Update

[Saidme]

George

Haven't been here in a while.  Just wanted to see how your cause is going.  Any progress?

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

You are in no position to be popping in from time to time demanding updates. You may review the information provided on this site and reach your own conclusions.

[Raymond J. Latimer]

"DEMANDING" updates  Saidme merely asked a question.

[George W. Maschke]

"DEMANDING" updates  Saidme merely asked a question.

As defined in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "demand" means:

vi (14c) : to make a demand : ASK...

[Ray]

George,

"Demand" also means: to ask for urgently or peremptorily.  In the context of your post, I believe this is a more appropritate definition of the word "demand."  Nice attempt at a spin though.  

Saidme clearly touched a nerve George.  Perhaps you are a little frustrated that you have failed to make any progress in your crusade to eliminate polygraph?  Take a deep breath and relax....

[Twoblock]

Ray

Didn't New Mexico just bust the polygraph from use in their Courts? Isn't that progress? Isn't the Gov. of that state pro poly except when is called on to be accountable?

You probably would have countered "This site had nothing to do with it" But neither you or I know that for sure. Judges probably read this site, also.

Paranoia unleashed, huh Ray?

[Ray]

Twoblock,

The court decision in New Mexico has had little impact on the field of polygraph.  It will not reduce the number of exams administered.  It in no way threatens the field of polygraph.  If you would like to give George and this site credit for the New Mexico court decision, feel free.    

Don't mistake my visit to this site as paranoia.  I, as many examiners do, come here for amusement and, every once in a while, a spirited discussion.
 
Just curious old Twoblock, do you have a dog in this fight?  Were you a "good applicant who got screwed by the polygraph?" Perhaps a sex offender who is tired of being bothered by polygraph examiners?  

Anyway, good luck with your crusade.    

[Philip Elkins]

Ray, I will never understand why people such as yourself can't seem to grasp the fact that only individuals who have never researched polygraphy believe in it.  The reason is that any person who is reasonably educated, and possesses a minimal amount of intelligence can logically surmise that lie detection is not possible.  Especially through an absurd notion that a person automatically reacts while being untruthful. This may be the case for some, but definately not for all.   I do agree that it is easy for a person to claim he/she was falsely branded as untruthful.  However, there are surely a very many people who have been falsely accused.  I think it is scary that the majority of polygraphers seem to have a disillusioned faith in their practice.  What does it say about the intelligence level of these people.  With the free time you have being worried about who is learning the truth about polygraphy, you should also check out Doug Williams'  site and read the testimonials that have been submitted to him.   These are just a few more examples of how the polygraph is being beat every single day.  If you can't see that, you really are a fool.  Often, victories are slow and silent.  .

[George W. Maschke]

Ray,

My point is that it is presumptious for Saidme to expect me to provide him with a progress report.

While the abolishment of CQT polygraphy is AntiPolygraph.org's ultimate goal, other key objectives include exposing and ending polygraph-related waste, fraud, and abuse. Progress has been and continues to be made in a number of areas.

[J.B. McCloughan]

Philip,

There are quite highly educated individuals that believe that the detection of deception is possible.  I think you might want to check the credentials of some of those individuals prior to making assertions based solely on personal conjecture.  

I would suggest, for the sake of American historical figures, that you start with William Marston.

[Ray]

Phil,

but definately (sp) not for all.

Prior to questioning the intelligence of polygraph examiners, you should DEFINATELY learn to spell the word DEFINITELY.  That's not a typo Phil, that's a lack of intelligence.

I think it is scary that the majority of polygraphers seem to have a disillusioned faith in their practice.

If resolving murders, putting away child molesters and discovering extensive criminal and drug histories of applicants is the product of my disillusioned faith, so be it.  Have I made a wrong call or two? You bet.  I'm not perfect but I'm effective.  

These are just a few more examples of how the polygraph is being beat every single day.

For every "testimonial" on this site and Williams' site, I have ten verified examples of the effective use of the polygraph.

Often, victories are slow and silent.

Phil, you amuse me.  I hope you will return to this message board to entertain me.

[Ray]

George,

Progress has been and continues to be made in a number of areas.

Any specifics?

[George W. Maschke]

Ray,

Perhaps our most significant area of continuing (and growing) progress is public education -- exposing polygraphic lie detection for the pseudoscientific fraud that it is.

[Twoblock]

Ray

If you had been coming here long enough to have read my pryor posts you would remember (maybe not) my interest in polygraph.

Short synop. - The polygraph has always been suspect in my mind. In 1963 I was required to take one for a temporary job that I didn't care wheather I got or not. I lied lake a rug, using a few mental maneuvers, and passed. Later, to test it again and at my own expense, I told the complete truth and failed. My daughter also took an employment poly, told the truth and failed. She got the job anyway and made the firm a good employee.

I am a person who enjoys a good fight for a cause. Poly just happens to be one of them. I also enjoy getting in my digs to ones who dig me.

BTW, I am for the polygraph or any means that will scare sex offenders, murderers, etc. into a true confession.

[Human Subject]

I would suggest, for the sake of American historical figures, that you start with William Marston.

Are you serious?  You are staking the credibility of polygraphy on the alleged genius of William Marston?