Calling out LieBabyCryBaby

[Ludovico]

Yeah, he may not be.  For one, he's much more loquacious than you are and for a second thing he's not so much of a dick.

Abuse.

(where's a moderator when you need one.)

"confederate" is the planted audience member, who's in on the gag - the crying girl for Sangya, and PailRyder for you.

[pailryder]

Lethe

I have been advised not to twist Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.  Any comment?

[Lethe]

Lethe

I have been advised not to twist Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.  Any comment?

No, none.  Except to wonder why you do not either (1) admit frankly that the polygraph doesn't work well on people who know how it works, thus the necessity of keeping such information from the masses or (2) explaining how the knowledgeable person will be sufficiently anxious about the control questions to produce a chart not significantly inferior in accuracy to that of an ignorant subject.

It seems that you are now goose stepping in line with the rest of your profession.  What took you so long?

[Ludovico]

Your confederate started to realize we are on to his gag.

[Lethe]

Your confederate started to realize we are on to his gag.

And what, precisely, was his gag?  He was simply responding to the questions that I was posing to him.  I deny that he and I were in collusion, nor do I see what either of us would gain thereby.  

But regardless of whether we were colluding or not, his responses were either accurate, inaccurate, or a combination of both accurate and inaccurate responses.  If inaccurate, was he attempting to mislead me?  Or were both he and I trying to mislead people?  If the later, why would I not just create another account--it would be simple enough--and run both sides of the conversation?  That would ensure consistency and that the point that I wanted to get across would prevail; involving a confederate would simply make carrying any plot into execution more difficult with no gain.  

And if the information that he was giving was accurate, wherein lies the gag?  Really, that is simply too much violence for even polygraphers to do to the truth, to call accurate answers to meaningful and important questions a gag.  But the logic of the polygraph demands that, doesn't it?  You must cover up the truth in order for the lie detector to work with any degree of accuracy.  In your own minds, you are helping people by attacking those who are spreading the truth and, to be sure, there is some accuracy to these claims; ignorant people are more likely to produce accurate results than informed people.  Polygraphers are perforce anti-education.

[Mysterymeat]

Lethe-Argic,

Where the HAALE are you coming from?? Your posts continue to deteriorate in intelligence! Speak to a topic or find another cause!

MM

[pailryder]

No, no, go not to Lethe, neither twist
Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.

Keats Ode on Melancholy (1820) st. 1

Damn, maybe I'm not a polyex after all!  Everyone knows they don't read poetry.  As for the Rebel flag avatar, Hoddy Toddy, Ludovico.  Hell boys, I've been a confederate all my life.  If people on this board would stop treating the truth like toilet tissue, maybe, no sorry, ignore that.  Discussion on this board will never rise above the level of clone on clone violence on Jim Rome's sports radio show.  

But that gullible gag was funny.

[pailryder]

I forgot to answer your questions.

1. it does
2. I did

[pailryder]

Just so everyone knows, Lethe and I are not confederates, and I'd be willing to take a polygraph test to prove it.  Before you ask, no Ludovico, not from you.

[Lethe]

I forgot to answer your questions.

1. it does
2. I did

If you're talking to me, I'm not sure which questions this paltry answer is in response to.  It certainly does nothing to explain how the polygraph can work on a knowledgeable person, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.  Really, I don't know what makes you guys think you can get away with claiming that I don't want to have a serious discussion, if indeed that charge was leveled at me.

Maybe we need to back up a few steps and go through this more slowly.  How about we start simple?  Let's try this one: does the size or magnitude of the threat that the subject feels from either the control and/or the relevant questions have to be taken into account when setting up an exam, or is the magnitude of the threat irrelevant?  

Here are some other questions that you could explore as you talk me through this and try to make your case, assuming you stick to your story:  

(1) Isn't the whole idea that the innocent subject will be more threatened by the controls and the guilty subject will be more threatened by the relevants?    
(2) If so, what would happen if an innocent subject, being knowledgeable of the way the exam works and being able to identify the control questions, felt no more threat or anxiety from them than from the relevant questions?

We stand in readiness to receive the knowledge which you are able to impart to our ignorant minds.  Remember, since you claim that knowing how the exam works doesn't effect its accuracy, you have no reason to not share the information with us.  Also, if you are correct in that, sharing the information won't help rapists and pedophiles pass the exam.  If you cry uncle and admit that knowing how the exam works significantly degrades its accuracy, I'd be happy to bring this thread to a close.

[Paradiddle]

I must ask. Lethe, why don't you just admit that you are George's alter-ego. Your posts are intentionally cold and inhuman, and George himself never seems to have comment---this being the only long-game thread he has not posted onto---and the diction and rythmic value of your "Lethe" literary style matches that of George's posts and also his sophomoric poetry.

[Lethe]

I must ask. Lethe, why don't you just admit that you are George's alter-ego. Your posts are intentionally cold and inhuman, and George himself never seems to have comment---this being the only long-game thread he has not posted onto---and the diction and rythmic value of your "Lethe" literary style matches that of George's posts and also his sophomoric poetry.

Whether it is sophomoric or not I don't know, but I find George's playful verse to evince more talent than anything I could come up with.  As for what you mean by my posts being "intentionally cold and inhuman" I don't know either.  I don't see what would be added to my posts by imitating the insulting, juvenile style that other members of this forum take.

Now.  Will you answer the actual questions about this thread?  In this single thread alone you polygraphers have commented on or asked questions about my avatar, my screen name, my motivations, my background, why I want to know about the polygraph, my opinion of Drew Richardson, whether I interpret Genesis literally, what Richardson's qualifications are or aren't, whether gullible is in the dictionary or not, whether I am pailryder, whether I am George, and on the size of my erect penis.  In short, you have talked about just about everything except what I started this thread to talk about: whether or not and how the polygraph works on a perfectly knowledgeable subject who knows how it works and can identify the control questions.  And, somehow, Ludovico has it in him to insinuate that I am the one who doesn't want to have a good faith discussion.  

Now, let's set that all aside.  I don't want to talk about talking about the question that I raised.  I want to have it answered.

[pailryder]

Lethe

I am sorry that I my answers have not been helpful.  You come at this from an intellectual position with valid thoughtful questions and I can only offer answers based on my observations and experience.  Some time ago, I decided to see how an open approach might effect my practice.  The other examiners who post here will be horrified when they read this, but I fully discuss with my subjects the role of the CQ, how and why I developed the CQ, and how I expect it to use it to evaluate their response to the RQ.  I no longer lie to my subjects and I have observed only positive effects from this change.  I have not seen any evidence that this knowledge helps the guilty or hinders the truthful or adversly effects my ability to discriminate between the two.  True knowledge, I think, seldom works that way.  I know this is not what you want, but it is all that I have.  I am not a reseacher, not a scientist, not a logician.  Just a guy with a job that goes to the office each day and tries to treat others as I would have them treat me and mine if our roles were reversed.  

Thank you for your question and for our discussion.