DEA Special Agent Shawn Hacking Banned

[TS Elliot]

One thing is painfully obvious fellas. You owe a good agent and apology. In fact you owe the DEA an apology. First you banned an experienced polygrapher from your discussions because he got the best of you and embarrassed you. It was not because he found your web site amusing and poked fun at you because you do that to polygraphers all the time. It was not because he was "trolling" your web site because your web site is just one big troll itself that baits the polygraph community. It was not because he used this name or that name as an alias because there appears to be little doubt that you have multiple aliases yourselves that you use to feed off each other. If this last were not true then you must be a few old men living in the same house who instantly spring to one another's defense whenever you need help with a particularly troublesome nemesis.      
     Second, you named a DEA agent on a public web site in order to "name and shame" him. Did you really think that this would work? Now what you have done is create a celebrity opponent who is probably basking in his newfound fame and happy in the fact that now everyone who comes to the web site can read all of his posts that you have compounded into one link and thereby see that he did nothing but expose a bunch of fakes and hypocrites with no integrity who offer bad advice to the naive and innocent. But your goal wasn't to create a celebrity was it? No your goal was to cause harm. You even went so far as to name a DEA Special Agent in Charge on your web site. Did you seek to "name and shame" him too, or did you just underestimate him and think that he would see his name in writing on a web site and reprimand and discipline one of his agents for simply doing his job?
     Third, you refuse to acknowledge that you broke the expected and proclaimed rules and ethics of your own web site, which is supposed to be a place where people on both sides of an argument can come and debate both politely and heatedly. No other polygraph web site does what you have done, yet you sit there smugly acting as though what you have done was justifiable and right.
     Obviously your intent was to cause harm and it has backfired on you. Now even people who innocently visit your web site will discover that there is no safety here. There is no expectation of privacy and no respect for rules. There is no integrity here.
     Think about what I am saying fellas. It's obvious to everyone but you.
     Now I leave you with a quote, as is my custom.

I might show facts as plain as day: but, since your eyes are blind, you'd say, "Where? What?" and turn away.       Christina Rossetti

[Sergeant1107]

It was not because he was "trolling" your web site because your web site is just one big troll itself that baits the polygraph community. 

That's an interesting point of view.

Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with exactly what an Internet troll is, and then you'll see that an entire message board cannot be considered a troll and cannot be trolling anyone or anything.

However, joining a message board with the intent to disrupt the discussions there, ruffle feathers, have a few laughs and then move on is a textbook definition of troll behavior.

If trolls don't like having their names posted then perhaps they shouldn't return to the same website over and over again, after being repeatedly banned, and continue to engage in the same trolling behavior.

If the bans don't work because the troll simply registers again with a new name and continues their trolling, what other recourse would you suggest?  To suggest that every web site on the Internet simply put up with trolls who have no other intention in joining board other than to disrupt it is completely unreasonable.

How about a little personal responsibility from the trolls?  Members of this board are not "outed" when they disagree with George.  They are outed when they continually engage in trolling after repeated warnings and, sometimes, repeated bannings.  Every message board owner on the Internet has the same right to deal with disruptive trolls who refuse to follow the common courtesy of not returning to a web site after they have been banned.

Whose actions caused the outings?  Who choose to engage in trolling behavior over and over again after repeated warnings and repeated bannings?  That's the person who bears the responsibility for the consequences.  That's just common sense.

[T.M. Cullen]

One thing is painfully obvious fellas. You owe a good agent and apology. In fact you owe the DEA an apology. First you banned an experienced polygrapher from your discussions because he got the best of you and embarrassed you.

If TS Elliot turns out to be DEA SA Hacking, as GM believes, then the above post is truly pathetic.  A new low in trolling, asking in the third person for an apology.  I thought I had seen it all.

I still think it is are old friend Ed Van Arsdale.

TC

[wopdoowop]

It is pathetic that a website administrator could ever think it's right to post personal information, especially when it is a law enforcement person they are posting about. Banning maybe, but posting personal stuff? I agree with Elliot. You guys are really dense if you don't get it. The administrator should at least throw out the topic because it really makes you look stupid.

[Fair Chance]

Let me make it as clear as I can.

If you do not believe in what this website stands for, STOP POSTING.  With every response you make on this site, you add to the hits on the search engines.  Good, bad, or indifferent, you are supporting anti-polygraph ideas by default by increasing the market share of search engine hits.  This is the ARBITRON of computer ratings.

If this site has no validity, do not give credence and do not give it validity by posting a negative.

If you insist on defending what is called an untenable position, you only offer fodder for the opposition.

This site is the number 1 Google hit engine when "polygraph" is entered except for paid advertisers.

To all who hoped for a quick demise to the discussion and argument, all I can say is keep posting and you only dig the hole deeper.

Regards.

[T.M. Cullen]

No, keep posting! 

TC

[George W. Maschke]

"TS Eliot" has been banned. As mentioned earlier, there is little doubt but that this was Shawn Hacking trolling under a new moniker.

[meangino]

"TS Eliot" has been banned. As mentioned earlier, there is little doubt but that this was Shawn Hacking trolling under a new moniker.

George, you note in the beginning of this thread, upon polygrapher Hacking's first banning, that he was trolling this website from a government IP address.

Would you be able to disclose if he was again using a US Government IP address during his trolling with his new moniker(s)?

[George W. Maschke]

Meangino,

There is no evidence of any US government IP address having been used this time.