PD applicant has a question...

[Ray]

Drew,

Marty and I were having a rather civil discussion when you decided to join in and demand that I answer your questions before you would answer my question (which was never initially addressed to you).  I'm not sure who you think you are...you want to dictate the direction of a discussion that you were never initially involved in?  

If I had initially posed the question to you I might understand your desire to control the conversation.  The bottom line is that if you don't want to address my points, why should I even participate?  

Marty -  Thanks for addressing my question.  I think it's a VERY thin line George walks with his advice to applicants and I think he crossed it in this case.  

[Drew Richardson]

Ray,

The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.

[I-SMELL-BS-2]

Ray,

The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.

But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah.  Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.

[Drew Richardson]

ISBS,

My rationale for joining this discussion stands as outlined in my previous post:

Ray,

The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.

My employment  with Brain Fingerprinting did not occur until roughly a decade after I first raised the concerns I have about probable lie control question test (PLCQT) polygraphy.  And even now, that which I have repeatedly and largely expressed misgivings regarding is the use of the PLCQT for various screening applications.  I find these to be nothing but completely invalid fishing expeditions with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice and one(s) causing to harm to individuals, various agencies, and the nation alike.  I can assure you as long as I have any association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Brain Fingerprinting will never be used as a general screening tool, for lie detection, or any other questionable and/or invalid pursuits and accordingly will never make a single dime from any such activity.

[I-Smell-BS-2]

Drew, you know very well you will have no say about how that machine will be used when it is sold and it you also know that you are pushing for it to replace the polygraph.  But you, like George, want to act like you are so noble and have no other motives than the good of humanity - peddle that tripe to someone who doesn't know better.

[George W. Maschke]

Ray,

You earlier wrote:

We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination.  With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application.  A simple yes or no will do.

I strongly disagree with your contention that my suggestion to PBR that he not volunteer the fact that he has exaggerated his past drug use to friends and colleagues is tantamount to suggesting that he commit a "lie by omission." Such information is not responsive to any relevant question in common use for pre-employment screening. Therefore, PBR has no ethical obligation to disclose it, and a choice not to do so would not constitute a "lie by omission," as you maintain. The question PBR asked regarding whether or not to disclose this information is one of pragmatics, not ethics.

[George W. Maschke]

But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah.  Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.

ISBS,

Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years, but also by the fact that when he first made these criticisms, he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.

Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.

[Marty]

ISBS,

Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy not only pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories by years, but also by the fact that he first made these criticisms he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.

Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.

George,

lielabs, at polyplace, said this rather interesting piece on 5/31/04:

I would think that if you understood the testing process you would understand the control questions are vitally important and based on your assumption would generate a reaction based on the knowledge that you must respond to those questions. If you did not understand that as your post suggests then it is more evidence of the damage other sites are doing to innocents.

wdc (pillpopper) then responded that that would be, in his view, using CMs and unethical.

It's rather interesting that lielabs, a moderator there, suggested (in the guise of a criticism) that innocents should "respond" to these controls if they sufficiently understood the process. I was rather surprised to find that admission.

-Marty

[stud]

I said DUD, rhymes with STUD, and that is exactly what I meant - you simply show your abysmal profound ignorance with every post.  DUD - of little or no worth, one that is ineffectual, failure, misfit..... a perfect description of you you fucking idiot.

The only bullshit you smell is your own, because you are so so full of it. Nothing you say makes any sense, only nonsense, ha ha ha.

You are a walking violation to the laws of nature. Get off this website, your advice is a repugnant odor to everyone on it, just like the ridiculous archaic polygraph you believe in.