'm just waiting for you to suggest some disinterested 3rd parties. Of course, you could stick your tail between your legs and run off. You could pretend I never made the offer. You could act as though a drug addict always keeps pills from 11/02 (oldest Rx I have, I am using it now) and just doesn't take them. (Kinda takes away from that drug addiction thing, too bad for you) Or you could just continue running your mouth and in all the above cases, I'll win this one. You don't have a prayer.
To borrow a phrase:
Batman, you've been OWNED, bud.
Skeptic
Batman....
>>I'll put good money on this; you have abused you Dex, and that is what is really bugging you about this whole thing...<<
By the way, Batman... just what do you consider "good" money?
Still waiting for your answer. :P
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 20, 2003, 05:08 PM
Yet another in a long series of fine examples. To any guests reading this thread, imagine what it would be like to take a polygraph with someone as cynical and accusatory as our "Batman", here. You'd be guilty until proven innocent. If you doubt it, I invite you to read other posts by "Batman", as well -- you'll also find a remarkable willingness to mislead people, as well as a bias against women. There's nothing that says a polygrapher has to be a good person.
Perhaps most polygraphers aren't as generally hateful, paranoid and unsympathetic as "Batman", here. But if it's your bad luck to get one like this, you'd have no recourse.
Polygraph screening should be abolished period, and polygraph interrogation should be confined to guilty knowledge testing.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
I fully agree. "Batman's" main contribution to the discussions here on AntiPolygraph.org has been to graphically illustrate the kind of boorish, crude, and arbitrarily accusatory personality that those facing a polygraph interrogation may encounter. See, especially, his posts in the message thread Truthfull but Still Failed a Poly and CVSA (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=731.msg4264#msg4264).
I wrote "Batman" off as someone worthy of engaging in rational discourse with after his particularly flippant and offensive post (in which he likened me to Louis Farrakhan) in the message thread Al Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=843.msg5530#msg5530). Considering "Batman's" puerile penchant for addressing you as "Septic," you might wish to do the same. He's clearly not interested in a civil exchange of ideas.
George,
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 21, 2003, 05:07 AM
I wrote "Batman" off as someone worthy of engaging in rational discourse with after his particularly flippant and offensive post (in which he likened me to Louis Farrakhan) in the message thread Al Qaeda Documentation on Lie Detection (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=843.msg5530#msg5530). Considering "Batman's" puerile penchant for addressing you as "Septic," you might wish to do the same. He's clearly not interested in a civil exchange of ideas.
Rather than writing Batman off, I join Michelle in congratulating Batman for demonstrating so succinctly what feet of clay polygraphers have. A picture is worth a thousand words and Batman has painted a picture that 20 anti-polygraphers would be hard pressed to improve upon.
-Marty
George...
>>I fully agree. "Batman's" main contribution to the discussions here on AntiPolygraph.org has been to graphically illustrate the kind of boorish, crude, and arbitrarily accusatory personality that those facing a polygraph interrogation may encounter. See, especially, his posts in the message thread Truthfull but Still Failed a Poly and CVSA.<<
I agree with you regarding writing him off. I'll give him a day or two to figure out how he will get out of this hole he finds he is in and then I am done with him. He truly is an arrogant waste of airspace on this planet. He couldn't admit an error in judgment if his silly little life depended on it.
I can't help but to think that Batman sizes a person up in the first 60 seconds of encountering them and his equipment agrees with his narrow minded, egotistical, and uneducated opinion.
Quote from: Marty on Feb 21, 2003, 05:22 AM
George,
Rather than writing Batman off, I join Michelle in congratulating Batman for demonstrating so succinctly what feet of clay polygraphers have. A picture is worth a thousand words and Batman has painted a picture that 20 anti-polygraphers would be hard pressed to improve upon.
-Marty
The thing is, I don't think he cares. I won't go into my full opinion here, but suffice it to say I think his posts on this board involve easing a conscience more than setting a good example.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 21, 2003, 05:51 AM
The thing is, I don't think he cares. I won't go into my full opinion here, but suffice it to say I think his posts on this board involve easing a conscience more than setting a good example.
Skeptic
Yup, Skeptic. Those have also been my thoughts since his reference to "mind f**k"ing examinees. Of course he sees himself as a decent person (don't we all) and has to rationalize it by believing the worst about his opponents here.
Sad, but completely human. I've wondered on occasion what professional torturers did to salve their psychic wounds. Now that is a paper I would like to read.
BTW, I've been impressed with Cialdini's work ever since hearing him speak at a one of Michael Schermer's "Skeptic's meetings" at Baxter. Found his book on "influence" remarkable. It is a book you can't put down. Later, I noticed his name kept coming up in polygraph circles as a (or even the) foremost "compliance" expert. It seems he gives seminars on this to various federal agencies. I do know that the psychology of compliance is widely applicable in LE and military circles.
One of the more chilling books I ever read was "The Craft of Power." which is a more modern and explicit than "The Prince" Like Shermer, the guy is out of Caltech. Chemistry PhD I think. Cold cold book.
-Marty
Quote from: Fair Chance on Feb 18, 2003, 05:22 PM
Dear Michelle,
Your legal drug use is not the issue here.
Your fear (unfounded because they are legal) of how you will react to drug questions on a polygraph is already evident. The polygraph operator is trained to be skeptical of any admissions (legal or otherwise) which are given in light of any "deceptive polygraph" results. In your case, I think that he will be able to sense your body language or something else which might not even be related to polygraph readings due to the tension in your mind about the "unknown" during this process.
If this discussion on this board is raising any tensions in your mind, the polygraph experience will amplify it.
I do not believe in the validity of pre-screening polygraphs but the agencies that use it do.
Maybe you could find a department that does not require one.
Regards.
Dear Michelle,
I may now take back these words just typed a few short days ago. You have been exposed to the logic of a poor polygraph examiner. Without fear, a polygraph examination is very useless in its utility for confessions. As Marty has stated earlier, you now have an excellent grasp of the situation.
I have received three FBI pre-screening polygraphs. The first was very professional. The agent was courteous, polite, and I believe trying to do the job as best he could. I came back inconclusive.
The second was young, arrogant, bias, and extremely unprofessional in personal conduct as well as professional. He has made his decision to fail me within minutes of closing the door. I was found "not within parameters." This observation is not just mine for after my appeal letter describing my exam I was allowed a third polygraph.
My third polygraph was a duplicate of my first. A polite, professional experience given by an examiner who was trying to do his best. Did the examiner get many answers from me? He got alot more information than the second idiot by being a good interrogator who gave his subject basic respect. After six hours in the room, I was found "non-deceptive".
Batmans' behavior and demeanor is identical to the second examiner. He is arrogant and talks down to his "subjects." All highly emotional responses are treated as "you must be hiding something because it upsets you."
I do not perform polygraphs for a living but I do know more about FBI polygraph policy and procedure because I have investigated it in detail due to my background and interest after my poor polygraph experience. This is why my appeal was so successful. Unlike Batman, I take the time to learn how people who disagree with my view think. I have caught Batman in bad information concerning the polygraph usage in the FBI. At that point, I decided that his "professional" knowledge was weak and treated him accordingly.
My background is done and all that is left is my physical. Look at my postings on this board and look at Batman's.
Who would you want protecting your Civil Rights?
Regards.
Fair Chance...
I find it interesting that some of the posts I have read on this thread and others... the polygraphers blame the antipolygraphers for the education of some to deceive the test. I read a thread where it was mentioned that the book repeatedly referred to on this forum (available for download, sorry I do not recall the exact title) has been downloaded over 50,000 times.
The polygraphers were up in arms over this, their attitude was similar to other threads that it is the author's fault that people are able to deceive the test. Isn't this overlooking the obvious? If the test can be so easily deceived, merely by downloading a couple of hundred pages from the internet, isn't the *real* problem that the test *can* be deceived? The issue is NOT whose fault it is for educating people about the failings of this test, the issue is very simply, the failings of the test.
When a person of average intelligence or better can download something so basic from the internet and pass a test they would have otherwise potentially failed that is not the fault of those doing the educating. That is the fault of those polygraphers who know better but in the name of money, greed, pride, inability to admit errors... it is *their* fault because they should (and do) know better.
I can't help but to believe their egos must be huge. They must be beyond imagination. They know their test is not a valid test yet they pass and fail people at a whim and clearly the only thing they have to go on is their own gut feelings. As I watch Batman I scratch my head and wonder why everyone does not see where the real morality issues are. True personal responsibility would be for polygraphers to admit they are nothing but a scam. I don't know if they actually know that throughout their entire career but they *are* educated here and I cannot believe this is the first place they originally became aware of the lack of validity of their own test.
I have made it more than clear that I am not a xtian or an advocate of xtianity as a whole. I do not buy into the notion that a man from 2000 years ago paid for the sins of the future. I believe in personal responsibility, the here and now. It is NOT okay to have such an impact upon a person's life when you know you can't really go by much more than your gut and to accept money for that on top of it... it makes me wish there really was a hell so that people like this would have an appropriate place to spend their eternity.
I have absolutely no fear of a polygraph. I have zero concerns of passing this test. None. But you know what? Even if I did fail it, that would not be the end of the world. It would be nothing more than a bit of practice for the test the next time I would take it. Whether that be at the same LE agency or a different one. Point being, the impact would not be huge for me but I think of people who are innocent of a crime and trying to pass a polygraph without the knowledge of how people like Batman work.
Since DNA knowledge came out how many people have been found innocent of crimes after they have been in prison for many years? If I did not have the knowledge that I do now regarding this silly test and I worked for LE believing this was a valid test, I'm not sure I would go beyond the call of duty to make sure that the evidence I have and the polygraph exam available was wrong. To me that would seal the deal, it would be time for a trial. If the test came out that the person was innocent, then I might go beyond the call of duty to make sure I was on the right track. Clearly I can't be the only one to feel this way.
Quote from: Fair Chance on Feb 21, 2003, 10:55 AM
I have caught Batman in bad information concerning the polygraph usage in the FBI. At that point, I decided that his "professional" knowledge was weak and treated him accordingly.
Are you sure his info is weak? I have usually found that people pretty well know the in's and out's of their own profession, especially someone so very skilled as Batman claims he is. If his claims are true than he does have appropriate info regarding his profession and the validity of the test. If Batman is as good as he says than clearly, he knows his test is nothing more than fraud. If he does not know the in's and out's of his profession that tells us he is not nearly as good at being a polygrapher as he would like for us to believe.
Either way he isn't looking very good.
Fair chance,
Would you answer a question? When you took your third test, did you lie? Also, whether you lied or not, did you use counter measures?
I can certainly see why a polygraph examiner would not want people here to know. There is no open discussion of views. There is no attempt to try to come to some understanding of how things might be made better. There is most certainly enough intelligence here to do that if the desire was there.
All I see is negative, if you want to pass a polygraph "cheat" (counter measures) if you lie, then "cheat" so you can pass.
I have read the information, including the NAS report.
Michelle, Skeptic, I don't think you have Batman cold. I think you forgot something. I don't know if you abuse your prescription or not, I don't care but you don't have to get it just through prescription. It is readily obtained on the street. So showing a prescription bottle with a bunch of pills left over means nothing. They could even be aspirin or no doze.
Michelle, you can question my intelligence, my reading comprehension or anything else you want to but it doesn't change the fact that you are planning to lie and cheat to get a job. How about doing an objective poll of 100 people and asking if they think it is right or wrong to lie and cheat to get a job. Thats the world we live in and if the majority think its ok I feel very sorry for future generations.
confused
Golly gee, should Batman fall for the bait and get into a "how much I know" pissing match with Fair Chance and Michelle? Or should he turn tail and run? Or maybe he should ask Fair Chance exactly how he "...caught Batman in bad information concerning the polygraph usage in the FBI."
Tune in next time folks to see what Batman decides to do!
NEXT TIME:
OK, my man Fair,
Just how did you catch me in bad information concerning the usage of polygraph in the FBI? Let me guess. I'll bet it has something to do with Ms Seeker's recent post about informants, and how the FBI uses polygraph as it pertains to them. Well, I think the jury is still out on that one. If there was some other way you caught me please advise. As you said, you are not a polygraph examiner. I am, and have been for 19+ years. What agency do I wok for? Nope, ain't saying. Where did I get my training? Ain't saying that either. How do I know what the FBI does with it's use of polygraph on informants? Ain't saying.
Also, when I step into the polygraph suite to administer a polygraph examination, I am as nice a guy as you'll ever meet. I have yet to have anyone, even the ones who have confessed to me, complain about my professionalism or my attitude before, during, and after the polygraph examination. I've even had several folks who have confessed to various crimes shake my hand and say thanks. I guess they were just as pleased as punch to have bought a share of jail time from me and my co-workers (fellow investigators).
I guess you could say that while in the room, I'm Bruce Wayne, but on this site I become BATMAN, just kickin' ass and taking names!
Michelle,
You're coming on pretty strong for someone who just a couple of days ago didn't know jack about polygraph, and who was trying to come across like Sweet Polly Purebread as it pertained to seeking employment as a dispatcher with a law enforcement agency. I do believe you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You sound just a little to much like some of the other who post on this site. As a matter of fact, by the tone of your posts I'm beginning to suspect you have posted here before under another alias. I may be wrong, however not likely. For I am....
Batman
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 01:41 PM
Michelle, Skeptic, I don't think you have Batman cold. I think you forgot something. I don't know if you abuse your prescription or not, I don't care but you don't have to get it just through prescription. It is readily obtained on the street. So showing a prescription bottle with a bunch of pills left over means nothing. They could even be aspirin or no doze.
Once again you are wrong. The tablets can quite easily be identified by the markings, the shape, and the color. You could do a search on Dexedrine to determine what they are supposed to look like. You see, Confused, tablets are intentionally identifiable exactly as I describe above. Matter of fact it is also very easy to call your local poison control center, provide the information on the tablets and they can identify the tablet for you. See? Easy. What you fail to realize is that not every tablet on the market looks like an aspirin tablet. Cool concept, eh?
As for how I obtain the drug, please explain to me how I would get Rx labels, Rx bottles, and how would I affix the labels to the bottles, obtain 400 or so tablets so that I could send photos of all this to a disinterested 3rd party for verification?
Otherwise you are suggesting something similar to my going to a pharmacy, robbing them of Rx labels and Rx bottles, then spending a LOT of money on the street to buy (brand name vs. generic, btw) Dexedrine so that I could prove what a doofus Batman is.
Sorry, it just isn't that difficult to prove Batman a doofus. He does most of the work for me. He has shown what he is all about, I am merely permitting a way for him to prove it himself.
Two other points, the pharmacy phone number is on the labels. It is quite easy to call information and verify that this is a pharmacy and the number is correct. Then the disinterested 3rd party can call the pharmacy if the photos are not enough, and verify the Rx numbers to my name.
I have also offered to send a scanned copy of my insurance card or my driver license to verify I am the person named on the Rx's.
Another item you failed to mention is that I also have an unfilled Rx for #180 Dexedrine. I have also offered to scan that Rx and send it to the same disinterested 3rd party. How did I obtain that? Or are you going to suggest that after breaking into a pharmacy and stealing labels and vials I then broke into an MD office and stole Rxs. Then I went back to the pharmacy, typed up the labels I stole, entered Rx numbers into their computer ... JUST so that I could prove a point on this forum. That is what I would have to do if I do not have valid Rx's for Dexedrine.
Care to try again?
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 01:41 PM
Michelle, Skeptic, I don't think you have Batman cold. I think you forgot something. I don't know if you abuse your prescription or not, I don't care but you don't have to get it just through prescription. It is readily obtained on the street. So showing a prescription bottle with a bunch of pills left over means nothing. They could even be aspirin or no doze.
If the post I am responding to is not enough evidence that you are either Batman or someone like Batman, I don't know what is. Much as you try to defend him it is not working any more than it works when he defends himself under his usual name. You both have a specific writing style in that you both make exactly the same grammar error in many of your posts. Something very specific and actually, not all that common.
Nobody spells worse than I do and nobody's grammar is worse than mine. I am not knocking the grammar error on your part and Batman's, I am pointing out that a "not so common" error is something you both share in similar words. Also, you both attempt to start out very nice and just offering thoughts on a topic (judgmental thoughts, btw) and when others disagree with you, you come out fighting using the same fighting style.
You know what? I have Batman nailed on a cross and ready to hang. I'm very interested to see his efforts to get out of this one. My guess is that he will come up with the most untrustworthy disinterested 3rd parties that he can possibly come up with so that he knows there isn't a chance in hell I would send that kind of private info. That, or he'll insist I post all that information here, on the boards. Like I would really do that. Sheesh... Why would I post my name, my address (license info) my pharmacy name, Rx numbers, MD name, and advertise the fact that I have 400+ Dexedrine tablets in my home? Can anything BE more dangerous?
Batman will get out of this, I'm betting. I think it will be by one of the two methods above. He may not realize it but that too will prove what a liar, cheat, and fraud he is. Not to mention a poor judge of character and an over all buttwad.
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 01:41 PM
Michelle, you can question my intelligence, my reading comprehension or anything else you want to but it doesn't change the fact that you are planning to lie and cheat to get a job. How about doing an objective poll of 100 people and asking if they think it is right or wrong to lie and cheat to get a job. Thats the world we live in and if the majority think its ok I feel very sorry for future generations.
How many times have I addressed this point already? As have others. Com'on, get some new material, would you? And take a reading comprehension class because seriously, dude, you need it.
Quote from: Batman on Feb 21, 2003, 02:07 PM
You're coming on pretty strong for someone who just a couple of days ago didn't know jack about polygraph, and who was trying to come across like Sweet Polly Purebread as it pertained to seeking employment as a dispatcher with a law enforcement agency. I do believe you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You sound just a little to much like some of the other who post on this site. As a matter of fact, by the tone of your posts I'm beginning to suspect you have posted here before under another alias. I may be wrong, however not likely. For I am....
Actually, yet another specific error you and Confused have in common. I am not just now coming on strong. Remember post #3 of this thread? That was my 2nd post *ever* on this forum.
And of course you are wrong. Unlike you I am willing to PROVE who I am. I'm not hiding behind some silly cartoon character. That would be you. ;D
Whether or not you like it, the polygraph and the failings of a polygraph just aren't that tough to see. Batman, you still don't get it. YOU are the one that has taught me the most about all of this. The basic data regarding polygraphs is easy to obtain here and other places, the accusations of how a polygraph examiner can behave, YOUR behaviors, YOUR attitude, YOUR posts... how difficult is this?
I'm sorry that your job doesn't require a huge amount of skill but don't knock others merely because they acknowledge that fact. It still doesn't make your job have any great value.
Quote from: Batman on Feb 21, 2003, 02:07 PM
Golly gee, should Batman fall for the bait and get into a "how much I know" pissing match with Fair Chance and Michelle? Or should he turn tail and run?
Welllll, so far it appears that you are running as fast as your little paws will take you AND that tail is tucked between your legs.
That or you forgot to mention the "great challenge" presented to you.
Want the proof or do you want to apologize for really crappy behavior?
So what are you, a man or a polygrapher?
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 01:41 PM
Fair chance,
Would you answer a question? When you took your third test, did you lie? Also, whether you lied or not, did you use counter measures?
Dear Confused,
I have never falsified or omitted anything pertaining to any application I have made for federal service. The government has had and continues to have huge amount of private information concerning my life. This is the choice I made years ago. I did not willingly lie or knowingly lie about any questions posed to me. I was unaware of this website during my first two polygraph sessions and I informed my third polygraph examiner that I have done significant research into polygraph examination with an explicit reference to the National Acadamy of Science Report about Polygraph usage in DOE screening applications.
I believe that my first polygraph was inconclusive because I was not responsive enough to what I now know were control questions. I had been completely honest and had no problems in truthfully stating that I obey all traffic laws, I have not used my federal law enforcement status to gain any special favors and I do not drink and drive. I guess they needed me to feel guilty about those statments and feel emotional turmoil to "pass" me. I had no fear in answering any questions.
The second polygraph examiner started to attack and grill me almost as soon as I sat down for the pre-test interview. My pre-test interview was almost non-existent and I was attacked for using breathing countermeasures on the first strip. This confirms my feelings that examiners do not have a sure fire way of detecting breathing countermeasures because I had no knowledge of any countermeasures at that point. It was my normal breathing. I have detailed the rest of that exam in previous post.
I believe that my last examiner spent much more time trying to develope questions that I would have a hard time answering without doubt or reflection. I did not use any countermeasures and answered the questions with almost an identical response to my first test. For whatever reason, I passed this time.
My answers and feelings were all the same during all three test and that is why I have agreed with Marty that the pre-screeing polygraph test is a roll of the dice crapshoot.
The damage to the Nation occurs when applicants are falsely accused and their federal careers executed strictly on polygraph results alone. Rarely do many applicants get a second, let alone a third polygraph.
One glaring fault in this whole system is no videotaping of the process to assure that the examiner through body language, voice inflections, and methods of questioning skews the results. The review gurus in Washington, D.C., only review the recording tapes. There is no quality control. The videotape would also demonstrate if the examiner is using the same overall technique or deviating according to his/her personal bias.
You want improvement, immediately start videotaping all polygraph exams, make copies of the exam and polygraph strips made immediately to the examinee on request, and have peer review of random examinations to make sure that personal bias is not introduced.
All of the above does not change the fact that without fear and confessions, polygraphs are useless. There is a lot of money being spent without documented results (concerning deceptive polygraphs without confessions and background checks).
My results would have been the same if polygraph did not exist. My application is proceding. If a person has drug or alcohol problems, they are in denial for many years and a polygraph is no sure fire way to make them "fess-up". Any reasonable background check will find it. Our country's future is worth it.
Regards
Michelle, obviously comprehension is not your long suit either. Thats ok, people with a double digit IQ have that problem.
I don't care how many rx's you have unfilled. I don't care how many pills you have from rx's you haven't taken. You could still by them on the street illegally. Also, you were talking about sending photos not actual pills. A bunch of white pills in an rx bottle could be alot of things.
I guess your warped perception is not limited to just right and wrong.
It is amazing that you are such an expert in the written word that you can tell that Batman and I are one and the same. Where did you get that training? It must come in handy alot. Sorry, you are wrong but I am sure that will not stop you from believing because you have overwelming proof.
By all means find an objective third party (how about Skeptic?) and send your photos. It wouldn't prove anything but you don't care about that, after all you have Batman cold. Please send blow ups, I suspect you should be using supositories (please check the spelling on that for me, it's your field).
Instead of attacking me would you talk more about your morals and values? It is more informative. Please include your God, the one with lower standards. After all I am just a dumb no body who is trying to learn. I have had it wrong all these years, I thought lying and cheating was a bad thing.
Gone from confused to amused.
Very Confused...
>>Michelle, obviously comprehension is not your long suit either. Thats ok, people with a double digit IQ have that problem.<<
Right, when you can't address the issues, attack instead. I may well give you a dose of your own medicine here and there but at least I address the issues, unlike you.
>>I don't care how many rx's you have unfilled. I don't care how many pills you have from rx's you haven't taken. You could still by them on the street illegally.<<
Do you know what a prescription is? How stupid are you? Seriously, can you be this ignorant? I am willing to scan the actual labels, photograph that WITH the easily identifiable tablets AND a prescription for even more Dex *with* proof of my identity and you think this is similar to a suppository? And yes, you spelled suppository incorrectly right after referring to my double digit IQ. How bright is that?
Allow me to explain something to you. A suppository is usually larger than a tablet, they are in a base much different from a tablet, they do not contain any ingredients that bind powder together like a tablet but instead are in a different base completely. Most important Mr. Confused, is that a tablet is taken orally. That would be by your mouth. A suppository goes up your rear end. See the difference? Do you need pictures of tablets vs. suppositories?
>>Also, you were talking about sending photos not actual pills. A bunch of white pills in an rx bottle could be alot of things.<<
::::blink:::
You are suggesting I send the actual pills? Needing a little "pick me up" are we? (wink wink nudge nudge)
Cutey, THAT would be illegal and you wouldn't want me to do that now would you? Also, please explain how scanning would get the actual tablets to the disinterested 3rd party?
Dex isn't white first of all and for the 3rd time I will explain AGAIN that tablets are easily identifiable. Call a drug company and ask them.
>>I guess your warped perception is not limited to just right and wrong.<<
Already address about 6 times previously.
>>It is amazing that you are such an expert in the written word that you can tell that Batman and I are one and the same. Where did you get that training? It must come in handy alot. Sorry, you are wrong but I am sure that will not stop you from believing because you have overwelming proof.<<
Straw man. You *do* know what a straw man is, right? I never claimed expertise in writing techniques, I never claimed to have training, and I never claimed to have overwhelming proof. This is your claim, not mine, that is another Batman technique.
>>By all means find an objective third party (how about Skeptic?) and send your photos. It wouldn't prove anything but you don't care about that, after all you have Batman cold. Please send blow ups, I suspect you should be using supositories (please check the spelling on that for me, it's your field).<<
Again, I already explained the difference between a suppository and a tablet. Further discussion I fear would feed into a potential anal perversion of yours.
>>Instead of attacking me would you talk more about your morals and values? It is more informative.<<
If a polygraph is accurate I could have the morals of Jack the Ripper and it wouldn't matter, now would it?
>>Please include your God, the one with lower standards.<<
Lower standards? Your proof please? Then tell me exactly who my god is so that you can prove your statements. You aren't pulling yet ANOTHER Batman are you? Surely you don't have that many similarities in your writing style. Or do you? Now prove your statements that my god has lower standards than your god. Put up or shut up. (Where have we heard that before?)
If you want to talk religion I suggest you start a thread in the appropriate folder and I'll to head to head with you. Keep in mind, I'll bet you Batman's good money (that is soon to be mine) that I know your bible better than you do. You don't know my history, you need to know that I rarely lose a bible debate. Actually, I don't recall ever losing a bible debate.
>>After all I am just a dumb no body who is trying to learn. I have had it wrong all these years, I thought lying and cheating was a bad thing.<<
Already addressed your IQ issues per your standards and as for dishonesty, that has been addressed at least 6 times now. New material otherwise people will be convinced you are Batman. Heh...
Back for a couple days, from hard work Batman, and helping my wife make plans for our 50th wedding aniversery. Batman, I will ask the question before you do. How in hell did she put up with me for fifty years? I would tell you but there is not enough room on this site.
Michelle, Skeptic and Others
You don't give Batman any credit for being smart. He is smart as hell. He keeps the bow into wind and keeps himself perched on the forward anchor chain so as not to have to smell his own farts. Now that's smart.
Batman
I, too, like to kick ass but I don't take names because I don't like gathering dirt on others. I stopped being serious when none of you would answer my questions about polygraphing elected and appionted officials and admitting to lies told to the NAS, about counter-countermeasures, by the feds. Now I visit this site, when I have time, to have fun and psychoanalyze posters. I have fun determining which posters use different names.
BTW, you seem to be able to take it as well as dish it out. DAMN, did I say something good about you?
Twoblock...
>>BTW, you seem to be able to take it as well as dish it out. DAMN, did I say something good about you?<<
But Batman isn't taking it at all. He is ignoring it, hoping it will go away, or perhaps trying to find a way to get himself off his cross.
Either way he isn't taking a thing.
New topic: 50 years, eh? Wow, that is cool. Seriously, that is something for you to be extremely proud of and for others to admire. You should sell the secret, you'd be worth bazillions.
Personally my b/f and I have been together for 15 years but we aren't married yet. I don't like to rush into things. <snark>
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
Michelle, obviously comprehension is not your long suit either. Thats ok, people with a double digit IQ have that problem.
I don't care how many rx's you have unfilled. I don't care how many pills you have from rx's you haven't taken. You could still by them on the street illegally. Also, you were talking about sending photos not actual pills. A bunch of white pills in an rx bottle could be alot of things.
I guess your warped perception is not limited to just right and wrong.
It is amazing that you are such an expert in the written word that you can tell that Batman and I are one and the same. Where did you get that training? It must come in handy alot. Sorry, you are wrong but I am sure that will not stop you from believing because you have overwelming proof.
By all means find an objective third party (how about Skeptic?) and send your photos. It wouldn't prove anything but you don't care about that, after all you have Batman cold. Please send blow ups, I suspect you should be using supositories (please check the spelling on that for me, it's your field).
Actually, it's Batman's responsibility (ethically and logically) to prove Michelle is a drug abuser. He's gone on record as accusing her of breaking the law; if he can't prove the charge he's committing libel. I for one think Michelle is going above and beyond claiming she'll prove that she's not, and despite your claims, her information about ADHD and dex is solid. Can you prove you're not a child molester, Confused? Should you have to? Wouldn't I be wrong to publicly accuse you of such with no proof?
And for the nth time,
Michelle is not talking about lying. That's your straw man. Back it up with quotes or retract your statement.
Skeptic
P.S. Confused, if you are indeed "Batman" (I have my suspicions, too), you've sunk to a new cowardly low. On most message boards, that kind of assinine behavior would get you banned permanently. If you are one and the same, it's clear you actually care not one whit about "truth".
Quote from: Twoblock on Feb 21, 2003, 03:15 PM
Michelle, Skeptic and Others
You don't give Batman any credit for being smart. He is smart as hell. He keeps the bow into wind and keeps himself perched on the forward anchor chain so as not to have to smell his own farts. Now that's smart.
Nah. He's clever. He knows he can't win on the facts or debate honestly, so he has to resort to inflammatory accusations and game playing. It's pretty obvious.
It's also not terribly surprising. In my experience one part of interrogation/polygraphy is ignoring objections/logic and endlessly repeating accusations until the target breaks down (strangely, another trait he and "Confused" have in common...). The only problem in this context is that there's no leverage.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 21, 2003, 03:25 PM
Actually, it's Batman's responsibility (ethically and logically) to prove Michelle is a drug abuser. He's gone on record as accusing her of breaking the law; if he can't prove the charge he's committing libel. I for one think Michelle is going above and beyond claiming she'll prove that she's not, and despite your claims, her information about ADHD and dex is solid. Can you prove you're not a child molester, Confused? Should you have to? Wouldn't I be wrong to publicly accuse you of such with no proof?
Yes, it is Batman's responsibility to defend his own claims but clearly, he can't. He attacks without reason and attempts to use logic when in reality it is merely redirection and silly attacks.
I don't know how you guys have been able to stand him for this long. I maintain after reading his posts I want to wash my eyeballs out with bleach because he is just simply gross. However, being the strong willed one that I am I am willing to help him prove what an ass he is. He has made claims about my supposed drug addiction. Now he can put up or shut up. He was willing to wager "good money" on this. He has yet to explain what "good money" is even though I have asked. I should be able to collect right now since he cannot prove his claim. But I am helping him so he cannot continue sitting on his eternal pity pot whining about how everyone around his is wrong, without morality, and just plain meannies.
So far it appears that he is covering his ears and singing as loud as he can so he won't understand what those around him are communicating or challenging.
My offer isn't going to last forever. An apology and some "good money" is going to be due quickly. We know he's seen the posts now it is time for him to play the role of an adult with *some* amount of integrity.
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 21, 2003, 03:51 PM
I don't know how you guys have been able to stand him for this long.
it hasn't been easy...
Quote from: Batman on Feb 21, 2003, 02:07 PMAlso, when I step into the polygraph suite to administer a polygraph examination, I am as nice a guy as you'll ever meet. I have yet to have anyone, even the ones who have confessed to me, complain about my professionalism or my attitude before, during, and after the polygraph examination. I've even had several folks who have confessed to various crimes shake my hand and say thanks. I guess they were just as pleased as punch to have bought a share of jail time from me and my co-workers (fellow investigators).
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing Batman gains such a wonderful sense of self-worth and self-confidence every time some single-helixed chowderhead is actually stupid enough to willingly confess to him. Perhaps Batman is the daddy they never had-- it's charming when he takes that misplaced parental trust he seems able to instill in the weak minded and exploits it so adriotly.
I also enjoy the never-ending stream of self-aggrandizing anecdotes Batman just loves to share with us. To hear him go on and on about himself is a rare treat indeed.
Batman, excluding yourself, does anyone else hold you in such high regard?
For a change, why not share one of your tragic mistakes... I'm sure that in any 19 year career there must be several, right? Instead of Yet Another Anecdote Pointing Out What A Great Interrogator I Am, why not share one where you were wrong? You know, where you falsely accused someone and either partially or completely destroyed their professional/social life ever after? Or, if you're too embarrased to say, perhaps you could share one commited by one of your polygraph interrogator buddies.
Yahoo! Ride 'em cowboy, are we having fun or what? My sides ache from laughing so hard.
OK, let's start with Michelle,
First, Batman is no damn cartoon character, he a friggin' Super Hero. Popeye is a bloody cartoon character. You must be trying to piss me off!
As for you possibly being a guy, I take that back. You have to be a woman, you won't shut up long enough to let anyone get a word in. You posted at 11:15, 11:17, 11:19, 11:27, 11:43, 12:13 (Did you take a nap?), 12:23, and 12:51 (Did you pop a Dex?). That's all the proof I need that you are either high or a dumb blond. By the way, what do you call a smart blond? A golden retriever! Oh, that's a good one, I'm cracking myself up!!!
You asked whether I'm a man or a polygraph examiner? Can't I be both? Actually, like I said, I a damn Super Hero!
What's good money? Hell everyone knows (everyone except you I guess), any money is good money!
As for the possibility that I may be 'confused', well I have been confused, but I'm not 'confused'.
Two Block,
I ain't Navy so what does all that mean?!? And please don't take my Popeye remark the wrong way, I have the utmost respect for Popeye, he too is an ass kicker, he's just not classified as a Super Hero. But, you gotta ask yourself, what does he see in Olive Oil?
You're OK in my book! We may not agree on much, hell on anything, but you being former military (and a gold miner to boot) puts you up there.
Septic,
I don't have to proove anything. That's the beauty of this site. Everyone can lay out their lines of bullshit and press on. As for Michelle suing me for libel, have at it. File C/O Marvel Comics.
As for me being 'confused', give me a little credit (No negative reflection on confused intended. You all know it's not in me to insult anyone.) I may be stupid (cause I can't spell and got bad grammer), I may be hateful, I may be paranoid, I may be unsympathetic, I may be gross, and God forbid, I am a polygraph examiner, but I am not 'confused'! I am...
BATMAN
PS: Triple X, if you're reading any of this, you'll note that I'm taking on a whole shouthouse full of crappers here, with no help from my friends! You want to know why numbnuts? Because I don't have any. AMF you Special Forces kind of guy you!
Quote from: beech trees on Feb 21, 2003, 05:03 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing Batman gains such a wonderful sense of self-worth and self-confidence every time some single-helixed chowderhead is actually stupid enough to willingly confess to him. Perhaps Batman is the daddy they never had-- it's charming when he takes that misplaced parental trust he seems able to instill in the weak minded and exploits it so adriotly.
You know, I'm sure Batman is a good interrogator. I would have no problem with that (though he probably wouldn't be the sort I'd like to hang out with) if he didn't throw the pseudo-science of polygraphy into the mix.
It's too bad, really. He's shown a certain resourcefulness on this board, and a ruthlessness/cynicism perhaps necessary for or common to those who interrogate. To my mind, he's probably wasted in his current profession.
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Feb 21, 2003, 05:16 PM
PS: Triple X, if you're reading any of this, you'll note that I'm taking on a whole shouthouse full of crappers here, with no help from my friends!
Is that what you call your posts here? Why not just start posting cartoons and claim victory?
The day you actually start debating the polygraph is the day you can claim to do anything here but spew (although that 8-ball post was kinda funny).
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Feb 21, 2003, 05:16 PM
Yahoo! Ride 'em cowboy, are we having fun or what? My sides ache from laughing so hard.
OK, let's start with Michelle,
First, Batman is no damn cartoon character, he a friggin' Super Hero. Popeye is a bloody cartoon character. You must be trying to piss me off!
As for you possibly being a guy, I take that back. You have to be a woman, you won't shut up long enough to let anyone get a word in. You posted at 11:15, 11:17, 11:19, 11:27, 11:43, 12:13 (Did you take a nap?), 12:23, and 12:51 (Did you pop a Dex?). That's all the proof I need that you are either high or a dumb blond. By the way, what do you call a smart blond? A golden retriever! Oh, that's a good one, I'm cracking myself up!!!
You asked whether I'm a man or a polygraph examiner? Can't I be both? Actually, like I said, I a damn Super Hero!
What's good money? Hell everyone knows (everyone except you I guess), any money is good money!
As for the possibility that I may be 'confused', well I have been confused, but I'm not 'confused'.
Heh... I'll take this as your admission that you are a loser in every sense. You certainly lost this one!
I guess that means... I win and you lose. Has a nice ring to it.
Shall we review the history?
You made accusations about my supposed drug use and addiction. You were asked to defend those claims and you declined.
You offered a financial wager on this and now that you lose, you decline to pay up.
I offered proof to help you since you are unable to prove your claims. I offered proof to demonstrate that you are the world's biggest loser. You didn't take me up on the challenge. Wouldn't even refer to it.
I predicted that you would weenie out of your wager in one of two ways, one of them was pretending the wager does not exist. I was correct on this point as well.
It has been pointed out to you that when you are backed in a corner and proven wrong, you start slinging mud. That has been correct as well.
You are a loser. A loser in every way including your own wager.
Mr. Loser of the wager:
>>As for me being 'confused', give me a little credit (No negative reflection on confused intended. You all know it's not in me to insult anyone.) I may be stupid (cause I can't spell and got bad grammer), I may be hateful, I may be paranoid, I may be unsympathetic, I may be gross, and God forbid, I am a polygraph examiner, but I am not 'confused'! I am...<<
Heh... is this a slip?? Oh my, I think it is. Your use of grammar was the only accusation that I recall reading or writing. The "stupid" part and the inability to "spell" was Confused.
However the rest seems pretty accurate except I do think you are Confused in more ways than one.
It would appear you cannot keep up with your own dishonesty and if you had any credibility here as a polygrapher, you lost it today, Mr. Lost The Wager And Too Freaky To Apologize And Pay Up.
I do believe my work with *you* is done. :::patting self and new friends on back::: Anything in the future will be for amusement and entertainment purposes only. ;D
Michelle
Thanks for the good words. I do feel honored to have spent 51 and half years (long courtship)with a lady with such beauty and intellect. There are a number of secrets to a long marriage. Being incompatible. I have the income and she is patible. ha. Another: Wholehearted love and trust. Never do anything to break that trust. Have the ability, and be grown-up enough, to openly discuss your problems. I haven't talked to her in 18 months. I don't like to interupt. Just kidding.
Batman
Turn the bow into the wind and you can more safely ride out the storm. Get sideways to a big wave and you got trouble. I got sideways to a wave one time and she got totally confused.
Ok, lets get back on track. No more name calling,no more casting aspersians just straight talk.
First, as I said earlier I don't think you are a drug abuser and I never said that. You said that you could prove to batman you were not. You said you could do that by having a third party involved and sending them ( I believe in a fax) copies or photos of your unfilled prescriptions as well as showing a filled prescription with most of the pills still in the bottle. Is that not correct?
I simply said that would not prove anything. My reasons were 1) You would never have to take a single pill prescribed by your doctor and still be able to obtain enough medication illegally to control your condition or abuse the drug. 2) I was trying to point out that a photo of a bottle of pills would not prove what they actually were or were not. I don't care what color anything is you can't readily identify it by a bottle in a photo. You said you worked in a pharmacy, are you saying that if I sent you a photo of a bottle of pills you could identify it? Maybe you could but it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't prove anything. 3) My other point was that you could not find an objective or unbiased third person on this site. I used Skepitcs name because he and Batman obviously have a history and no way could he be considered unbiased, just as Batman would not be unbiased about anything having to do with Skeptic.
Other things,
I don't care if you ever tell anyone about your medical condition and I think you are right that it is not their business. I simply thought it was strange that you were saying how you were a good person and have nothing to hide but didn't seem to mind both lying and cheating to get a job.
I didn't bring up religion only pointed out, incorrectly I might add, one of the ten commandments and said it was not amended to read "unless it benefits me". I never claimed to be religious, pious, saintly or perfect just that I was taught (as I thought most people were when young) lying, cheating, stealing were wrong. Have I ever lied? Certainly but I also admit that it was against commom morals and values.
Skeptic says "could you prove you are not a child molester" thats just wrong and I'll bet, much lower than anything Batman may have ever said but you sure think he's special. I'll tell you something, if I was interrogating a child molester and I had to lie to get him to confess I would do it in a heart beat. Truthful people of competent mental capacity don't confess to crimes they did not commit.
Somebody brought up DNA testing, saying how many people have been found guilty then released after DNA proved they were not. I don't know but bet it doesn't exceed a thousand. Out of the millions of people found guilty through proper legal channels, I would say thats pretty good. Maybe we shouldn't put anyone in jail unless we have DNA proof of their guilt.
Fair chance, would you mind responding to my questions posted previously, please.
Curious to see how this gets twisted around
confused
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 07:03 PM
Skeptic says "could you prove you are not a child molester" thats just wrong and I'll bet, much lower than anything Batman may have ever said but you sure think he's special. I'll tell you something, if I was interrogating a child molester and I had to lie to get him to confess I would do it in a heart beat. Truthful people of competent mental capacity don't confess to crimes they did not commit.
Just so we're absolutely clear: I do not think you are a child molester, Confused. I would never accuse you or anyone of such an ugly thing without substantial proof, nor did I in my prior post (please re-read it if you doubt me). My point is that it is not fair, nor is it right, to casually accuse someone on this board of a crime, then require that person to disprove the assertion. I do not do that; Batman does it routinely. He knows throwing mud is much easier than making an honest point, since proving or disproving something on this board is very difficult. Some mud is bound to stick; at the very least, it will intimidate his opponents.
I also disagree with your assertion regarding confessions; virtually anyone can be made to falsely confess given enough of the right kind of pressure. For some people that involves physical torture; for others, psychological. We've had discussions on this very board regarding false confessions, and they're more common than anyone would like to think.
Additionally, if the polygraph were used only because of its utility as an interrogation prop, I daresay most of the rationale for the existence of this site would evaporate. Unfortunately, the results of the "test" are frequently used in absence of any confession.
Finally, I'd like to note one other thing. It's true that I don't hold the polygraph profession in very high regard, and more true that I find "Batman" substantially lacking in many ways, based on his conduct on this bulletin board. You can read the history, if you'd like.
However, I value honesty very highly (one of the very reasons Batman and I have such an ongoing problem), and if Michelle were to send me pictures of her prescription, I would tell it like it is, no ifs, ands or buts.
Skeptic
Batman......never fear Caped Crusader, your fellow Justice Leaguers are hear and watching from afar. You are doing quite well poking the stick at Michelle...and the rest of her "new found friends" who obviously is suffering an ongoing bout of PMS (probably exacerbated by her legal "wink" dex use. There can be little doubt that she is NOT the little innocent seeker of information who just came to this site to find a caring individual. Hey! maybe she is the one who told George he is cute when he first posted his picture. Hell, seeing she launched an attack on you as having an alter ego (i.e. "confused") maybe "she" is reaaly George in drag. Uh oh! am I now going to get sued for libel Septic...do I have to take that back? Am I Batman? Is the world flat? I am soooo (he, he, he) "confused". The only (seemingly) anti-polygrapher here who is worth a damn is Two Block. Perhaps someday, you will get the answers you seek you old salt! (and I mean that with the highest of respect), but I doubt if that will occur here because o matter what logic is offered, it is attacked and NEVER once have the Georgeettes said anything positive about the process...so why should we?...As my fellow suuper hero said once before, "it is much more fun standing outside the fence poking a stick in your face". I cannot help but notice the genuinely few individuals who whine and complain about their failed polygraph. Michelle provides a new wrinkle...she is whining and hasn't even taken hers yet! I know of thousands (just a "few" of them are in the report that George so graciously provided a link to) who took their exams, passed and were granted their clearances and accesses and while they perhaps did not like the process, they took it without the carping that we see on this site. Compare this to the really very few who complian on this site...each of them (save Michelle) failed their tests. Now from a statistical point of view, those few are certainly staisticlly insignificant because they do not represent the "norm". Well that's about all for now from this part of the world...Okay fellow Justice Leaguers....take your place at the whining fence and unsheath your sticks.....prepare to poke!
Confused...
>>First, as I said earlier I don't think you are a drug abuser and I never said that. You said that you could prove to batman you were not. You said you could do that by having a third party involved and sending them ( I believe in a fax) copies or photos of your unfilled prescriptions as well as showing a filled prescription with most of the pills still in the bottle. Is that not correct?<<
Close. You said you didn't know if I was a drug abuser but quite frankly, it isn't important enough for me to go back and look. I would not be faxing photos but scanning and emailing them however fax would have been fine too. It would have been hard to identify the tablets however the emailed scan would have made it quite easy. The tablets would have matched the prescription label for quantity and drug. There is no way around it, this would prove my claim is correct. You can twist it and come up with the most bizarre scenarios but just the simple fact that Batman didn't want to meet the challenge is enough for me to know that HE knows I can prove my case.
>>3) My other point was that you could not find an objective or unbiased third person on this site. I used Skepitcs name because he and Batman obviously have a history and no way could he be considered unbiased, just as Batman would not be unbiased about anything having to do with Skeptic.<<
All I wanted was a person that I could trust with that kind of information. If I could trust them with the kind of information I was offering I could probably trust them with honesty. They would have been able to confirm that everything I have been writing is true. Doesn't matter if they are biased to one side or another. Trust was the only issue for me.
>>Skeptic says "could you prove you are not a child molester" thats just wrong and I'll bet, much lower than anything Batman may have ever said but you sure think he's special.<<
That is NOT what Skeptic wrote. He was making a point. If he were to lower himself to Batman's level and make a horrible claim *such as* you are a child molester, could you and should you have to prove the claim is untrue? He most certainly did NOT make that claim about you. He made a point. You need to revisit that post and see for yourself.
>>I'll tell you something, if I was interrogating a child molester and I had to lie to get him to confess I would do it in a heart beat. Truthful people of competent mental capacity don't confess to crimes they did not commit.<<
And if a polygraph is at all valid you shouldn't have to be dishonest. The test should prove it FOR you. And funny how your morality changes when it suits your needs. Clearly, I am not impressed with you.
The rest of your post has been responded to time and time again and I am not going to continue repeating myself for a 7th time.
Torpedo, you're just the spacing between the grown-ups' posts.
Skeptic
Confused...
>>I simply said that would not prove anything. My reasons were 1) You would never have to take a single pill prescribed by your doctor and still be able to obtain enough medication illegally to control your condition or abuse the drug.<<
One other point. I am almost afraid to ask but how does this make sense? Why would I go out on the street, risking getting arrested, risking if the drug is *really* Dex AND spending ... something like $3.00-$5.00 per tablet when I can get it legally for a $10.00 copay and I get 180 of them. How does this make sense to you? Do you actually read and think through what you write?
I have already explained about an AD/HD person abusing Dex. I'm not going to give yet another AD/HD on line lesson. The post is still available for you to read if you desire.
One other question for you. You have been repeating over and over this god routine, morality, right/wrong... yadda yadda. *I* am the one willing to prove my claims, Batman is the one refusing to defend ANY of his claims, he is the one who is such a dishonest pig he can't even respond appropriately yet you only focus on my morality, my Dex, my everything.
Speaking of being biased, you aren't hiding it well at all.
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 21, 2003, 07:17 PM
Batman......never fear Caped Crusader, your fellow Justice Leaguers are hear and watching from afar.
Wow... after a post like this I'm just glad you are on the *other* side of the debate. You'd make our side hang our heads in shame if we had to claim you.
Hey Bimbo!....you dare call what you have engaged in a debate?...No way sweet cheeks!
Okay...I have been overwhelmed with "information" from both sides of the coin these past several months. I have read nearly 4,000 posts off of this board alone and realize many of you have very strong opinions - some I would venture to refer to as extremists - and many who are just plain full of themselves. I have had a wonderful time particularly reading the posts from Batman, Skeptic, Drew, George, and BeechTrees due to their (generally) informative, yet sometimes biased nature. I can clearly see the divide between those for and those against the use/abuse of the polygraph but appreciate both viewpoints so that I can make more sense of my own opinion.
I do believe the polygraph machine and the entire mystique leading up to (and through) the testing experience can prove worthwhile - for those it coerces into outright confessions - however, now that I am educated (I believe) on the manner in which the simplistic comparisons are made with relevant and control questions, I am quite concerned for the average (honest) person and frustrated by the deception employed by the polygrapher to make the whole "scenario" seem to work. It bothers me that up until 4 months ago I was also under the assumption that a machine really existed that would simply indicate whether your reaction/response was of a deceptive nature or not - I feel as though somehow society (okay so I'm being a little grandiose there) has mislead me. However, now after reading several books, thousands of differing perspectives in these posts, and astute literature from the American Psychological Association and from the American Polygraph Association, I have developed my own beliefs.....the polygraph isn't much, but it is the best we have at this point - now mind you, I did say it isn't much.
Do I think it's equitable in the manner in which it can socially and professionally destroy an individual that has spent countless years preparing for a life or career in security or law enforcement - HELL NO!
But, that is also why I am glad to have come across this site in particular. You see, I have a polygraph "experience" coming up in the next several weeks as a screening for a city police department, and in order to know what to expect, I did a little research. I searched the web in order to get a better understanding of what to expect, what kind of questions or directions the test may take, and how long I would be there.....but, I was floored to find what I did!!!
I can't thank you guys enough for allowing me to stand by and learn so much from your arguments so that I may assimilate your words with other info I have collected and make my own decisions. I think there are several on this board (see previously mentioned names - both "good" and "bad guys") that are obviously rather intelligent and are doing themselves and the public a grave disservice IF they are not utilizing their talents in another manner (I don't know...you may be). But for the most part, I believe that regardless of which side of the fence you stand, the intelligent and spirited posters (again...see previously mentioned) truly believe in what they do and are NOT into destroying anyone or their reputation.
I know if I were a polygrapher and was faced with all of the evidence (fact and fiction) against polygraph testing, my conscience would not want to believe and I probably would have a hard time with it particularly if I spent the majority of my life proclaiming its wonders. You see, in this society, men (usually) are far too often identified as "what they do" rather than "who they are". When men initiate conversation in social gatherings, quite often one of the first forms of introduction refer to what they do for a living and unfortunately that is how society has defined man - so, it would be rather difficult to conciosuly ever accept that my history could have been in vain.
Anyway, as I mentioned, I think this is generally an awesome vehicle for discussion and communication. Yeah, occasionally you guys get too caught up in "playing tag" with your rhetoric, but for the most part it is very informative. And sometimes, even when you are slinging mud, you guys have quite a sense of humor!!
But Michelle, Batman has a point....you come out of nowhere in your original post with what seems to be a naive and innocent question and within hours you are a master poster - able to answer all questions with a single retort, capable of taking down any and all oncoming polygraphers, and more powerful than the combined intelligence of the very senior posters I have enjoyed reading thus far. It really seems that you came in here either with a hidden agenda, or as your consistent (sometimes MANY in several minutes) posts may suggest, you are looking for validation. Now I'm sure this will prompt a "return remark" which I will gleefully swallow with no hard feelings b/c I know that you have many times mentioned you are strong and stubborn (or something of that nature), but I really hope this is not where you turn for support. Believe me or not, I am not attempting to be demeaning and I won't bother to quarrel with you - merely an observation from the outside.
Anyway, I hope all of you continue to post interesting opinions and objections...besides, where would the world be if we all just agreed?
MindMaster...
>>But Michelle, Batman has a point....you come out of nowhere in your original post with what seems to be a naive and innocent question and within hours you are a master poster - able to answer all questions with a single retort, capable of taking down any and all oncoming polygraphers, and more powerful than the combined intelligence of the very senior posters I have enjoyed reading thus far<<
Not quite. I have never claimed to be any expert on polygraphs. I *have* read hundreds of posts here, I have read a lot of information both pro and con regarding the use of this tool.
My thinking on this issue is simple. If we cannot trust it to tell us what is needed, what good is the tool? I don't care who is being tested, for what reason, or if they plan to tell the truth or not. If the results cannot be trusted the tool is of zippo value. How many people have lost a career over this? Been accused of abusing a child? Lost a job because of inaccuracies? This test helps judge people before they are given a fair shot at whatever they are trying to do. How much respect should a test like this be given?
If you will go back to the very beginning of this thread you will find that I posted my very first post (a question) on this thread and immediately Batman came and began making unfounded comments and accusations. I will respond appropriately to those comments. I can't believe you wouldn't do the same.
If you came here and said basically the same as I am and people began questioning your honesty *for merely asking a question* how would you respond?
I'm fiesty, I fully admit that. So?? That makes the mud slinging okay in a response to a question? My first post was genuine. Take it or leave it. Not sure what else I can tell you. :::shrugs shoulders:::
Why are you deliberately being dense about your proof? One more time, all I said was showing what you have doesn't prove you don't or couldn't have more. I did not say you did, just that your proof isn't proof. Since when does any drug user make sense? Your being deliberately obtuse. How does showing unfilled prescriptions prove someone is not a drug abuser? Again, I didn't say you were and incase you didn't notice I am trying to be less obnoxious or biased or whatever you think I am being, so how about returning the favor?
You keep saying you have answered my questions. Obviously I must be dense because it is not clear to me. So please, one more time. Do you think it is ok to lie and / or cheat to get a job?
Would you mind telling me what it is I am biased about? I don't think I said anything pro or con about Polygraph. You mean if I am pro Polygraph I am biased and if con not biased. Under those circumstances that would make you biased also wouldn't it? Just like anyone who has an opinion pro or con.
not confused but still using the name
Confused,
What you are really asking Michelle is if it is ok to lie (regarding countermeasure knowledge and use) and manipulate to obtain correct results (not cheat) one of your presumed ilk that lies to her...and the answer is--of course! Such a self-defensive posture is quite ethically justified...
Quote from: Anonymous on Feb 21, 2003, 09:01 PM
Confused,
What you are really asking Michelle is if it is ok to lie (regarding countermeasure knowledge and use) and manipulate to obtain correct results (not cheat) one of your presumed ilk that lies to her...and the answer is--of course! Such a self-defensive posture is quite ethically justified...
Anonymous,
Welcome back! We've had quite a run of it here.
Skeptic
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 08:47 PM
Since when does any drug user make sense? Your being deliberately obtuse. How does showing unfilled prescriptions prove someone is not a drug abuser?
used but still using the name
I suppose you also think that she should not use heavy machinery while taking Dexedrine, even if by prescription. You are aware the military regularly supplies Dex to pilots flying long distances to maintain alertness.
Exactly how does taking prescription Dex somehow suggest to you she is a drug abuser in the first place? There is a huge difference between legal and proper, controlled use and abuse.
-Marty
Confused
You have jumped all over Michelle about lieing and cheating in order to get a job. Will you answer a question from me? Do you think it is OK for our elected officials to lie and cheat (accepting illegal contributions - one of many ways they cheat) in order to get their jobs. You know as well as I most, if not all, of them do. If you do not condon it, what are you doing about it? Voting for some other dipstick who lied to you to get your vote? I will ask you another question that polygraphers will NOT answer. Do you think our politicians and their appointments should have to pass a polygraph in order to obtain and/or keep their positions? Why does everyone, beside me shy away from this subject? Is everyone afraid to nail them with the truth?
In case you don't go back far enough in these threads, my hobby for forty years has been trying expose corruption both in industry and public service. My phone has been tapped and I have been threatened but my response is "hey asshole I wear a side arm, I am as fast as Sammy Davis Jr. and as accurate as the Lone Ranger so bring it on" So far I have had no takers. Hell, I'm not smart enough to be afraid of them.
I think you are wrong in acusing her of possibly abusing drugs. She came on here asking a legitimate question and she is jumped all over and acused of being a druggie. No one but her can know if she is or isn't. I don't know her, you don't know her, no one on these boards knows her so how can anyone make a legitimate assumption that she abuses legal drugs?
Machelle
I am not knowledgable enough on the polygraph to advise you. All I can say is do what you think is best and GOOD LUCK.
Confused...
I am NOT going to go over all this again. Not gonna do it. If you want to continue asking the same questions then you will simply have to find the other times I have responded and read it, reread it, do as you wish.
Quote from: Anonymous on Feb 21, 2003, 09:01 PM
Confused,
What you are really asking Michelle is if it is ok to lie (regarding countermeasure knowledge and use) and manipulate to obtain correct results (not cheat) one of your presumed ilk that lies to her...and the answer is--of course! Such a self-defensive posture is quite ethically justified...
Thank you!
Quote from: Marty on Feb 21, 2003, 10:00 PM
I suppose you also think that she should not use heavy machinery while taking Dexedrine, even if by prescription. You are aware the military regularly supplies Dex to pilots flying long distances to maintain alertness.
Exactly how does taking prescription Dex somehow suggest to you she is a drug abuser in the first place? There is a huge difference between legal and proper, controlled use and abuse.
-Marty
To be fair, Marty, I don't think "Confused" is claiming Michelle is a drug user. He's simply trying to make the case (for better or worse -- draw your own conclusions) that pictures of unfilled prescriptions and full bottles don't necessarily indicate that she's
not an abuser. And he's right: people would pretty much have to stake out her house and follow her around to know for sure...perhaps she has a secret double life. OTOH, the fact that she has ADHD kinda makes it tough to be a dex abuser in the first place. Pictures of the prescriptions would tend to prove she has ADHD.
Regardless of the quality of Michelle's evidence, the fact remains that Batman, with no evidence whatsoever, made the assinine claim that Michelle is a drug abuser. It's a common tactic with him. I suggest we take his comments for what they're worth: he can't prove his charge, and being unable to do so, should really retract it (that would be the honest thing to do). We know he won't; if he cared about the truth or basic decency he wouldn't have made the claim in the first place. We can either ignore him as the obvious doofus he is, or throw flames right back. I suggest the former -- he's already his own worst enemy.
Skeptic
Quote from: Marty on Feb 21, 2003, 10:00 PM
I suppose you also think that she should not use heavy machinery while taking Dexedrine, even if by prescription. You are aware the military regularly supplies Dex to pilots flying long distances to maintain alertness.
Exactly how does taking prescription Dex somehow suggest to you she is a drug abuser in the first place? There is a huge difference between legal and proper, controlled use and abuse.
-Marty
Marty, Interesting you should bring this up. I am a student pilot (working on private pilot license) and I don't think I would even consider flying without taking Dex first.
As for people thinking anyone taking Dex is an abuser I have to make a couple of comments. Confused clarified (finally) that he does not think I am a drug abuser but at the same time *everyone* thinks AD/HD'ers are drug abusers. People cannot imagine how someone could take a Class II amphetamine and not be abusing it and addicted as well. That is why most AD/HD'ers don't tell people and especially employers. When people think of amphetamines they think of illegal drugs such as home made Meth.
When I take Dex I slow down, focus, and I do one thing at a time and do it well. When I don't take Dex I zip around like the energizer bunny doing 12 things at once and getting most of them done pretty well but I make those around me want to pull their hair out.
I guess my point is that people do make the assumption that everyone who takes amphetamines reacts to the drug the same way and it just isn't so. That is why it seems as though EVERYONE thinks AD/HD'ers are abusing and addicted to their drugs.
Quote from: Twoblock on Feb 21, 2003, 10:06 PM
In case you don't go back far enough in these threads, my hobby for forty years has been trying expose corruption both in industry and public service.
Someone needs to check out the folks that are guardians of Veterans. When someone is elderly or unable to manage their affairs without assistance and they are a vet, there are various agencies that act as guardian or in some cases they just manage the vet's money.
What a freak'en scam!
Quote from: Skeptic on Feb 21, 2003, 10:15 PM
OTOH, the fact that she has ADHD kinda makes it tough to be a dex abuser in the first place. Pictures of the prescriptions would tend to prove she has ADHD.
JFTR, I actually scanned my Rx and attempted to put it in a private post to you. Not that it would prove anything but it just seemed like it wouldn't hurt to at least have one other person see that I actually have legal Rx's for this stuff.
But, I couldn't figure out how to put a photo (scanned document) in a post so I didn't do it.
Michelle
I have a grandson with ADD and that's why I have been getting up-tight over these posts the last couple days. I finally had to vent a little bit ago.
Without drugs he would have never been able to finish highschool. He wants, desperately, to get off them but when he tried, he lost his job. People need to educate themselves that the prescribed drugs keeps you, him and others (with ADD) normal people.
Quote from: Twoblock on Feb 21, 2003, 10:50 PM
Michelle
I have a grandson with ADD and that's why I have been getting up-tight over these posts the last couple days. I finally had to vent a little bit ago.
Without drugs he would have never been able to finish highschool. He wants, desperately, to get off them but when he tried, he lost his job. People need to educate themselves that the prescribed drugs keeps you, him and others (with ADD) normal people.
Very true.
I went through high school and college undiagnosed and untreated. My boyfriend is a psychiatrist and he's been telling me for years that I have ADD. For years I told him he was an idiot.
Long story short, he was WRONG! I have ADHD not ADD. Heh... Point being, I *know* school would have been so much easier had I known about this and taken meds. Reading is hard with no Dex. To read short bits and pieces is no big deal. Reading a book is impossible for me without Dex. Not impossible but a hell of a struggle.
When my b/f first suggested ADD I thought he was nuts because I thought ADD was an over-diagnosed disorder for kids and adults couldn't possibly have it. I was wrong. The first tablets of Dexedrine that I took were truly amazing for me. For the first time I discovered that reading a book did not have to be such a struggle. Staying focused was not hard at all. Thinking the way others think is a piece of cake.
After the incident at work when I was falsely accused of something and it wasn't until it was done and over that it was discovered I did nothing wrong, I swore I'd never take the drug again. It wasn't worth it. I quit taking it for a couple of years and I finally decided that I am not going to let idiots dictate how I deal with my own issues. I started taking it again and I seriously doubt I'll ever quit treatment. Life is so easy and enjoyable without all the struggles.
It is really amazing how much of a disadvantage it is when one cannot keep up with the latest books or mags. Journals are another issue. I love reading them. Well, I love it now. ;)
I was signed up to go back to college starting last month but due to an unexpected illness that is being put on hold until fall. I couldn't do that without Dex. Well, again I suppose I could and I have but it was way too hard and now it is going to be easy. I'm really excited about it. I'm going for my masters and the reality of life is that I wouldn't even consider it without Dex.
Good for your grandson for going on with treatment. Lots of adults won't do it for reasons made clear on this very thread.
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 21, 2003, 10:24 PM
Marty, Interesting you should bring this up. I am a student pilot (working on private pilot license).
Expensive hobby. I'm also a PP w/IFR. Very hard to remain current. Get your IFR if you want to be able to reliably go somewhere. I tried going from CA to MA and it took me an extra week due to weather. Right after that I upgraded. Hope I can get back into it when I have the time.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Feb 21, 2003, 11:10 PM
Expensive hobby. I'm also a PP w/IFR. Very hard to remain current. Get your IFR if you want to be able to reliably go somewhere. I tried going from CA to MA and it took me an extra week due to weather. Right after that I upgraded. Hope I can get back into it when I have the time.
-Marty
I'm not sure I can go beyond PP. Being color deficient is extremely common in men but extremely rare in women. Guess who is color deficient. :o
I did get a waiver from the FAA. Basically the FAA lady and I went to the tower where it was pre-arranged that they would shine a light and I had to determine which of three colors it was. I could see white. Got that one right. The 2nd of the three I wasn't sure. She told me to just guess. So, I did and I got it right. Then the 3rd light and she reminded me that there was only one color left. Then she gave me my waiver and told me to practice my colors. HA! Practice colors? I can't see them to practice them.
Because of that I'm not sure I can go for IFR. I'll be happy with my PP. I don't really want to fly, I just want to be able to say I did it.
BTW, I got a 98% on my FAA exam. I was thrilled. Out of our ground school class of 12 only three of us passed the exam. Best part was all the guys flunked and three females passed. Heh... they had to take us out for beer. Or, in my case wine.
Ohhh... my Dad has an Aronca (that is spelled wrong) tail dragger. It was used in the Viet Nam war. It holds two people, one behind the other and instead of the steering wheel it is a big stick. I have flown that as well as a non-tail dragger. It's hard for me as a student to go back and forth.
Skeptic,
confused said:
>> "I did not say you did, just that your proof isn't proof. Since when does any drug user make sense?"
"confused" either believes *any* drug user has a problem or continues to characterize Michelle as an impaired drug user, retraction of the term "drug abuser" aside.
Michelle:
Mooney 231. Never flew a tail dragger - sounds cool. TO's and L's are certainly quite different.
BTW, Please do go to college. You are an exceptionally fast learner and the world needs more properly credentialed talent. The quality turned out by most universities these days leaves much to be desired.
OTOH, Gates was a dropout.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Feb 21, 2003, 11:43 PM
Mooney 231. Never flew a tail dragger - sounds cool. TO's and L's are certainly quite different.
I don't think I know what a Mooney 231 is. Ever fly anything with a six pack and only a six pack?
Quote from: Marty on Feb 21, 2003, 11:43 PM
Skeptic,
confused said:
>> "I did not say you did, just that your proof isn't proof. Since when does any drug user make sense?"
I read that as well. However, I think it could have been intended as a rhetorical question regarding drug-abuser behavior rather than an accusation of wrongdoing on Michelle's part, and his later statements explicitly noted that he didn't intend to say she abused drugs.
Skeptic
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 22, 2003, 12:57 AM
Ever fly anything with a six pack and only a six pack?
Not familiar with the terminology. The 231 is a SEL, retractable, turbo, known for good mileage and reasonable speed.
Here's a puzzle. One of my most most thrilling flights involved some night flying at about 100ft below sea level and being treated to two full moons. Where was I?
The other was flying over Texas, also at night, and witnessing a line of thunderheads with lightning flashing so often the skyline was nearly continously illuminated. I'll never forget it.
-Marty
Batman,
Numbnuts here; and yes, I'm reading this indeed... much better I must say. You have greatly improved. Very remarkable, and yet, done as the true super hero you are.
You are really getting "beat-up" pretty badly by the locals here BM, and I noticed with none of your usual cronies. Ah, but fear not great crusader, for they are not far away. They will wait until the innocent poster is down, then they will join in and kick them when they are down.
You will soon be joined in that one shot one kill high, adrenaline rush, native ritual dance, cyber high-5'ing, congratulatory group gathering of the local cronies...
Much better Crusader!
X man, w/out a cape.
Quote from: Marty on Feb 22, 2003, 01:44 AM
Here's a puzzle. One of my most most thrilling flights involved some night flying at about 100ft below sea level and being treated to two full moons. Where was I?
The other was flying over Texas, also at night, and witnessing a line of thunderheads with lightning flashing so often the skyline was nearly continously illuminated. I'll never forget it.
-Marty
I'm not sure. I have some guesses but I'm not confident they are correct. I want to do a little research first. Don't tell me yet, I want to see if I can figure it out.
For the record, Michelle has e-mailed to me a scanned image of her prescription for Dexedrine, which is consistent with that which she stated in her post dated 19 February 2003 at 3:49 A.M.:
QuoteJust recently I started going to a different doc and she does the same thing. Not with 3 rx's but two. My appt was 12/11 and she wrote two rx's both dated 12/11.
In my case I just don't take that many. I don't usually need that many. Matter of fact right now I have a bottle of 180 sitting in my bathroom cupboard, I have about 100 sitting next to me, and I have another rx I have yet to get filled, dated 12/11. (That's how I knew the date.)
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 22, 2003, 06:14 AM
For the record, Michelle has e-mailed to me a scanned image of her prescription for Dexedrine, which is consistent with that which she stated in her post dated 19 February 2003 at 3:49 A.M.:
Thanks, George. I realize it is not proof positive of anything but at least hopefully I have demonstrated that at least I do have a legal Rx for this drug.
This does show me yet again something I knew. There is a reason I did not want to tell a potential employer about Dex and that is because of the very attitude on this board. If I take a Class II amphetamine then I must surely be abusing it and addicted to it.
I actually understand this attitude. I have to admit thinking the same thing before I was diagnosed. Before I took Dex for the first time I questioned if an adult could really have AD/HD. Now I know they can. But people will probably always have the attitude that if most cop a high from this drug then all must cop the same high. That could not be farther from the truth.
Some of us really do respond differently to this drug. Some of us slow down and think and focus, we don't get high from this drug. It's high time people know that.
Thank you for allowing me to send you the scanned Rx and thanks for posting what you have.
I do hope this will give polygraphers out there reading this a clear message that just because we feel insecure about people knowing we take this drug, that does not mean we are guilty of abusing the drug. We really can't abuse it, not unless thinking like YOU is abuse of a drug.
**edit to add: If anyone wants an explanation of WHY AD/HD people respond differently to this drug, I will be happy to explain. It simply has to do with dopamine in the brain.
Michelle:
My son currently takes Concerta. He was placed on Dex last year, and he was one of those who reacted to the drug in a most negative way. Instead of him bouncing off into a thousand different directions, or merely slowing down to be able to control his focus, he ended up running in so many different directions that he never got even the usual things half-way done to perfection. He was staying awake for days on end, and his sleep was limited to about 6 hours every 48 hours. Needless to say, the medication was changed.
I would like to point out that when my son went to join a teen group at school that was sponsored by the USMC, he was initially told that he would be rejected because of his ADHD and medication usage. Funny, my son is a honor student, highly active in sports, and considered by his peers, teachers, and coaches to be an incredibly talented and accomplished young man. It wasn't until his pediatrician wrote a letter to the organization that his application was once again looked at.
There exists a horible stigma associated with ADHD, and a lot of folks fail to realize that those with ADHD most often are of very high IQ, and their "over activity" comes from their utter boredom.
I am glad you didn't allow some of those less educated who have posted in here sway you or pressure you into backing down. I applaud you!!
Regards,
Seeker
Quote from: Seeker on Feb 22, 2003, 02:42 PM
There exists a horible stigma associated with ADHD, and a lot of folks fail to realize that those with ADHD most often are of very high IQ, and their "over activity" comes from their utter boredom.
I am glad you didn't allow some of those less educated who have posted in here sway you or pressure you into backing down. I applaud you!!
Regards,
Seeker
You confirm what has been said here by several of us and that is that when it comes to a polygraph due to the social stigma this creates a problem. Makes me wonder how many people have a choice, either reveal very personal information that is absolutely not the business of an employer or polygrapher or react to a question about illegal drugs. That social stigma *does* affect us and it *does* cause an emotional reaction. In my case I have several choices. Be honest and deny illegal drug use and probably flunk the test, spill my guts and reveal information that by law I don't have to reveal and shouldn't have to for ethical reasons, or use CMs and keep my personal life personal.
Not a tough one for me. ;)
Odd how the polygraphers here don't get it. Instead of educating themselves about this disorder and trying to accept the fact that not every little thing is their business they prefer to think we are all drug abusers and worthy of flunking a test. We cannot possibly be honest, moral, decent people if we treat a disorder they don't care to understand.
Then we have those here that feel anyone who doesn't believe in *their* god cannot possibly be a decent person. This just tells me that there are far too many christians out there that talk the talk but they cannot begin to walk the walk. I just hope that those with such creepy, judgmental, and inappropriate attitudes are not polygraphers themselves. I don't think their god would be at all pleased with their behaviors and their method of representing their religion. (ahem, Confused)
Much as I hate to say it, my suggestion for your son would be to NEVER tell people about his AD/HD. It can only harm him and until people decide to quit judging based on inaccurate information if he tells people it will only come back to bite him in the butt. He's already gotten a taste of it. It only gets worse with age.
Of course not telling people is the magic cure. People don't judge that which they don't know. Nobody will *ever* know he has AD/HD as long as he treats it and keeps his mouth shut.
Hey, have you heard about the new non-amphetamine drug just released to the market 1/1/03? I don't recall the name but it's brand new. It is supposed to be really great for those of us that would prefer not to take amphetamines. Personally I am not going to take it and I would suggest your son not take it right away either. Some of these new drugs cause serious problems. This one concerns me because of its method of action. It deals with Dopamine in a completely different way than amphetamines and I question if it can cause problems later in life. Instead of redirecting the Dopamine it slows down production instead. I just see potential for issues down the road with that.
I want to see if it stays on the market for a few years and if it does -- and more human trials turn out good then I would love nothing more than to dump the dex and try something non-amphetamine.
Michelle, if you would please excuse me and advise me that the following quote from your most recent post was a little slip......
"Be honest and deny illegal drug use and probably flunk the test..."
You have "confused" ;) ;) ;) me
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 23, 2003, 02:38 AM
Michelle, if you would please excuse me and advise me that the following quote from your most recent post was a little slip......
"Be honest and deny illegal drug use and probably flunk the test..."
You have "confused" ;) ;) ;) me
Greenlantern, I can't see what you are confused about. This is entirely consistent with Michelle's other posts. Denying illegal drug use is being honest. Were she to deny legal drug use that would be dishonest. Her concern is failing the test even while being honest.
-Marty
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 23, 2003, 02:38 AM
Michelle, if you would please excuse me and advise me that the following quote from your most recent post was a little slip......
"Be honest and deny illegal drug use and probably flunk the test..."
You have "confused" ;) ;) ;) me
Are you expecting me to deny "legal" drug use? Why? I *do* deny illegal drug use. That is because I don't use illegal drugs. What is difficult about this?
If you will read my very first post of this thread you will see that my concern *was*(vs. is) flunking a polygraph because I do have an emotional reaction to *any* questions about drugs due to legal amphetamine use. Thus, before coming here and learning about polygraphers (and polygraphs) my concern was indeed flunking a test for being honest by denying illegal drug use.
Damn, how many times do I have to repeat the same issues to the same people? Seriously, is this how you treat people you are testing? Or just those you don't like and have perhaps decided they will be dishonest before administering the test?
Quote from: Torpedo on Feb 23, 2003, 02:38 AM
Michelle, if you would please excuse me and advise me that the following quote from your most recent post was a little slip......
"Be honest and deny illegal drug use and probably flunk the test..."
You have "confused" ;) ;) ;) me
If it wasn't such an insult to pigs I would tell you that you are a pig. I just went back to reread the entire post I wrote where you copied one sentence within a paragraph. There is more you failed to post. This is what I wrote:
>>
That social stigma *does* affect us and it *does* cause an emotional reaction. In my case I have several choices. Be honest and deny illegal drug use and probably flunk the test, spill my guts and reveal information that by law I don't have to reveal and shouldn't have to for ethical reasons, or use CMs and keep my personal life personal<<
(Emphasis new)And this is what you quoted:
>>"Be honest and deny
illegal drug use and probably flunk the test..."<<
How can a person test others for honesty when he is incapable of honesty himself? When you decline to post the full quote it tends to put a minor twist on the intent of the paragraph. But then I'll bet you know that. (wink wink nudge nudge)
Question for polygraphers, specifically Torpedo, Confused (whoever that is) and Batman.
If I were to administer a polygraph test to you people, would you pass?
Michelle,
Now you know that Batman, Torpedo and Confused would all pass a polygraph exam if administered by one within their own profession.
Imagine for a second, Batman being administered a "stim-test" by Torpedo...
I would bet Batman couldn't even keep a straight face. Not to mention, Torpedo would probably have an equally hard time having to administer a "stim-test" to Batman.
You know they would all pass... Ha!
Triple x
Quote from: triple x on Feb 23, 2003, 07:34 PM
Michelle,
Now you know that Batman, Torpedo and Confused would all pass a polygraph exam if administered by one within their own profession.
Imagine for a second, Batman being administered a "stim-test" by Torpedo...
I would bet Batman couldn't even keep a straight face. Not to mention, Torpedo would probably have an equally hard time having to administer a "stim-test" to Batman.
You know they would all pass... Ha!
Oh, that is a given. I want to know if they would pass if *I* administer the test. I wouldn't even bother with stim questions or the other assorted bs. Just ask them questions, would they prove to be honest or dishonest.
Funny how quiet they can get... kinda like Batman. He went from being pretty mouthy and abusive and now he just ... well, ran away. And here, I am offering to feed the trolls and yet -- nothing. :P
Michelle......I am BEGGING you......PLEASE STOP.
STOP the incessant whining over the same points
STOP reminding us how strong minded you are
STOP beating a dead horse (pun intended - see #1)
STOP correcting every post that comes to you in retort
STOP carrying on about items unrelated to board (i.e. flying)
JUST STOP PLEASE
PLEASE
I have never witnessed someone who carries on and on and on laboring over the same damn point again and again and again nearly as much as you. I'm only bothering to mention this b/c it does affect me - I have to wade through all of your posts to get to any promising, relevant, and original information. "Yes", I know...you wouldn't carry on if your so-called antagonists (BatMan, Torpedo, etc...) didn't continue spewing their ignorance (or I waould assume you would suggest something alomg these lines), but for God's sake!!!! Let's keep the conversations:
1) Relevant
2) To a minimum - sometimes just agree to disagree, and
3) Informational
You are the annoying PSAs on PBS, the commercials in my Monday night football game, the QVC attempting to convince me to "buy".
Did you not have any siblings to pick on when you were a child? All of this pent up frustration now coming out in bickering little school girl quarrels on a public board?
I'm proud that as a woman you can so defiantly exhibit your ability to (intelligently) defend yourself and your opinions, but please give us a break. Unfortunately, I agree with much of your sentiment, I just don't need to beat ANYONE about the head with it. And, knowing this is a public domain with freedom of speech, I could just leave if I don't like it, but then I would be doing myself an injustice by prohibiting any further learning from all of the other relevant and informational posts that do occur here.
Please, just let somebody else have a chance would ya?
<No response is necessary - but expected>
Do you see how well BeechTree, Skeptic, and most particularly George just let matters drop when they reralize a moot point or that they have sufficiently beat the proverbial horse??!!
I can see you respect their opinions, so give them the most sincere form of flattery and follow their lead.
Guest....
Heh... my question still stands. If you don't like it perhaps you can stop visiting this folder. Now really, that isn't so difficult, is it?
Michelle,
Start taking MORE Dex! The dosage you are taking does not seem to be working. I believe that the Caped Crusader might be wrong. You aren't abusing Dex - You just aren't taking it or you aren't taking enough.
I for one don't believe you should be a police dispatcher position or any law enforcement position for that matter AND it has nothing to do with your ADHD! It is your plan to be dishonest to your prospective employer's questions. Assuming they ask you questions about your medical health and/or medications you are taking, they have every right to know. According to the PDR Guide to Prescription Medicine: Dexdrine:
"Because it is a stimulant, this drug has high abuse potential. The stimulant effect may give way to a letdown period of depression and fatigue. Although the letdown can be relieved by taking another dose, this soon becomes a vicious circle."
"If you habitually take Dexedrine in doses higher than recommended, or if you take it over a long period of time, you may eventually become dependent on the drug and suffer from withdrawal symptoms when it is unavailable."
"Side effects cannot be anticipated. If any develop or change in intensity, inform your doctor as soon as possible. Only your doctor can determine if it is safe for you to continue taking Dexedrine.
More common side effects may include:
Excessive restlessness, overstimulation
Other side effects may include:
Changes in sex drive, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness, dry mouth, exaggerated feeling of well-being or depression, headache, heart palpitations, high blood pressure, hives, impotence, loss of appetite, rapid heartbeat, sleeplessness, stomach and intestinal disturbances, tremors, uncontrollable twitching or jerking, unpleasant taste in the mouth, weight loss
Effects of chronic heavy abuse of Dexedrine may include:
Hyperactivity, irritability, personality changes, schizophrenia-like thoughts and behavior, severe insomnia, severe skin disease."
"Dexedrine may impair judgment or coordination. Do not drive or operate dangerous machinery until you know how you react to the medication."
"An overdose of Dexedrine can be fatal. If you suspect an overdose, seek medical attention immediately.
Symptoms of an acute Dexedrine overdose may include:
Abdominal cramps, assaultiveness, coma, confusion, convulsions, depression, diarrhea, fatigue, hallucinations, high fever, heightened reflexes, high or low blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, nausea, panic, rapid breathing, restlessness, tremor, vomiting."
No, I personally don't think you are abusing Dex, but I have my suspicions about illegal drugs. You have made such a stink about a legal drug that is prescribed to you...and your concern that this could cause you to react to questions concerning illegal drugs. Maybe this is a smokescreen to hide actual illegal drug use on your part? Am I willing to bet? No, it's just a idea. Anyway, have fun during your polygraph exam as I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors. Afterall, you've done nothing wrong - right?
Dear Michelle,
Forget the dispatcher gig. Join the air national guard! They take legal amphetamines, and get paid to do it! Probably don't get subjected to polygraph torture, either.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_pilotpills021220.html
Sincerely,
Culo
Quote from: Alfred on Feb 23, 2003, 09:50 PM
Michelle,
Start taking MORE Dex!
Do you think you could make up your mind? First you tell me to take more and then you show me the horrors of taking more Dex.
Stupid people...
Quote
According to the PDR Guide to Prescription Medicine: Dexdrine:
"Because it is a stimulant, this drug has high abuse potential. The stimulant effect may give way to a letdown period of depression and fatigue. Although the letdown can be relieved by taking another dose, this soon becomes a vicious circle."
"If you habitually take Dexedrine in doses higher than recommended, or if you take it over a long period of time, you may eventually become dependent on the drug and suffer from withdrawal symptoms when it is unavailable."...
More common side effects may include:
Excessive restlessness, overstimulation
I'm not going into another AD/HD vs. Dex lecture. Not sure which of the trolls brought you over here but you seriously need to study AD/HD before making an ass of yourself yet again. Next time perhaps you should read the entire thread before repeating tired issues that have already been explained.
And btw, Batman is still a piece of dog crap that runs away when the pressure is on.
Batman, confused. boy1der and Guest, (and any other anti-polygraph people who are interested) it is time we just let Michelle go on her merry little way. I think she has even become an embarrassment for George and his folks (and this board)...you will notice that few of them have anything to say...my guess is that they probably just hope she tires and goes away. She has created a diversion to the discussion at hand. As difficult as it might seem to believe, I was actually prepared to "make nice" to her in the interest of engaging her in debate/discussion until she went off on me AGAIN (with the pig comment). True enough, I (and others) are guilty of bashing her, but in all honesty, I think it was a defensive thing (it was on my part I know). Just look thouhg, she rarely engages anyone in a meaningful dialogue before she eventually begins to "eat their lunch". She simply isn't worth our time. Little does she know that some years back, I expressed an interest in performing some research on people who were diagnosed with what was then called just ADD (attention defecit disorder)...later editions of the DSM have now added the hyperactivity portion, which I presume caused the designation to read ADHD (attention defecit with hyperactivity disorder). My genuine concern at the time was that when we polygraph juveniles or adults who have been diagnosed with ADD, would they be able to focus (throughout the test) on the issues for which we were testing (at the time, I was thinking only crim issues). Anyway, I read a great deal on the disorder and spoke with a number of parents whose children had been diagnosed with the disorder. The scope of my study expanded when an adult told me that he had ADD (but that he had made the diagnosis himself based on what the doctors had told him about his child) I tehn spoke with a large number of medical, psychological and treatment professionals in a mental health center that specialized in this disorder. At the time (and it may have changed since then), their belief was that a child if treated (medically and psychologically) properly will grow out of the disorder. THEY told me that it was common for adults to claim ADD to rationalize their "bad" behavior. They arranged for me to witness the interview some patients so that I could learn more. Some told the interviwers that they had "faked" some of the DSM criteria in order to obtain ritalin (which at the time was the only drug being prescribed) I honestly got the impression that these medical professionals viewed ADD as a serious problem with children, but more of a problem with adults because of the increasing incidence of "faking". Quite frankly, before I began to look into this, I had never heard of such a disorder. Anyway, at the time, they told me that there was but one pen and pencil diganostic assessment test (unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the test) that had any degree of reliability for identifying bona fide ADD cases and for that reason, they did not feel that I would be able to properly identify/separate the imposters from those genuinely suffering from the disease, at least to the extent of being able to obtain a statistically significant sample. To be sure, there are a growing number of medical and psychological issues with which we are now required to deal on a daily basis. That is why the level of our training continues to be improved and new topics are added so that we will have a better grasp of the behaviors we see before us. I have been told and honestly believe that SOME of the people we test these days, as little as 5-10 years ago, they would be institutionalized and not part of the general work force and hence subject to polygraph testing. Because of the myriad of drugs available to physicians these days (i.e. Prozac) these people are part of the everyday work force from where our testing population comes. I will close for now, but with the realization and full expectation that Michelle will no doubt fire across our bow (that was for you Two Block) with how little we know and how much she knows. Guest was incredibly on the mark with his/her last post and I applaud him/her, but I doubt if you will silence her. She is too far gone for that. At least George, Mark and a couple others have taken an examination and in my estimation have earned the right to engage in a discussion about it....Michelle?...she is a burr under our saddle.
Guest,
Different people have different debating styles. Frequently, I see little reason to respond to the material posted by a couple of the polygraphers here, as I see that as justifying the unjustifiable. Others have more patience than I for participating in flame wars. I don't fault Michelle for that, although I do agree that such tends to make threads unreadable, and gives the flamers too much power to destroy rational debate (which would be vastly preferable).
And speaking of which, this thread has definitely become one dedicated to ranting and flaming; I would suggent much more relevant material can be found in others.
BTW -- Torpedo, I'm honestly curious as to when you feel you have ever participated in honest, reasoned debate at this site, in lieu of name calling. I must have missed it. Could you point to the thread and post, please?
Skeptic
/edit: Guest, I've noticed that the standard MO for a couple of our polygraph friends is to respond to nearly all criticism of the polygraph or questions regarding personal concerns with accusations of criminal wrongdoing or other personal attacks. Most visitors here either ignore these accusations or simply abandon the site (surely, one of the goals of the hecklers). Michelle chose to take on the libelers head-on, and if I do say so I believe she beat them at their own game. I hope you aren't faulting her for that. -- Skeptic
Torpedo....
I have stated that I am not giving any further AD/HD lectures to educate people such as yourself and I meant it. However I find your post amusing. I have to point out a few issues.
Just because you study an issue does not make you an expert. Hell, you aren't even demonstrating expertise in polygraphs, others here seem to know far more than you.
As for adult faking AD/HD symptoms... hell yes, some do. People are more apt to fake pain and receive Vicoden or Percocet. Does that mean people across the board really don't have pain? You need to engage in a few critical thinking skills because so far you are seriously lacking.
>>At the time (and it may have changed since then), their belief was that a child if treated (medically and psychologically) properly will grow out of the disorder. THEY told me that it was common for adults to claim ADD to rationalize their "bad" behavior<<
Stats show that 75% of AD/HD children grow up to be AD/HD adults and if you had a freak'en clue you would realize that just because one has AD/HD that does not mean they demonstrate bad behavior.
Honest to goodness I fear for your targets at work. You strike me as being the type of person that decides in the first 30 seconds of your encounter with a person if they will be *judged* innocent or guilty.
What a waste of air space you are. And btw, you failed to answer the question I have posed. You and your creepy little friends have done a poor job of redirection, perhaps you could answer the question instead of slamming anyone who disagrees with you.
Geez... have *some* amount of class, at least fake it if you have to.
I remember years ago hearing something about how some medications could alter the results of a polygraph. I believe, if I am correct, that it was things along the line of Valium or Zanax.
I was wondering if there is any validity to these claims.
Also, for you polygraph examiners, is there a list of medications or medical conditions that exempt someone from producing reliable (as if the test was such a thing) results?
I am not talking about countermeasures wherein medications are used, but where a medical diagnosis, or a history of medicines would be considered something that would cause an examiner to refuse to exam a subject. I believe I have heard mention that pregnancy is one such medical condition.
Regards,
Michelle.......naw!!! never mind, you have proven mypoint....go away little girl you bother us!
I find it interesting about who is complaining about "too many postings." This is an uncensored free-speech site. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to come to this site. The reader is allowed to choose exactly what thread they want to read.
Anyone who has come to this particlular thread two, three, or four times has ample knowledge of what the discussion will pertain to.
I think the people complaining about repetitive discussion are the same people who go to a refridgerator every ten minutes during commercials and expect the selection to be different and then complain about it when it isn't.
For not liking the discussion, they keep it going.
Wow, everyone had a great weekend. Since I have been absent I will try to hit everything then back out of this discussion. Forgive me for jumping around and if I credit you with something not said I apologize ahead of time.
Marty, congrats you watch JAG. I never said she was any type of drug user or abuser. I just said she can't prove she isn't (check her post about betting Batman) an abuser simply by showing unused or unfilled prescriptions.
Two Block, yes I think alot of Politicians lie, maybe not all. I think a Polygraph would be a good idea. I also think we might want to test teachers. Do I think they all lie? No, at least most of them but we have all heard of the sex offender who got into a school district when they shouldn't have.
I choose carefully who I vote for and I do vote because my vote counts, just like anyone else's.
Again I never said Michelle was a drug abuser.
Skeptic, thank you and I actually agree with you on the points about what I said about Michelle and about some of Batman's statements about Michelle.
Marty, so far you haven't said anything worth replying to so I won't. Thanks again Skeptic, with you I agree to disagree and will discuss anything with you but not here.
Guest well said and I think I will take your advice.
Alfred, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Michelle, I was not trying to offend you by leaving you for last, just have alot to say. Sorry if you said somewhere in your posts if it was ok to lie or cheat/manipulate to get a job I missed it. You said you would lie if asked about your medical condition (still don't think they will ask). Then wanted to know how to "get around that".
You are really full of yourself, not everyone thinks AD/Hd'ers are drug abusers so quit painting everyone with the same brush. You can have far less conversation than you have had here and understand the effects of Dex on most people with the condition.
I never doubted you had Rx for Dex. I don't care.
How do you know "Polygraphers don't "get it". You haven't even tested yet. Your baseing all your opinions on something you have know knowledge of except what you have gotten from an anti-polygraph site. Where else have you gone to "find out about Polygraph"? All good researchers look at all sides before forming an opinion. I doubt you will do that your mind is made up without even any first hand knowledge. Please fill us in on your other research. At least some of the poster's here have had a test on which to base an opinion.
Again it is you who bring up religion not me. My God, your God, who cares? I don't think it is right, moral or whatever term you want to use to lie or manipulate (cheat) to get a job. Of course it my opinion, which I have a right to. I think it is the opinion of the majority of the society we live in but again just my opinion. When I said something in an early post relating to one of the commandments (again it was incorrect) it was only to make a point which I am sure you understood. You are the one who went off on a side bar about "your God". Obviously a better anology should have been used. It might have prevented your smoke screen.
When you have properly researched Polygraph you might become knowledgeable but not an expert.
You might even find that some Polygraph examiners share some of the concerns discussed on this site, even your own. They might even have good ideas on how to address that issue so you wouldn't have to lie or attempt to manipulate the test.
not CONFUSED just tired.
Confused
I don't remember if you have admitted to being a polygrapher or not but you write like one. If you are, at least one has answered. Thank you.
I have sent Wild Bill's letter, located in the reading room of this site, to many elected officials telling them I concur with this letter and asked them to write legislation to cause this to happen. I have not heard from a cotten picken one. Why don't you write to your elected officials proposing this and see if you get a response.
Confused
I forgot to respond to part of the post to me "sex offender in schools". To me they are the worst of the lot because kids look up to their teachers. However, polygraph is not the answer here. A dull knife is. I don't believe many people could broach the subject without showing a great deal of blood pressure and also raising the other two polygraph points. As I type this,even, my rage hackles are raised from head to toe. It's a subject that I can't discuss without getting angry.
Two Block, I certainly agree with you....a dull knife would indeed solve the problem...but in our society, unfortunately, I might add, we can't do that. Wouldn't it be nice though, even if what the opponents say that it is a "weapon of fright", that is "weapon" just might scare some slime bag out of applying for position in our children's and grandchildren's schools? Let's take it one step further, how about using it to screen those who are providing "care" for our parents and grandparents when they must be institutionalized....have I started a new thread?
Torpedo
I personally think society has gone to hell in a hand basket. There are some of us, when it comes to this subject, has to just say to hell with society and take care of business. If the polygraph could only target molesters, then I might agree with you. However, given my limited experience with the polygraph, I just don't beleive it can distinguish between rage (anger) and lies. Do you think it can? Maybe this can give rise to a debate. I know anger makes my BP rise 20 points and my breathing gets fast and deep. Aren't these two of the three, with the third (galvanic) hinging on the first, criteria for DI?
As for old folks homes, I don't think you want to get me started on that one either. I have a 90 year sister in one. Not my choice I assure you. I just may have to take care of business there because the state regulatory agency will do nothing. They keep those old soles knock out with drugs so they won't have to mess with them and can eat the food provided by medicare.
Yes, I am an examiner for fifteen years and proud of it. Of course that ends any significant discussion on this site for me because examiners could never be right about anything especially relating to Polygraph.
I also believe in the dull knife but I would like to keep them out of dangerous areas. I don't believe I have ever called a truthful person a liar when it comes to child molesting but there is always that possibility. Would you like to see the drawer full of letters thanking me for clearing them of this awfull accusation? What doesn't seem to get much play here is that the majority of examiners would rather miss a bad guy (false negative) than call a truthful person a criminal (false positive). The latter happens a lot less than anyone here wants to admit.
The challenge is not catching bad guys. Thats not hard. It is getting truthful people, who are overly concerned about the test for various reasons, through it. The great thing about bad guys is if we do miss them they generally get caught down the line and get what they deserve.
I tried a couple of years ago to have some frank and honest discussions on this site and just got abused for the attempt. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I will not debate Polygraph here anymore but some of the side issues and mind sets are interesting to discuss. If I ever meet anyone from this site as we move through life, I am always up for a good discussion.
I don't think I am much different than most on this site. If anyone ever molested my grandson I think I would kill them if given the oportunity and I think most of you feel the same. However you condem me for trying to put them away any way I can, including the Polygraph.
I think there are more false positives and false negatives made in the medical profession than anywhere else. Lets abuse doctors for awhile after all they are trying to help us.
not confused
Confused,
You write in part:
Quote...Would you like to see the drawer full of letters thanking me for clearing them of this awfull accusation? What doesn't seem to get much play here is that the majority of examiners would rather miss a bad guy (false negative) than call a truthful person a criminal (false positive)....
Your pile of letters would be equally high if not higher if you abandoned polygraph testing and simply declared everyone non-deceptive. You are completely deceived if you believe this has any bearing on the validity of the exams you have conducted. With regard to your latter quoted statement, me thinks I detect crocodile tears here. If you (or any other polygrapher) want me and others to truly believe your stated concerns then I would have you publicly criticize any agency/bureau which would use unsubstantiated polygraph results (which might include the false positives you say are of concern to you) as a basis for taking any action detrimental to a polygraph examinee.
Torpedo...
So do tell, are you quite fininshed stomping your little feeties? Balling up your little fisties adds to the drama for you, doesn't it?
Done any research on AD/HD yet? No, I didn't think so. From all the misinformation you spew it is so very obvious that you have never researched this topic. The line of thinking you try to pass off as intelligent information is actually thinking that went out in the 70's. Yes, you are 30 years behind in research. Not that *truth* matters to you, just stomping those little feeties while sticking your thumbs in your ears and blowing raspberries at everyone. Oh yes, such maturity.
In reality all you are doing is redirecting the thread away from Batman and trying to focus it on me instead. Isn't going to work, my friend. You are still an asshole and your little polygraph friends leave little to be desired as well. I am more convinced than ever just from reading you, confused, and batman that polygraphs are nothing but horseshit. Manipulative, inaccurate, attempts at intimidation. If you weren't such a twit you would see that you guys are proving the points of the antipolygraphers here. You are just too stupid to see it.
Now go ahead, let's see another of your temper tantrums. You do them so well. Com'on... let's see it. You can do it. Let's see a good one this time. Perhaps you'll hold your breath until you faint this time? That would be amusing.
And confused, yes darl'en you are still confused. I'm not addressing your post point by point because you have made it quite clear in spite of the folks that have attempted time and time again to explain that you just don't get it. But that's because you are confused. Huh... kinda like Batman.
When batboy gets in too deep, you show up. Kewl.
All you polygraphers are so stuck on slams and insults you never answer any questions and my question *still* stands. Since you all apparently missed the (several) posts I referred to it, I'll remind you once again.
If I were to give you all polygraphs, would you pass?
I think your biggest medical problem is the one that only allows you to read only the parts you want to.
I actually told skeptic I agreed Batman should not have accused you of drug abuse. AS for coming to his defense the first time I ever heard of him was in this thread.
Slams and insults are your bag, just like lying and cheating.
As for polygraphers passing a test. I have tested many, some pass some don't just like anyone else. Would I pass a test? As long as I didn't lie. Could I lie and pass, maybe? Rather not take the chance.
Now I answered your question and you still have not answered mine, just danced around it. Do you think it is wrong to lie and cheat to get a job? I know what your answer is but would like to here you say it. Just a simple yes or no will do.
I would discuss polygraph with most of the posters here because they at least have some first hand knowledge or experience. You on the other hand have none. You became an instant expert. You came here hoping someone would say it was ok for you to lie and looking for a way to make it work.
Some one said earlier they would not like to see you working in LE , I agree but thats just my opinion.
By the way, not to long ago we had a dispatcher that had an attack at work and died because no one knew she had an existing medical condition.
Your feet stomp pretty well too and your a classic winer.
never was confused, now, disgusted (with you)
Confused,
Although I note you are quite willing to continue in meaningless low level banter and name calling with Michelle, I wonder if you might care to comment on what I consider what I believe to be a serious and substantive reply to you recently. Regards,
That post (which includes a portion of your previous post):
Quote
Confused,
You write in part:
...Would you like to see the drawer full of letters thanking me for clearing them of this awfull accusation? What doesn't seem to get much play here is that the majority of examiners would rather miss a bad guy (false negative) than call a truthful person a criminal (false positive)....
Your pile of letters would be equally high if not higher if you abandoned polygraph testing and simply declared everyone non-deceptive. You are completely deceived if you believe this has any bearing on the validity of the exams you have conducted. With regard to your latter quoted statement, me thinks I detect crocodile tears here. If you (or any other polygrapher) want me and others to truly believe your stated concerns then I would have you publicly criticize any agency/bureau which would use unsubstantiated polygraph results (which might include the false positives you say are of concern to you) as a basis for taking any action detrimental to a polygraph examinee.
Confused
In my previous post, maybe I used the wrong terminology in the first paragraph. Instead of "give rise to debate" I should have said "enlighten me". As stated, my lack of polygraph knowledge caused me to ask the question. How can you hope to win over visiters to this site if you don't truthfully answer those who are trying to understand. I am pretty set in my ways but still willing to learn.
Batman, Torpedo, etc.,
I will put the question as a hypo: You have a subject in you chair. You ask a relevant question that greatly angers the "innocent" subject causing his BP to spiral upwards and changes his breathing pattern (these changes significantally different from the control questions), would you determine him deceptive? Would the anger response show differently than a lie response? I have my own uninformed ideas but would like to hear from some pro's.
Maybe some anti-polygraph answers?
What is it exactly you want me to publicly critisize? I would need more information.
If you are asking me if I would point out publicly something I thought to be wrong? Yes I would and have.
Tell me what profession you are in? I am sure someone could find something bad about it. Maybe an anti-site might be started regarding the many wrongs done by your profession to humanity.
I do now and have always tried to be as professional and ethical and I can. Everyone who comes to me for a test gets my best effort and I expect that from all examiners. I am not perfect and never will be but I try. I am the one who has to live with what I do. I sleep pretty well.
confused? no
Confused (Or whatever name you desired to be called now),
You write:
Quote...If you are asking me if I would point out publicly something I thought to be wrong? Yes I would and have....
Really??? And which agency (there are several that are known to arbitrarily eliminate applicants for further consideration for employment folliwng deceptive polygraph results) that uses unsubstantiated polygraph exams as a basis for further action have you publicly criticized (whispering under your breath, gossiping with fellow polygraph examiners, or even expressing such a view in a polygraph meeting doesn't count) and what benefit has come of your public commentary. If you have actually done so, I loudly applaud you...if not it is time for you and those in your community who have the intellect to recognize the problems we have discussed to exhibit the courage to stand up and castigate those who would continue in such activity. Anything less may be understandable in a practical sense, but is nevertheless ultimately indefensible and nothing short of cowardice when truly scrutinized.
According to you, all Polygraphs are unsubstantiated. Obviously I disagree. Do examiners make bad calls? Yes. Do doctors mis-diagnose? Yes. Do lawyers blow cases and get their clients sent to prison? Yes. Do pharmacy techs ever give out the wrong Rx? Yes. Do Police officers ever arrest the wrong people? Yes. Everybody,especially polygraph examiners are evil when they make a mistake and therefore you can't trust them.
By the way, you didn't say what your profession is. Could it be that it is a very unreliable profession and all of its practicioners are evil?
What makes you think we in the profession don't address what we feel is wrong? When was the last time you were on tv or in the paper saying " the other people in my profession are incompetent and my profession needs to be cleaned up"?
Confused,
I have never said all polygraph exam results were unsubstantiated. (I challenge you to quote me as having said so or apologize). My comments to you have not included such or even addressed what percentage is unsubstantiated. I have simply said it is cowardice on your part and other polygraph examiners not to criticize those agencies that use these results improperly (taking action against the interests of examinees based on unsubstantiated polygraph results). My profession is immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion and apparently is the only diversion and hiding place from the substance of this exchange that apparently comes to your mind. Again, such is irrelevant and immaterial. This conversation is about polygraph and the site is antipolygraph.org. But in reality my comments might well have been made on a site not entitled antipolygraph.org but one entitled siteforamoresaneandethicalpolygraphprofession.org
Regards...
Ok, if I miss quoted you I am sorry. I guess its easy to get confused with everyone trying to bash me and all examiners on this site. I guess that meets your challenge??
Please devine unsustantiated as you mean it.
Sorry your profession is immaterial. My point was that most of the rehtoric spewed here could be applied to alot of professions. You can't seem to believe or choose not to, that the Polygraph profession does try to correct problems aas best as possible. We believe in what we do. You do not. I can't help that but attacking any examiner who shows up here and treating them like gum from the bottom of your shoe isn't particularly productive.
I voice my opinion if I beleive something is wrong with this profession or with anything else. Where I do it and how I go about it depends on the situation. You throw out the baby with the bathwater if you want, me I try to get the "facts" before I decide
confused,
I do believe most polygraphers believe in what they do and don't want to make mistakes. Indeed, trying to reduce the number of mistakes due to "fear of consequences" was one of the driving forces in creating the nearly univerally used CQT half a century ago rather than the more deficient R/I test. One of the reasons the polygraph community encourages belief that the polygraph is nearly infallible is, in addition to self interest, that it is assumed to reduce the number of false positives by lowering anxiety on the relevant questions. For similar reasons they don't tell the examinee the true purpose of the control questions.
Of course one can't deceive the deceiver hence my curiosity about how polygraphers examine another polygrapher. Obviously they can't go through the usual control question sensitization process.
IMO, deception in the pursuit of truth is no virtue.
-Marty
Marty,
Acouple of small points. I don't believe CQT testing came about due to "fear of consequences". It came about over concern for truthful people. Do you think that some one lying about crime questions on a test care about any other questions on the test? It is not that hard to catch a liar on a Polygraph.
I don't know of any Polygraph examiner who feels the test is nearly infallible. You have to work hard to do a good test.
If the purpose of a control question is to help truthful people on a test why is that bad? It neither helps nor hurts liars, so whats the problem.
Let's talk about drug research. In trials it used to be common to give a control group placebo's. If they were told that, would it not defeat the purpose of the placebo?
As far as testing other examiners let me talk about my own Philosophy on taking the test. If I don't lie I won't respond to the questions and they have no basis to say I did. I will say further that on examiners I have tested a few showed responses to the relevant questions and I told them that. All but one told me I was correct. They said, just as normal people have, that they were embarrassed and didn't want to tell me about something. When they did tell me and were later tested on that issue they all passsed. All but one who wouldn't tell me and refused to come back and be tested in the area of concern. I can't help that it was their choice to withdraw from the process.
I don't know if that helps and I know it didn't make a dent in some of the people here but again I can't help that.
I am not sure exactly what your last sentence meant but I wouldn't argue with the content.
Quote from: CONFUSED on Feb 26, 2003, 08:43 PM
Marty,
Acouple of small points. I don't believe CQT testing came about due to "fear of consequences". It came about over concern for truthful people. Do you think that some one lying about crime questions on a test care about any other questions on the test? It is not that hard to catch a liar on a Polygraph.
Having read the history of the CQT in Kleiner's manual let me be more specific. Earlier, the polygraph was given with questions like "Is your name xxx?" together with relevant questions like "did you rob the bank?" This produced a high false positive rate due to some people that feared being falsely accused (fear of consequences). The CQT was developed to mitigate this by coming up with a question the examiner doesn't really care about but can convince the examinee that they do. Though I am bothered by the deception involved, it can, if pulled off, improve the odds of a not getting a false positive.
Quote
I don't know of any Polygraph examiner who feels the test is nearly infallible. You have to work hard to do a good test.
I agree with you on both counts. It is the more naive general populace that believes the polygraph nearly infallible.
Quote
If the purpose of a control question is to help truthful people on a test why is that bad? It neither helps nor hurts liars, so whats the problem.
That does get back to my real question of interest, how polygraphers test each other. A control question helps innocent people when they don't understand how it works but not if they do or if they are unusually honest. It works against them then. Polygraphers certainly can't fool each other and should be at higher risk of false positives if CQTs are also used on them - assuming they are scored the same as naive subjects. I guess I just don't like deception, even when it is used for good ends, especially in employee screening.
Quote
Let's talk about drug research. In trials it used to be common to give a control group placebo's. If they were told that, would it not defeat the purpose of the placebo?
Actually in ethical drug tests, and this has long been the practice, the subjects are told that some of them will recieve placebo's and they are told what percentage. That's part of informed consent. The doctors administering the drugs don't even know who is getting the placebo.
Quote
As far as testing other examiners let me talk about my own Philosophy on taking the test. If I don't lie I won't respond to the questions and they have no basis to say I did. I will say further that on examiners I have tested a few showed responses to the relevant questions and I told them that.
Hmm. Are you saying that when you give another polygrapher a test that you exclude Control questions? Since the way a CQT is scored is comparison of the Controls to the Relevant's (again Kleiner) it would seem a person who is not actually deceptive on either would score as inconclusive. It would then seem the test becomes a R/I or at best a directed lie type test. I'm not trying to hammer you, just understand how you adapt the test when testing other polygraphers.
Quote
I don't know if that helps and I know it didn't make a dent in some of the people here but again I can't help that.
Yes, it helps a little. Thanks.
-Marty
Marty,
Actually Confused is partially right. The present control question CQT examination was not constructed to deal with "fear of consequences." That, in fact, is a term that I coined a couple of years ago (on this site) to explain why the present probable lie CQT (several formats) would not be expected to work. The CQT exam when developed in the early 1960s was initially thought to provide some degree of scientific control (hence the name) and was a remedy for the problems associated with asking the litany of hot button (relevant question) items associated with the largely now discredited RI test. It was not until the mid 1990s that more responsible CQT practitioners admitted that there was no scientific control (but unfortunately overlooked their responsibility for providing such) associated with control questions and then began referring to these questions as comparison questions.
Confused,
You ask what is the problem with trying to help truthful examinees with the use of control questions. I suppose I should indicate before answering that question that I have never before and do not now question the good intentions of most examiners. The answer to your question, however, is that it simply does not work and/or cannot be shown to work as you would hope. In order for CQT practice to work, fundamental theory would require that it would be necessary to show that for every control/relevant question pairing that the affect (emotional content) for the control be greater than for a relevant question for a given truthful examinee which in turn would naturally lead to greater physiological responses (over the various monitored channels of physiology) for control versus relevant questions. Unfortunately this cannot be demonstrated to be the case with any given examinee. It is NOT demonstrable that this is the case qualitatively or quantitatively for any given examinee (regardless of what you think you may have accomplished through the setting of control questions) on any given asking for any R/C question pairing (spot) for any given chart on any given day with any given examinee. In fact, that which I have previously discussed at some length and referred to as "fear of consequences" would lead me to believe that what you would hope to accomplish with innocent examinees is not only not demonstrable, but in many many cases not likely. Again, I am sorry, but your good intentions will not overcome the weaknesses of the tools in your arsenal. It is primarily for this reason and the great consequences to innocent examinees that I have been driven (for both academic/validity and ethical issues/concerns) to information based tests. I do not believe that polygraphy should be or need be done away with, but I believe it must be and is not currently (with most lie detection formats) practiced as a serious undertaking.
On a note of lesser importance, Marty is quite correct that clinical trials of investigational new drugs will involve the experimental subjects knowing about the nature of placebos, their possible effects and adverse side effects, etc. As Marty further indicated neither physicians nor patients in a typical double blind study will be aware of which pharmaceutical preparations that they receive contain active ingredients and which are placebo, but as opposed to the pretest characterization of probable lie control questions in a polygraph examination, there will be absolutely no deceit connected with the discussion involving experimental subjects regarding the nature, identity, and effects of placebos.
Quote from: CONFUSED on Feb 26, 2003, 08:43 PM It is not that hard to catch a liar on a Polygraph.
If you call 'a 50% chance' 'not that hard' then I agree with you.
QuoteI don't know of any Polygraph examiner who feels the test is nearly infallible.
My goodness, you do live in a cave. Regardless, polygraphers
routinely make blatant lies on television news programs concerning the accuracy of polygraphs, claiming anything from 100% accuracy to the old Dove Bar 99.97% accurate. Either they are lying or you are lying. Which is it? If I pointed out specific polygraphers who characterize the polygraph as nearly infallible both in print and in the televised media, will you personally take the time to correct them? Let's start with The Nationwide Polygraph Network (http://www.polytest.org). They boldy proclaim on their welcome page that the polygraph is '90-95% accurate'. Then in their FAQ they claim (http://www.polytest.org/polyfaq.htm#accurate)
U.S. Government studies have concluded that the polygraph exam, conducted properly by a qualified examiner, is 87 to 95 percent accurate. Kind of a large disparity between those two sets of numbers, but oh well-- when did THE TRUTH ever matter to a lying sack of excrement like a polygrapher? Will you drop what you're doing and correct Michael Martin, aka 'The Lie Detector Guy'? Call him at (877) POLY TEST.
QuoteIf I don't lie I won't respond to the questions and they have no basis to say I did.
In the interests of accuracy, you are saying that if you answer 100% truthfully to the Control Questions, you will not be deemed as deceptive with regard to the relevant Questions?
Dave
ps I characterize anyone who lies for a living a lying sack of excrement. Your opinion or characterization may differ-- so be it.
Drew,
Yes, I suppose I overstated when saying "fear of consequences" drove development of the CQT. I had seen "fear of consequences" used in Kleiner's manual by one of the authors describing the benefits of the CQT over the older R/I test and incorrectly extrapolated.
I am impressed that you coined it. It seems so appropriate to describe the problems inherent in the R/I.
-Marty
Drew,
When you say you termed "fear of consequences" a few years ago on this site, exactly what are you implying?
Didn't the late Bill Yankee use that term back in the early 90's in the Yankee Paradigm?
Shadow,
I use the term "fear of consequences" to refer to the mechansim for why a probable-lie control question test (CQT) would likely produce false positive results ("not work"). I do this as opposed to/in contrast with the frequently offered (by the polygraph community) "fear of detection" explanation for why that community believes the test (various formats) would "work." I am not aware of this term having been used in this context (admitedly not a quantum leap in theoretical thinking) prior to my use a couple/few years ago.
Quote from: not confused amused on Feb 26, 2003, 11:46 AM
I think your biggest medical problem is the one that only allows you to read only the parts you want to.
I actually told skeptic I agreed Batman should not have accused you of drug abuse.
Did I suggest otherwise? No, I did not. Care to try again?
Quote
AS for coming to his defense the first time I ever heard of him was in this thread.
Yes, I recall. After he accused me of being a drug abuser you defended his various stands on issues. This is supposed to help you not look silly? How?
Quote
Would I pass a test? As long as I didn't lie. Could I lie and pass, maybe? Rather not take the chance.
Ohhhh my, does that mean you would lie and cheat??? You would need to lie? Or you could take the test and pass even though you are a dishonest person? If taking a chance means that you might pass or you might not, how the hell do you expect to determine when others are telling the truth vs. being dishonest?
Do you understand that you are reinforcing the points of the antipolygraphers? Do you? Do you realize how many times it took asking this question before you responded? Do you have any idea how very telling that is?
Quote
Now I answered your question and you still have not answered mine, just danced around it. Do you think it is wrong to lie and cheat to get a job? I know what your answer is but would like to here you say it. Just a simple yes or no will do.
Sorry cutey, I've answered this one outright. Go back and read the thread and you will see. You will also see that others have attempted to explain this one as well. Seems to me that you simply don't like the answer so you keep asking until you hear what you want to hear. Is that how you conduct polygraphs as well?
Quote
I would discuss polygraph with most of the posters here because they at least have some first hand knowledge or experience.
Yet... you don't. Telling, isn't it?
Quote
By the way, not to long ago we had a dispatcher that had an attack at work and died because no one knew she had an existing medical condition.
How many of your dispatchers reveal all their meds and medical conditions with their supervisor? Are you going to tell me that your doc writes a note to your supervisors explaining anything that might be a medical problem for you?
Go blow your smoke somewhere else. People are looking at you with a raised eyebrow.
Why do you suppose the LAW makes it clear that I should not have to tell idiots like you about my ADHD? Why do you suppose there are such laws? Care to answer question #2 in this ... 5 pages worth of thread? When the law is quite clear that I do not have to tell idiots such as yourself about my ADHD, why should I? It does not cause medical conditions as you would imply.
Again... go blow your smoke elsewhere. People are looking at you with raised eyebrows here.
Quote from: confused on Feb 26, 2003, 02:43 PM
According to you, all Polygraphs are unsubstantiated. Obviously I disagree. Do examiners make bad calls? Yes.
Wait a minute. How can something be sooooo scientific if it can depend on a bad call? Doctors do not "do" medicine, they are honest enough to admit to "practicing" medicine. Yet polygraphers claim science is behind their "facts" and clearly you make it obvious that it depends on how a polygrapher calls the shots.
Perhaps you do sleep at night. Spiffy for you. That does not change the fact that you could have easily claimed an innocent person is guilty or maybe you let a child molester go out and molest again. Now I'm thrilled that you can sleep. If I were in your place I could not claim the same.
Quote
Do doctors mis-diagnose? Yes. Do lawyers blow cases and get their clients sent to prison? Yes. Do pharmacy techs ever give out the wrong Rx? Yes. Do Police officers ever arrest the wrong people? Yes. Everybody,especially polygraph examiners are evil when they make a mistake and therefore you can't trust them.
No, my claim is different. You guys are dealing with the lives of human beings. If I submit to YOUR polygraph and I am innocent, what recourse do I have when you call the shots wrong? If a doc or CPhT gives me the wrong drugs I can sue the hell out of them IF it causes me problems within my life. With you.... well, you'll sleep well that night knowing you did your best but I am still screwed.
The *only* issue I want to hide from a polygrapher is something that by law I do not have to disclose but because of social stigmas I react to basic questions of amphetamines. You insist that means I am fibbing and cheating to get a job. I have news for you... it is STILL none of your business that I take Dex and you can't do a damn thing about it. I KNOW how to pass a polygraph in spite of people like you. Deal with it.
Quote
By the way, you didn't say what your profession is. Could it be that it is a very unreliable profession and all of its practicioners are evil?
Yes, I did in the very beginning of the thread. Perhaps post #3 or later, certainly on page one of this thead. I spelled it out for you.
Quote
What makes you think we in the profession don't address what we feel is wrong?
Because it took 5 pages in this thread, over 100 posts before you made it clear that Batman was wrong for calling me a drug abuser. YOU defend him per your own admission. That's why.
Quote
When was the last time you were on tv or in the paper saying " the other people in my profession are incompetent and my profession needs to be cleaned up"?
I'm not in a profession where that is an issue. In my profession there is one other check and balance before a person can be harmed. Unlike you. However, I have gone to bat for something I felt was wrong. I went to bat against Pfizer, the drug company and I won! Class action lawsuit and all. I do fight the battles I believe need fighting. I am not afraid to put myself on the line, morally or legally for what I believe is right.
My group started out with four of us, we are now 10,000 people big, we are speading to places outside the US, our website was voted in the top 10 of its actual type within the US for the 2nd year in a row and we won our class action lawsuit before ever going to court. Pfizer did not want a jury trial because we would have eaten them up for dinner.
My point is that I *do* fight for what is right and I fight to the very end. We beat Pfizer for pities sakes! How many can claim the same? How many can claim front page/feature story of the Wall Street Journal? I can! I *earned* the ability to say that because I do fight for what is right. I might even be willing to share this information with you via email since I can determine you will never know who I am.
Actually, George knows my real time name due to a written Rx from a physician. If anybody would like I'd be happy to send George a link to the WSJ article as it does indeed list my name because I am one of the folks that started this whole thing.
When was the last time you did so, Confused?
Quote from: confused on Feb 26, 2003, 01:14 PM
Tell me what profession you are in? I am sure someone could find something bad about it. Maybe an anti-site might be started regarding the many wrongs done by your profession to humanity.
Actually I want to readdress this issue because you bring up an excellent point. Let's examine what you have asked.
Let us say that your doc writes an Rx for Lanoxin, a heart med. If you do not need Lanoxin you could die if you take it anyway. I'm using an extreme example on purpose.
Let us also say that you come to me and get your Rx filled. Let us say that I fill it with the wrong drug.
On the paperwork that comes with your medication you can find a place where it describes the exact description of the tablet. You see each drug has a different description so that we can tell exactly what that drug is. Perhaps yours says that it is white, round (vs. oval or square) and has #123 on the tablet. You have the ability to compare what the tablet is *supposed* to look like vs. what it really does look like. If it is a capsule with R3694949 written on it you can be assured it is not the correct drug.
You can also take this drug to your doc, the one who wrote the Rx and you can ask... is this what you wrote the Rx for?? Your very own doc can say yes or no, that is what I wrote the Rx for.
What kinds of guarantees do you have on *your* work?
Quote
I do now and have always tried to be as professional and ethical and I can. Everyone who comes to me for a test gets my best effort and I expect that from all examiners. I am not perfect and never will be but I try. I am the one who has to live with what I do. I sleep pretty well.
This is another point I *should* have addressed and failed.
I actually believe you. If batboy or torpedo would have said the same I would not believe them. But FWIW I do believe you believe this to be true. This is the *only* reason I am rethinking my stand that you and batboy are not one in the same. Batboy could never ever make a claim such as yours.
That does not mean I have more faith in your test, and make no mistake, that is what it takes ... faith. But I do believe you are more apt to try for the truth vs. your buddies on this thread.
Question for you. Really think about this for a moment. If you reread post #1 and that post makes it verrrry clear what my issue and my intent are.... let us say that I end up in your office for a polygraph. How many preconceived ideas would you have as your standard issue human being on this planet?
I take Dexedrine, I don't want to tell you that AND I am not a Xtian.
How fair *can* you possibly be? Since you make it clear that some of the test is not scientific and does indeed depend on the skill of the polygrapher, then it stands to reason that there is some amount of *human* vs science involved in this test. So, how fair can you be as a standard issue human being?
Confused...
I wrote:
Quote from: Michelle on Feb 27, 2003, 03:36 AM
My group started out with four of us, we are now 10,000 people big, we are speading to places outside the US, our website was voted in the top 10 of its actual type within the US for the 2nd year in a row and we won our class action lawsuit before ever going to court. Pfizer did not want a jury trial because we would have eaten them up for dinner.
I have to take something back here. Instead of "editing" a post I want to "correct" a post with a new post.
I don't think I can prove to you, specifically, about my involvement in outside activities that I believe are wrong an without morality. The WSJ article lists my full name. I am going to be taking a polygraph for a police department. You have made reference to working for a police department. The odds that you will be the same polygrapher are almost close to nothing but I am not willing to take the chance. If you happen to want evidence of my choice to become involved with what I believe to be wrong... I will send my evidence to Skeptic, George, or Marty. I trust them. I shouldn't since I don't know them in real time but I am willing to take that much of a chance if you should happen to request it.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Feb 26, 2003, 10:40 PM
I do not believe that polygraphy should be or need be done away with, but I believe it must be and is not currently (with most lie detection formats) practiced as serious undertaking.
Drew:
Perhaps you have answered this elsewhere, and I am just a tad bit too lazy to sift through all of your posts on here, but would you please be specific as to how you would agree to the polygraph being used?
Could you also explain why the way that you would agree to the use of polygraph would be more effective than in CQT exams?
Regards,
Quote from: confused on Feb 21, 2003, 07:03 PM
Fair chance, would you mind responding to my questions posted previously, please.
Dear Confused,
I was rereading this thread (which has taken a life of its own) and saw this reference in one of your posts. I believe that I did answer it about five or six post after I saw it the first time, if I did not answer it completely would you please repost your question(s). You have tried your best to be civil in your postings and I will do my best to be the same in mine.
Regards.
Seeker,
The current field polygraph (different than many research polygraphs) whether it is an analog (paper recording) or digital (computerized) version is typically an instrument for monitoring and recording a few channels of human physiology. The organ systems monitored with this instrument largely reflect various short-term (occurring so as to be time-linked to individual polygraph chart questions which are typically presented with 15 to 20 second interval periods between questions) changes in a part of the nervous system known as the autonomic nervous system. Monitoring and recording this physiology can serve various purposes. Within a law enforcement context, there are generally two different classes of experimental paradigms used for obtaining two different kinds of answers. The first which is widely used in this country and which I believe to be quite unsound (a discussion of why is well beyond the scope of this answer) is a lie detection polygraph test (one of several different formats) in which the examiner seeks to draw conclusions about the examinees emotional state (e.g., he is concerned because he has lied to a relevant question/issue) from physiological response (actually comparisons among various question types). The latter paradigm (which can utilize the same instrument or others monitoring different physiology) and which I and others believe to have a sound foundation for practice and to offer true scientific control is the concealed information test, often referred to as a guilty knowledge test. In this format the examiner seeks to determine if the examinee possesses some form of privileged information, e.g., information that might be known to only the perpetrator or the investigator of a specific crime. Without elaborating further and in answer to your question, I have generally described two experimental paradigms for you (lie detection and concealed information detection) both of which might be accomplished using the same instrument (field polygraph). I support the continued research and application of one (concealed information testing) and barring unseen theoretical developments for the other (lie detection) would recommend that utilization of this latter paradigm be discontinued.
Fair Chance, sorry I took so long but it has been busy lately.
I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one. I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass. I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
Thanks for responding. I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated. Others I have know sympathy for. I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.
Michelle, I doubt that you are even reading this thread anymore and don't realy care. I just wanted you to know that several of your last attacks on me you used quotes that were in response to other people not you. They know who they are and had no problem with what I was saying or at least were willing to listen.
confused
Quote from: confused on Mar 07, 2003, 06:58 PM
..... but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
confused,
As you know, once a person becomes aware of the psychology and expectations of the probable lie comparison question they are more likely to fail absent use of countermeasures. The whole point of the CQT is to reduce the false positives from early R/I tests that have been discredited by the majority of the polygraph community.
As an aside, the DLT (directed lie test) for of the CQT eliminates the normal PLT examiner deception and looks to be useful for testing poly examiners and others that are aware to the processes. Do you concur or not? BTW, have you had a chance to read Kleiner's book? Lot of interesting topics in it.
-Marty
Quote from: confused on Mar 07, 2003, 06:58 PM
Fair Chance, sorry I took so long but it has been busy lately.
I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one. I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass. I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better. I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull.
Thanks for responding. I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated. Others I have know sympathy for. I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.
Dear Confused,
My previous posting stated that I have never manipulated my test and to the best of my ability answered all questions honestly. I also stated how I was accused of countermeasures during my second test and was completely ignorant of such knowledge of countermeasures. My second polygraph examiner was completely wrong in his accusations but quite sure that he was "right". This led me to my personal decision that he had no idea how to detect "countermeasures".
If anyone reads my post from number one to this one, they would see that I had respected my first polygraph examiner because he displayed professional conduct and respect to the examinee. All arguments aside about the validity of polygraphs, he was professional. I knew the FBI was going to interrogate me during this process and I expected a little "rough stuff" psychologically. This was a person who was trying to do a job that the government assigned him with class. My first polygraph examiner could have videotaped his complete four hour exam and felt pride that he did not display any personal prejudices or bias conduct independent of the polygraph procedure. He performed his duty as if someone was watching and I felt that at least I was given a "fair chance" and thus my alias on this site.
My second polygraph examiner was of extreme prejudice and bias before I even got into the office. He demonstrated arrogance, poor procedure, bias conduct, aggressiveness, and underestimated his "opponent". The word "opponent" says it all. He did not treat me like a law abiding citizen who applied for a job but as a convicted criminal who needed to be executed. I have certain suspicions that he had some motives behind his conduct which reflected so poorly upon the professionalism of the FBI that I would have stopped my application just because I did not want to be associated with such an unjust person or Justice Department who employed such an individual.
As I stated to Marty, I know the ins and outs of negotiation and government process. The FBI saw this in my appeal letter and allowed me another test.
The third polygraph examiner was extremely professional like the first. I knew that he had to glean information from me but he did so professionally.
My conclusion again being that if all of my polygraph experiences were videotaped and shown to a group of people, most would conclude that my second polygraph was completely different from my first and third.
The FBI needs all of the public support that it can get. I can think of no worse way to destroy this support than to leave such an awful taste in an applicant's mind after a poorly done polygraph procedure.
This website is testimony to the tremendous negative impact of FBI polygraph prescreening.
The FBI has done their background check. They cannot find a single person in my lifetime who says anything bad about me. They almost seem frustrated in their questioning of friends, co-workers, and associated that no one would speak a bad word of me.
I have been going through hoops for almost eighteen months now. I completed my physical with flying colors (and with my current law enforcement status I am well above their initial cut-off age of 37).
I am getting to the point of when they offer me a position after all of this to tell them that I do not think they are worthy of my loyalty and devotion that I have demonstrated to the Constitution of the United States through my whole life. I have placed my life on the line for over eight years with the military and ten years with the Department of Justice in a law enforcement position and this means nothing to the almighty, arrogant FBI. What further proof can I give but a lifetime history of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States?
I am sorry for spouting off like this but my frustration over just wanting to serve my country and being so severely abused in the process is showing.
It has never been about getting a job, IT IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGENCY SHOWING RESPECT TO THE CITIZENS AND APPLICANTS THAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO SERVE! THE CITIZENS DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE THE FBI, THE FBI EXIST TO SERVE THE CITIZENS!
If I take a job with the FBI, it will only be to make sure that I keep the FBI within the guidelines of the Constitution. Maybe I will have to once again "do the hard thing", swallow my pride and take a job with an agency that I might not hold in high regard just to make sure that it is true to the spirit of the Constitution. I have defended this country with my body but I now must use my mind. I do not serve the FBI as a government employee, I serve the Constitution.
Regards.
Fair Chance,
Your experiences with the FBI polygraph examiner number 2 should be taken in context. The FBI was one of the last agencies to adopt routine polygraphing of employees, whereas the CIA and NSA have long considered the polygraph a key screening tool. A lot of this at the FBI happened due to political pressure facilitated by the widespread belief the polygraph is almost perfect. As for the spooks, who knows, they are full of bright people who should know better. If you are accepted and join the FBI do so with a view towards having an opportunity to serve with honor to the best of your ability. I have little doubt the agency is populated with honorable folks who feel real pride about the jobs they do for their country and perhaps working with them would take the sting off.
-Marty