Campus Poster Initiative

George W. Maschke · Sep 21, 2003, 03:34 AM

Quote from: Saidme on Sep 19, 2003, 05:25 PMGeorge

Your little poster campaign doesn't seem to be catching on. I've yet to see one on any of the college campuses I've been to....

That you have not seen any AntiPolygraph.org posters is no indication of the success of this initiative. Even with hundreds of participants, it would be unlikely that anyone visiting any particular college campus on any particular day would see one.

These posters are an easy, cost-effective way for those of us interested in polygraph reform to inform those most likely to face a pre-employment polygraph examinations before their honesty and integrity is judged based on this pseudoscientific quackery.

Your gratuitous advice that I "channel [my] energies" elsewhere suggests that you are more concerned about the potential effectiveness of this initiative than you care to let on.

The Shadow · Sep 21, 2003, 07:41 PM

Quote from: Mr. Truth on Sep 19, 2003, 06:28 PMThank you, Saidme, for that resounding vote of confidence. Yes, I committed a sexual offense. Funny thing, I lost more than you'll probably ever have, and what I've regained is probably more than what you have now. Unless you are SES, which I doubt. Of course, I always have to answer yes to that question about ever having been convicted of a felony, and I have to register, which, for anyone who thinks that actually accomplishes anything, you are sorely mistaken.

Mr. Truth, I am troubled by the above portion of your response to SAIDME. Are you saying that the fact that you are required to register as sex offender posses no deterrent to you offending again, or do you just find it embarrassing to have to register?

Mr. Truth · Sep 22, 2003, 02:53 AM

Yes, and yes. What deterrent effect has it had on anyone who has reoffended? Zero, from what I can see. If someone wants to reoffend, he or she is going to do so. There are people who reoffend knowing beforehand that a new offense will result in triple the penalty. Does that stop them? No. Being on the wrong side of the fence, so to speak, it is difficult to convey just how exasperating the registration requirement is, how it is so pointless because it is so ineffective as a deterrent. There are cases where it is useful - the multiple victim violent/repeat offender. For your typical offender, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

However, not wanting to hijack this thread, I'd still like to know what other "fine citizens" Saidme was referring to.

Jeff · Feb 17, 2004, 08:06 PM

I attend a university with a Criminal Justice program--thus various federal and state agencies are often recruiting on campus. I'll make sure these are up as soon as possible.

My current intentions in terms of career center around analytical positions at one of the intelligence agencies--so this site has really been invaluable.

Thanks

George W. Maschke · Feb 18, 2004, 04:09 AM

Jeff,

Thank you very much for helping to spread the word about polygraph screening! (I'm also glad you've found this site to be interesting. You might wish to register on the message board.)

Sergeant1107 · Jul 14, 2005, 06:35 PM

I've printed out two of the posters and put them in my police department. They've generated lots of questions from cops who had never heard of anyone having doubts about the polygraph.

polyfool · Jul 14, 2005, 07:10 PM

Sergeant:

Very gutsy--I imagine you'll be voted employee of the month by your peers...lol. It's actually very surprising to learn how little a lot of cops know about the polygraph's invalidity. Good job!

Drew Richardson · Jul 16, 2005, 04:58 PM

Sergeant1107,

I'm glad to hear of your efforts and the results obtained to date with your poster distribution. That is exactly the sort of thing that is needed. Law enforcement officers are not stupid. Those NOT involved with the process (i.e., those other than polygraphers and the management who were involved in supporting polygraphy/the status quo as they rose through the ranks) will see "lie detection" polygraphy (particularly polygraph screening) for what it actually is (foolishness) when presented with all the facts. Are there national organizations such as the IACP (for executives/managers) for the working levels (the next managers/executives) that you feel this could/should be shared with? These are the people who need to be broadly reached with the message you are sharing in a narrow fashion via the posters. Regards....

George W. Maschke · Feb 27, 2006, 07:03 PM

On a recent visit to the UCLA campus, I had the opportunity to place some of AntiPolygraph.org's posters:

George W. Maschke · Mar 01, 2007, 05:12 AM

An anonymous contributor has kindly provided a Spanish translation of Poster #4, which explains how to beat a polygraph "test." Click on the image to download it:

palindrome · May 18, 2007, 10:18 PM

I just found out about this site today. I plan on posting these up next semester at my college, and maybe some others in Boston as well though!

SanchoPanza · Dec 20, 2007, 05:34 PM

find it interesting that the photo that you posted on 12/13/2002 is exactlyy the same photo you posted on 2/27/2007 referencing a "RECENT" trip to UCLA.

The trees are the same height, The foliage is the same, hmm even the little tear-off pieces are in exactly the same position.

This is either an astonishing coincidence or possibly an example of The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.

Sancho Panza

Drew Richardson · Dec 20, 2007, 06:34 PM

Sancho Panza,

I don't speak for George, but I do notice in the 4th picture down in the 2/27/2006 (that you apparently have referenced in error as 2/27/2007) response that there is a poster entitled "The Defeat of Solidarity" dated 2/16/2006. Doing a Google search with the name of the talk and UCLA I find that such a talk did take place. You are a criminal investigator, yes?

SanchoPanza · Dec 20, 2007, 07:59 PM

Actually DREW the issue his his re-use of the same picture which was the ONLY picture used in his 2002 post and then posting it again leading people to believe that it was from a 2006 visit. Irrespective of whether or not he went to the campus in 2006. Saying that this picture was from a "RECENT visit is not true regardless of whether or not he actually went to the campus in 2006. I didn't say his entire post was a lie, just the picture. You are a former FBI agent aren't you? If one of your agents turned in the same surveillance photo twice and claimed they were taken years apart, what would you say? How would you react?

He padded his post with a blatant falsehood. YOUR defense of his false behavior is just another example of The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. Here is a man who blatantly mislead his readership and up pops Drew Richardson in defense of his falshood. What's more important THE TRUTH or making sure Mr. Mashke doesn't suffer any embarrassment for his behavior? Or is this another example of what might be refferred to as a JUSTIFIABLE LIE.

It doesn't really matter what you think of what he did. It is a plain simple fact that he represented the same picture as representing 2 visits over 3 years apart YES or NO?

Sancho Panza

Drew Richardson · Dec 20, 2007, 08:13 PM

Sancho Panza,

Clearly your reference to "RECENT" trip implied that you were suggesting that George had fabricated (or misrepresented the date of) a trip. When your poor research was revealed to be what it is, you are now left suggesting that George mistakenly included an old picture in with new pictures (2006) that clearly had an antipolygraph.org poster included. Give it up...you have no point to make.

Campus Poster Initiative

Quick Reply