Aren't you being a little dishonest here?

[nonombre]

This web page is neither about barbers, police officers nor firefithers.  It is about the lack of any scientific basis or proof...It illustrates that Polygraphics is simply a job that any monkey can be trained to do; not a hard science.  

And specifically what scientific/academic training have you had that enables you to make such an informed statement?

P.S.  Please slow down or use a dictionary.  I have never heard of a "firefither."

Regards,

Nonombre

[Drew Richardson]

Nonombre,

Yes, I do believe you are wrong.  Presumably most of the positions you refer to in the federal government are generalist positions and are not presumed to be science-based activities.  I have no problem with these positions (to include general law enforcement entry positions) being filled with those with minimal or no scientific education, but I have serious problems with a profession which touts itself as resting on serious scientific principles being staffed with those lacking scientific credentials.  The average polygraph school does not begin to have the time for remedial education and therefore results in an education that neither meets the needs of the educationally deficient nor advances the education of the very small minority of those who matriculate with reasonable entry level education.  Regards...

[Jeffery]

And specifically what scientific/academic training have you had that enables you to make such an informed statement?

MS in EE.

P.S.  Please slow down or use a dictionary.  I have never heard of a "firefither."

Calling attention to an obvious typo is a poor way to deflect the argument at hand.

[Twoblock]

Nonombre

I have been away for a few months and had to do some "reading up" when I returned.

Permit me to make some personal observations.

You started out on this site as an intelligent debator. Then, as is the custom of most polygraphers, you digressed to bashing when you started loosing some debates. Most polygraphers start out bashing. Dark Cobra is a case in point. However, he took the time to investigate George's situation and found the truth. Now he has a different attitude.

Second. You wanted to hold Dr. Richardson's feet to the fire about divulging certain countermeasures but, when asked to take his challenge, you stuck your feet in an ice bag.

Third. You failed to comment on the FBI's failure to supply George with his charts. What is the scuttlebut in polygraph circles about this? They say they lost it. BS. It's a cover up of which they are masters. It appears to me that he passed it, hence, their refusal. If he failed it, what's their problem.

Fourth. All of you say George and this site is having no effect on the polygraph community. A kicked dog yelps. All of you have and are still trying to discredit George and this website. If you are not concerned, why spend so much time bashing.

Question. How much of you time spent on this site is at taxpayers expense?

[nonombre]

Nonombre

I have been away for a few months and had to do some "reading up" when I returned.

Permit me to make some personal observations.

1.  You started out on this site as an intelligent debator. Then, as is the custom of most polygraphers, you digressed to bashing when you started loosing some debates. Most polygraphers start out bashing. Dark Cobra is a case in point. However, he took the time to investigate George's situation and found the truth. Now he has a different attitude.

2.  Second. You wanted to hold Dr. Richardson's feet to the fire about divulging certain countermeasures but, when asked to take his challenge, you stuck your feet in an ice bag.

3.  Third. You failed to comment on the FBI's failure to supply George with his charts. What is the scuttlebut in polygraph circles about this? They say they lost it. BS. It's a cover up of which they are masters. It appears to me that he passed it, hence, their refusal. If he failed it, what's their problem.

4.  Fourth. All of you say George and this site is having no effect on the polygraph community. A kicked dog yelps. All of you have and are still trying to discredit George and this website. If you are not concerned, why spend so much time bashing.

Question. How much of you time spent on this site is at taxpayers expense?

Twoblock,

Wow, that stung a little.  Okay, let me try and address your observations.

#1.  Thank you for your comment about me being an "intelligent debator. "  I believe that I try to be such and try to stay at that level.  I do admit that I have let a poster or two get "under my skin" from time to time.  In the future, I will try and stay at an appropriate place.  I'm sure you and others will let me know if I fail in that regard.  As far as "losing debates."  I am afraid that is in the eyes of the beholder.  I do feel I have won more than I have lost.

#2.  Regarding Dr. Richardson's challenge.  I admit that I have not seriously considered it.  In that regard, let me ask you a question.  How do you suppose we introduce the "fear of consequences" so not present in a mock situation?  After all, If I or any other examiner would bet the farm so to speak on the outcome, than Dr. Richardson has to be scared to death he is going to lose something valuable by failing the test.  Let's make it real.  Any suggestions?

#3.  I truly have no idea what the truth is about that.  I know that we keep all charts for seven years in my agency, we then dispose of them in accordance with agency procedures.  I can not speak for the FBI.

$#4.  I ain't "bashing."  At least I don't think I am.  Mostly I tune in to see what's going on.  However, if I see something that really bothers me or that I feel is untrue or unjust, I speak up.  However, I once again admit that sometimes my tone can get caustic and I will double my efforts to be more dispassionate in the future.

Regards,

Nonombre


P.S.  I NEVER post from work.  Look at the times of my postings.  They speak for themselves.  How 'bout you?

[Twoblock]

Nonombre

Re: your PS. My shortcomings. I didn't take the time to notice post times.

Outside of 4 years in the military, "48-'52 I have never been on a taxpayer payroll. My ambitition ran much higher. In fact, I have been on my own payroll since 1972. Yes, I am slightly aged but, I still work rings around young asses. I spend 100 days in Alaska working my mine. In the winter I work at my research lab and refinery turning dust into bars.

My wife is calling me to supper. I will try to cover the other points as time allows.

[Jeffery]

#2.  Regarding Dr. Richardson's challenge.  I admit that I have not seriously considered it.  In that regard, let me ask you a question.  How do you suppose we introduce the "fear of consequences" so not present in a mock situation?  After all, If I or any other examiner would bet the farm so to speak on the outcome, than Dr. Richardson has to be scared to death he is going to lose something valuable by failing the test.  Let's make it real.  Any suggestions?

How about the fear of losing (and losing all bragging rights as one of the foremost anti-polygraphers out there?)?

Of course, then there is the question of what you test him on...  I know!  Let's set up a mock crime test -- the same tests DoD points to to verify the polygraph's reliability!  Surely if it is good enough for the Grand Master's of the Polygraph Clan, it would be good enough for our test here!

[polyfool]

Polyfool,

Are you dismissing the 6-12 month internship federal examiners undergo before they are "turned loose" as you have put it?  Are you dismissing the career long REQUIRED annual continuing education training?  Are you dismissing the quality control oversite of every SINGLE polygraph examination a federal examiner conducts?  

Nonombre

Nonombre:

You could have years and years of education, training and all the quality control you so desire. It still doesn't change the fact that what you do for a living lacks scientific validity.

I thought we had all gotten past the insults. Pointing out Jeffery's typo in what was obviously meant to be "firefighter" was really immature on your part. I wasn't nasty to you last month when you mistakenly wrote, "cooberative" instead of "corroborative." You were way off compared to Jeffery's simple typo--and weren't you a trained investigator who at one time conducted criminal and background investigations? Yet, you couldn't get the word "corroborative" correct. Seems like you could use the help of a dictionary yourself. I suppose George could install a spell check on the site and solve the insults over misspellings. But then again, when a poster misspells a particular word, it does provide some insight into his credibility. For example, when a trained investigator misspells the word "corroborative."

I agree with TwoBlock--your intelligent debating skills have suffered a considerable setback.

I will give you this--atleast you care enough about what you do for a living to spend some time on this site. I won't presume to know why--whether it's an internal struggle over your profession or your desire to learn more about examinees using countermeasures? You are obviously passionately committed to your profession, however bogus it may be, and that is a quality to be respected.

  

[nonombre]

Nonombre:

You could have years and years of education, training and all the quality control you so desire. It still doesn't change the fact that what you do for a living lacks scientific validity.

I thought we had all gotten past the insults. Pointing out Jeffery's typo in what was obviously meant to be "firefighter" was really immature on your part. I wasn't nasty to you last month when you mistakenly wrote, "cooberative" instead of "corroborative." You were way off compared to Jeffery's simple typo--and weren't you a trained investigator who at one time conducted criminal and background investigations? Yet, you couldn't get the word "corroborative" correct.

Okay, okay.  I was out of line regarding the typo. I am truly sorry.

Now regarding your first paragraph.  I would argue that it is unfair to bring to my attention all the follow on training and mentoring police officers, fire fighters, etc have endure to be credible in their chosen professions.  Then, when I respond by pointing out the all the follow on training and mentoring polygraph examiners go through, you immediately fall back on some old tired anti-poly diatribe.  Motivates me to not want to continue the discussion.

You know fairness in debate goes both ways.  I would suggest that part of the reason other examiners have walked away from posting on this site is a feeling that no matter what, the people who reside around here refuse to accept any part of an opposite point of view.  It's like they stick their fingers in the ears and sing "la, la, la."

Food for thought.

And one more point if I may.  If you were to analyze all my posts, you would discover that virtually each time I was ever less than objective, respectful, or dispassionate, it was in direct response to someone who (with no provocation) was less than objective, respectful, or dispassionate in a posting directed at me.  Not every single time, I admit, but the vast majority of times.

Now, as I have indicated in a previous post, from this point forward, I shall double my efforts to remain above all that.  All I ask is that others have the same respect towards me and the others who post here with differing points of view.

Regards

Nonombre :-/

[Bill Crider]

A key difference, however, is that while graduates of barber colleges can cut hair, graduates of polygraph schools cannot detect lies

damn that was funny

[Jeffery]

Okay, okay.  I was out of line regarding the typo. I am truly sorry.

No worries mate; I no I no how to spil. [sic]

Now regarding your first paragraph.  I would argue that it is unfair to bring to my attention all the follow on training and mentoring police officers, fire fighters, etc have endure to be credible in their chosen professions.  Then, when I respond by pointing out the all the follow on training and mentoring polygraph examiners go through, you immediately fall back on some old tired anti-poly diatribe.  Motivates me to not want to continue the discussion.

True, the training program (apprenticeship period for federal prolygraphers), the so-called QA review process and continuing education requirements are items present in many professions.  It still does not change the fact that the science behind polygraphics is non-existent, and to claim that field as a science is disingenious.  

This thread is about polygraphics NOT being a true science, and illustrates the fact that the prerequisites for becoming a polygrapher are A: not that hard to meet and B: not what one would expect of a true scientific career path and C: less time required than somebody entering barber college.

No, regarding the other issue you raise: I can only speak from my own experience and that compels me to believe that polygraph is nothing more than chance -- but the level of damage it can cause is significant.

I do enjoy your posts, and though I don't think we'll ever agree on the issue of polygraphics, I can concede that we'd probably be good friends if we laid this issue aside.

[polyscam]

Nonombre,

I have just viewed the various posts from the weekend.  The race card?  That was truly unwarranted.  Who cares if you are a euro-mexican-russo-germanic-asian-feline-american?  I am an iguana with ever-changing skin color...who cares?  The broad sweeping brush had nothing to do with your particular heritage, but that of painting a broad portrait of polygraphy.

Yes, you are correct that many professions, or jobs at least, require less classroom training than that of the polygrapher.  But if you use that as an example, you would have to concede that a phrenologist with more classroom time holds more worth than a paramedic.  Even an imbocile would not argue for this.  Yes, I agree that the statement on the homepage is inflamatory.  It is supposed to be in order to call to attention the downfall of polygraphy.  Also my internship (apprenticeship at the time I completed it) was 1 year following formal training.  Then another year as a licensed embalmer was needed in order to obtain my funeral director license.  It took me 2 years before I was loosed to do my work and this was following my college education.  How long before you were loosed?

[hwsternfan]

Are you dismissing the 6-12 month internship federal examiners undergo before they are "turned loose" as you have put it?

An internship on how to use scare tactics to convince the examinee that my quack machine is actually working. Are you sure it isn't and acting course?

Are you dismissing the career long REQUIRED annual continuing education training?

Hmmm...How to BS someone Chapter 2.

Are you dismissing the quality control oversite of every SINGLE polygraph examination a federal examiner conducts

?

Ok lets watch this guy...make sure he knows how to be 110% full of shytte!

[nonombre]

An internship on how to use scare tactics to convince the examinee that my quack machine is actually working. Are you sure it isn't and acting course?



Hmmm...How to BS someone Chapter 2.


?

Ok lets watch this guy...make sure he knows how to be 110% full of shytte!

See guys?  This is exactly what I mean.  Now I know this idiot doesn't represent the average poster to this site, who I believe are mostly good people who have actually or by at least by perception been wronged by the polygraph process (or is worried he/she might be wronged).

But "jeez," can somebody please reel this Neanderthal in so those of us with intellects can continue an honest, intelligent debate?

Nonombre

[polyfool]

Okay everybody, let's cut Nonombre some slack. Sounds like he needs a break.

Nonombre: Posters on this site sometimes get a little upset, but you should understand that polygraph screening is a very emotionally charged issue, especially for those whose lives have been forever changed by its practice. It's difficult for you to understand because you are sitting on the other side of the fence and can't possibly imagine what it's like to have your integrity wrongly questioned by a sleazy, lying, crooked polygraph examiner. I can tell you firsthand, it can be downright ugly. No one has the right to do that to people. A job application process shouldn't be unethical and so  unprofessional. Private industry would never be able to get away with such behavior. I honestly would never have imagined this kind of thing was going on unless I'd been through it myself.        

Your point about the number of required classroom hours for polygraph examiners, cops, firefighers, EMT's is noted. However, you admitted yourself  that George's statement about it taking longer to become a barber in CA is in fact, true and therefore, you must admit that he's not being a little dishonest here.  

Anyway, moving on... I know you've said that polygraphs should not be the sole determining factor in employment, but is it used that way by your employer? Instead of using polygraphs for screening, why not use background investigations to bluff job candidates into admitting to things that they withold during the application process? It seems like it that would be just as useful since polygraphs are used for the same purpose.