DEA Special Agent Shawn Hacking Banned

[Drz]

I cannot agree more.  I don't see why if you just disagree with someone why you would want to embarrass them?

I have lost a lot of respect for George and for the purpose of this site.  I thought the goal of this site was to help people not ridicule them.

Too bad.

[George W. Maschke]

TS Eliot,

I think there's little doubt that you are Special Agent Shawn Hacking back under yet another moniker, and that your repeated mis-spelling of my last name in this thread is an attempt at misdirection. I do not begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself (though I regret that you've done so by dishonestly posing as a third person). But your stated reasons for having come here are inconsistent with your prior admission, "I come around every now and then to ruffle your feathers and laugh at you, and then I find other entertainment."

[TS Elliot]

"We dance round in a ring and suppose, but the secret sits in the middle and knows."

Robert Frost

"Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Missing me one place search another,
I stop somewhere waiting for you."

Walt Whitman

Funny how you and other people on this web site jump to all kinds of conclusions without basis, Maschke. That is of course the correct spelling of your name. I should not have to apologize for getting it wrong. You have to admit it is not an easy spelling to remember and I am surely not the first person to have gotten it wrong.
     Let me ask you a question. Why are there so many posts on your web site lately on the subjects of "naming and shaming" and "trolling" and posting personal information about people you do not agree with? Why are there several people who have been banned lately for nothing more than pointing out that your actions blatantly and continually expose your own lack of integrity? If I were you I would be man enough to simply admit that I have been over reacting with regard to my opposition and that I should not go against my own policy by "exposing" people who challenge me and who do not agree with me. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than seek to "name and shame" anyone who does not share your biased viewpoint? Is the way you jump to such conclusions without sufficient basis any indication of how you jump to conclusions with regard to the subject of polygraphy?
     If you think I am a repeat "offender" on your web site then why don't you ban me as well? If you think I am any one of those guys you have recently banned or "named and shamed" then why haven't you banned me already. I will tell you why. Because you have no damned idea who I am and you have no basis for "naming and shaming" me. Also, perhaps you are having second thoughts about your recent despicable actions on this web site.
     Now can you please go back to at least making a weak attempt at debating the subject of the polygraph or will you continue to snipe hunt and shadow box?

[T.M. Cullen]

 

Now can you please go back to at least making a weak attempt at debating the subject of the polygraph or will you continue to snipe hunt and shadow box?

TS (SA Hacking?),

Is it true you posted in the same thread as BOTH  "Anal Spincter" and "LieBabyCryBaby"?   And that you actually carried out a conversation with yourself, one alias agreeing with the other?

If true, isn't that a bit strange and disingenuous on your part?

TC

[Sergeant1107]

Correct or not you occasionally stoop to the level of the opposition and you ridicule or flame back, but at least unlike the opposition you have more than just having failed a polygraph test or a handful of biased or insupportable laboratory studies and your own conjecture to support your claims.

Why would ridiculing and flaming be necessary at all?  I don't engage in such things and am still able to engage in reasonable discussions.

I think it is much more likely that the poster to whom you refer simply felt (and feels) that people who oppose the polygraph are not worthy of common courtesy or civil discussion.  That seems to be a fairly common point of view for some polygraph operators to assume.

I think everyone on the Internet is aware that their IP address can be traced.  A DEA agent certainly should be aware of that.  Coming to a message board and engaging in obvious troll behavior, and then coming back and doing the same thing after being banned multiple times is hardly responsible or ethical behavior, even if you disagree with the beliefs of the message board's founders.
Common courtesy on the Internet is to refrain from visiting a site after that site has banned you.  If you choose to do that anyway don't blame the site's administrator if they file a complaint with your ISP, initiate civil proceedings, or post your name so that everyone can see it.

It's disconcerting that a law enforcement officer would have the same attitude as many of the people we arrest, in that the person responsible for the consequences of their irresponsible behavior is never themselves, it's the person who caught them.

[pailryder]

Why would ridiculing and flaming be necessary at all?

Sergeant 1107

I agree you and I do not engage in such things, but ridiculing and flaming are not limited to one side on this board.  We understand that this is Dr Maschke's sandbox and we are only welcome if we play nice.  I do not know any examiner who feels that people who hold opposing views are not entitled to common courtesy.  The examiners who use those tactics feel they are justly fighting fire with fire.

Anti posters are allowed to villify us as a profession and personally.  Antis have called us evil, rabid dogs that need to be put down, celebrated with glee the passing of an examiner and wished by name for the death of another examiner.  Perhaps they are cautioned in private but they are never outed. 

 

[TS Elliot]

T.M. Cullen:

"There is no rule more invariable than that we are paid for our suspicions by finding what we suspect."           Henry David Thoreau


Now isn't that interesting? First you identify me as Edward Van Arsdale and now you identify me as Special Agent Shawn Hacking. Am I also Tron? Here is a suggestion. Why don't you and Maschke shadow box each other? At least that way you would have someone real to engage.

[Sergeant1107]

I agree you and I do not engage in such things, but ridiculing and flaming are not limited to one side on this board.

There are certainly examples of impolite behavior on both sides of the issue, and I make no apologies for opponents of the polygraph who cannot conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen even when arguing with someone with whom they disagree.

However, claiming that such tactics are simply fighting fire with fire is a cop out.  No matter what someone else posts a person may still elect to either respond in a civil matter, or simply ignore the post entirely.  That goes for both sides.

I don't think the repeated bannings and the rare outings have been because of rude posts.  I think it they are due to what is clearly intentional trolling with no other purpose except to disrupt this board and post flame-bait.

[pailryder]

Sergeant 1107

It is easy to discount outings when you are not in any danger of having your identity revealed.  From my point of view the the outings are not rare at all.  My desire to post has certainly been chilled as I have watched every other regular pro polygraph poster banned and outed and never a single anti. 

[T.M. Cullen]

My desire to post has certainly been chilled as I have watched every other regular pro polygraph poster banned and outed and never a single anti.

That's not true.  I remember of at least one anti who was banned for getting out of line with Jim Sackett.

I've received "warnings" via PM, and have had posts removed or sent to "disgarded Posts" purgatory.

It is simply NOT the case that only pro poly types are banned.  Only flame baiting trolls get banned. 

TC

[pailryder]

Not banned Mr. Cullen, banned and OUTED.  You cannot recall any anti identified by name, now can you?

[T.M. Cullen]

The guy was banned and never heard from again.  It was back in early 2008.   No I don't remember his on-line name.  Maybe GM does, since he would have been the one who banned him.  He called Sackett "full of shit", or something along those lines.

TC

[pailryder]

His real name Cullen.  He was banned but not outed, or do you not know the difference?

[Twoblock]

pailryder

I don't think there are many of us that have an issue with you. You have been rather civil in your posts. However, it appears to me, that when most  polygraphers come up short on the debate issues they revert to personal attacks. Mostly against George even stupidly accusing him of unamerican activities when they have no basis in fact for doing so. He let them get by with it much longer than I would. I am sure he warned them by PMs, just like he does us when he thinks we are getting out of line. Unlike most of us, they don't take warnings very well and continue with the crap. That's what gets them banned. I have done my share of flaming and have been called down for it and because of my temper I have purposely refrained from getting involved in those kind of posts lately. I visit this website almost every day and it's hard not to put in my 2 cents. I do occasionally answer a post but it hasn't been directed to polygraphers. I love a good debate but it doesn't happen here much any more.

[T.M. Cullen]

If somebody accused me of TREASONOUS activities with absolutely no basis, and I knew who they were, I'd expose their true identity in a NY minute.  I have posted repeatedly how COWARDLY I think it is to make such accusations while hiding behind an alias.  They lose the debate, resort to personal attacks and the old "GM is a traitor" blather, get banned, keep coming back, get exposed and then squeal like stuck pigs and become all self righteous.

Like I said, they can NOT take their own medicine. 

TC