Control Question

[TS Elliot]

Thank you, T.M. I really enjoyed reading that discussion. I see that the Honts lab study was never successfully refuted by anyone on this forum, and I will not bore anyone with a rehash since you provided the link to the discussion.
I could go on to rub salt into open wounds but I won't. I recognize that there are some people in this world who may have actually been unfairly "convicted" by a polygraph even though I know they are very few and far between.
One interesting observation though. When it comes to lab studies we polygraphers have those that support our view such as the above Honts study, and there are studies that also lend support to T.M.'s and George's view. I noticed that George really likes to use lab studies without discussing their weaknesses when they seem to support his viewpoint, but when he responded to the Honts study he made a vain attempt to discredit it. How can one who, I must assume, has never conducted a polygraph accurately pick and choose which lab studies are good and which have weaknesses in methodology? Which brings us back to experience, doesn't it? At least polygraphers have their experience to support their belief in a particular lab study, while everyone else has only theory, and in George's case only theory that he feels support his inexperienced viewpoint. An amateur should sometimes listen to a professional, wouldn't you agree?
But of course it seems predictable that someone will not allow this topic to simply die without attempting yet another vain attempt at cleaning up the mess, so I will leave you with a quote by Walt Whitman that I think sums things up--

All I mark as my own you shall offset it with your own,
Else it were time lost listening to me.

Thank you and adieu.

[Sergeant1107]

One experience that should not be discounted is the experience of telling the truth and failing a polygraph.  At the end of each polygraph there is one, and only one, person in the room who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt if the results are accurate or not.  That person is the examinee, not the examiner.

When speaking of "experience" and the polygraph we should not be discounting the experience of having sat through a polygraph, answering all the questions truthfully, and being told you have failed because you were deceptive.  When compared to the polygraph operator's "experience" of reading the charts and the body language the way they were trained, the examinee's experience is by far the more significant of the two.

[Tron]

Don't listen to this garbage Bean,

Not only have George never administer a polygraph exam, he's never passed one either.

It's very simple, the polygraph examiner will go through the questionaire with you in detail.  It's not that hard to understand so don't make more out of it than it is.

[Sergeant1107]

Not only have George never administer a polygraph exam, he's never passed one either.

Once again it seems necessary to ask why the experience of someone who has failed a polygraph while answering all the questions truthfully should be ignored.

Of the two people in any polygraph, only the examinee knows if the results are accurate.  It hardly lends any credibility to the polygraph operators when they continuously counsel people to ignore the examanee's opinion.

[George W. Maschke]

Don't listen to this garbage Bean,

Not only have George never administer a polygraph exam, he's never passed one either.

It's very simple, the polygraph examiner will go through the questionaire with you in detail.  It's not that hard to understand so don't make more out of it than it is.

Tron,

If you truly believe my reply to Beanhead (the originator of this message thread) is "garbage," then please show me my error and state specifically what in my reply you think is untrue.

[Tron]

Don't listen to this garbage Bean,

Not only have George never administer a polygraph exam, he's never passed one either.

It's very simple, the polygraph examiner will go through the questionaire with you in detail.  It's not that hard to understand so don't make more out of it than it is.

Tron,

If you truly believe my reply to Beanhead (the originator of this message thread) is "garbage," then please show me my error and state specifically what in my reply you think is untrue.

I would hate to "ruffle your feathers" but with the lack of integrity I've seen here why bother. 

I would hate to have my personal information posted (where I work and for whom) on this website.  So I would rather not tell you the obvious.

If you ever want change and for people to take you seriously than you really have to try something other than getting upset with people in the business, banning them, and then posting their information online.

Your countermeasures don't work.  Sorry but just because you're passionate about something doesn't make you right.  I'm truly not at all sorry that you didn't pass any of your polygraphs, don't get mad at me because I have.

I passed and I didn't use countermeasures, theory, or by visiting websites like this.  I passed because I told the truth and I had a competent examiner.

[George W. Maschke]

I would hate to "ruffle your feathers" but with the lack of integrity I've seen here why bother.

I've specifically invited you to point out the error in my reply to Beanhead. I think the reason that you decline to do so is that you can't.

[Tron]

I would hate to "ruffle your feathers" but with the lack of integrity I've seen here why bother.

I've specifically invited you to point out the error in my reply to Beanhead. I think the reason that you decline to do so is that you can't.

Then that would be twice in one day that you would be wrong.  If you're calling me uneducated about this topic I would hope you would have the testicular fortitude to just say it.  By the way, why answer your question?  You would just post my personal information online if you got upset with me about being right.
You see George, integrity is something either you have or don't.  I've passed all of my polygraphs and have participated in administering of dozens more (probably means that I have more experience than you in this area) and from my vantage point, if someone lied they didn't pass.  So to say that there are false positive's all the time is ludicrous.  There are not.
Remember Georgy, the initial problem I've had with this site wasn't the fact that you find a bunch of people trying to cheat the system, finding a way to lie, or even people telling themselves something over and over and over again in a hope to make it true, it was the fact that YOU allow the personal posting of personal information in hopes of shaming and embarrassing a person who disagrees with you.  This displays to me a crucial lack of ethics needed in law enforcement.  Thank god you didn't pass your poly because it would mean people like you would be working for the Federal Government or local police department.
I have answered you question, don't lie, won't fail.  I have never failed a poly and you have never passed one.  Sure there are holes in the poly system and it can be incorrect with the wrong training but then again so can a pair of barber scissors.
The polygraph is PERFECT, the people that use them aren't. 

Antipolygraph.org is not changing the way the world looks at polygraphs, sorry it's just not, especially with the lack of integrity and bulk of excuses I have seen on display by those who are in charge.

[Tron]

Let's say you are 100% right George.  With the way you approach things with your "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude, no one will ever listen.

Stop posting personal information about people on your site, it's not right and you know it.

When you do at least that, then and only then will people begin to listen.

[George W. Maschke]

...By the way, why answer your question?You would just post my personal information online if you got upset with me about being right....

Okay. Your position seems to be that you fear that were you to state specifically what in my reply to the original poster you believe to be untrue, I would become so upset that I would publicly post your personal information.

Yet for some reason, you evidently don't fear that your 1) having characterized my reply as "garbage" and 2) having denigrated me in numerous of your other posts might produce the same outcome.

Under the circumstances, I don't find your explanation for your unwillingness to state precisely what in my post you believe to be untrue the least bit credible.

[Sergeant1107]

I think that any objective reader on this board would doubtless conclude that, while George always conducts himself with civility and poise, the same cannot be said for a large number of pro-polygraph posters, many of whom seem to feel that civility and poise are only necessary when you agree with the person with whom you are having a discussion.

If you paid for and moderated a message board, what would you do with trolls who came to the board only to disrupt and annoy you and the other posters, and who kept doing so after being banned multiple times?  I think George's posting of the names of such trolls is appropriate. 

The incivility and propensity for personal attacks shown by various polygraph examiners on this board are indicative of a lack of ethics.  It seems that their belief is if they don't agree with your posts they are free to treat you like a piece of garbage, and so they do.  That indicates a lack of common courtesy, at the very least.
The patience and willingness to encourage opposing points of view that George has shown is certainly not indicative of a lack of ethics.  Try posting opposing points of view on the message board at PolygraphPlace.com.  You need not even be rude or engage in personal attacks - simply post a point of view which is counter to the views held by the board's polygraph examiner moderators.  Your post will be deleted and your account banned almost immediately.
In contrast, George is quite welcoming of any and all views on the polygraph, and has always conducted himself with civility, even when dealing with people who feel strongly that his opinions are incorrect.
The issue you seem to have is George's treatment of posters who are obviously, without a shadow of a doubt, trolls.  Look up the definition of trolls and you will find examples of the behavior demonstrated by each person George finally made the decision to "out" by posting their names.

Perhaps you could start a website called "ProTroll.org" so you could champion the cause of inconsiderate people who visit other people's message boards with the childish intents of stirring up trouble, disrupting discussions, and attacking other members.  See how that works for you.  Maybe there's a lot of other people on the Internet who feel that trolls need to be endlessly coddled rather than banished, but somehow I don't think there is.

[T.M. Cullen]

....inconsiderate people who visit other people's message boards with the childish intents of stirring up trouble, disrupting discussions, and attacking other members.

They think nothing of smearing the name of other people they falsely accuse of "deception" with their fake scientific garbage, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they cry like indignant little babies.

TC

P.S.  I'll bet you that T.S. Elliot is non other than Ed Van Arsdale.  It's positively amusing!

[Tron]

Hey there George why not just answer my initial question "Why post personal information as a sense of punishment for those who disagree with you"?

That was the point of my first post and 14 posts later you have not done that.

It is apparent to me that if you disagree with someone and want to get back at them this is what you do.

This website could really have a purpose of education and change BUT you have failed in allowing this administrator to actually create a THREAD about the identity of one of it's anonymous users, are you kidding.

I read most of lbcb's post and if you really found any of that offensive then there would be no way you could have handled the g man job.

George, there is no excuse to post someone's personal information online.  If you have a website that invites opinion and when you simply disagree with that opinion, it does not look good that you would allow this to happen.  If you can't see that then no one can help you.  Petty, very petty.

If you want to be taken seriously especially within the community you want to change you need to show them something more then what you're doing.  You show them that you are petty, vindictive, and that when you tire of them you will simply try to embarrass them personally.  Let's say that you're not any of those things George, but you know what, you allow this stuff to happen.

Do this right or don't do it.  This way will never bring about the change you are striving for.

You know I'm right about this George, what was the purpose of posting his information?  All you did was alienate the group you're trying to bring about change in.

George when people get banned they simply use another username, this is the way of the forum world.

I for one, since I'm sure you have checked, have never been registered on this forum but I have been a guest for years now and have always found this interesting and your approach admirable for the most part.  But as you have guess, the posting of personal information has gotten into my crawl and someone should call you out on it.

You do your research, great; you know the in's and out's of some of the business, congrats; but you also appear to be vindictive, petty and maybe even lazy by allowing this stuff to happen.  Very unprofessional.

[Tron]

Don't worry George, you won't have to ban me and put an add in the paper about my personal information, you won't have to tell my employer or come by my job.  This will more than likely be my last post.

Make believe science is better than make believe integrity.

Take care.

[T.M. Cullen]

Don't worry George, you won't have to ban me and put an add in the paper about my personal information, you won't have to tell my employer or come by my job.

I think federal employees like DEA SA Sean Hacking shouldn't be wasting tax payer dollars while on the job trolling this board, and spending time posting numerous and lengthy posts  while on the job at the Seattle DEA office.

Are your posting your whinny nonsense on your employer's dollar?  If so, and if I were your employer, I'd want to know about it.

TC