Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

Can you specifically site an example of something that Mr. Williams has said recently that you believe he could not have said on this site anytime since the creation of this website? If so, can you site an example of where he was prevented or warned about posting such a thing?

[pailryder]

getrealalready

I find irony in the fact that Doug and George settled their differences at this particular time when Doug's for profit business is receiving such scrutiny.   I am sure you have followed this board long enough to recall that Doug once posted a glowing review of his own book, under a different name, of course, and once offered a fist fight, with a promise to whip  George's ass, as a way to resolve their issues. 

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

That which you say is true; in times past Mr. Williams has made inappropriate comments on this board and may well have slandered and/or threatened Dr. Maschke. 

That, however, is irrelevant to the point that I was making...which is...I see no evidence whatsoever, that at any time since the inception of AntiPolygraph.org that Dr. Maschke, even while being attacked, would have taken any steps to prevent the posting of anything that Mr. Williams now says on this board.

I believe that is the case because, although that which Mr. Williams says may well be promotional and/or self serving, it is largely true and accurate with regards to his efforts to debunk polygraphy and to warn and assist those who may be victims of this rather crude quackery.

[pailryder]

getrealalready

I take your point.  Dr Maschke has never, to my knowledge, prevented anyone on the anti side from posting whatever they wished and I did not intend to imply otherwise.  But Dr Maschke has always, it seems to me, taken pride in maintaining the site as source of free information for all, and thus avoided the charge, often made against other sites, that they are all about self promotion and money.

I challenge you to review my postings and cite specific examples where you feel I have engaged in quackery.

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

My reference to quackery has nothing to do with your posts but with the practice of polygraphy (lie detection) which is nothing but quackery in your hands or any other...

[pailryder]

getrealalready

So, I've practiced crude quackery for more than thirty years, but my posts don't quack?  How could that be?

[getrealalready]

Pailryder,

Your words on this board may be true or false, relevant or irrelevant, meaningful or not, etc., but in the end they are just words. Your (or anybody else's) practice of lie detection and the representation of same as a valid diagnostic test is unadulterated quackery.

[pailryder]

getrealalready

Are you arguing that all polygraph techniques are quackery?  Do you evaluate David Lykken's GKT as quackery as well?

[George W. Maschke]

Pailryder,

With respect to Getrealalready's last post, note that Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is not a lie detection test.

[pailryder]

Dr Maschke

With respect to my last post, I did not refer to Lykken's GKT as a lie detection technique, but simply as a polygraph technique.  So, Dr Maschke perhaps you would be so kind as to my answer, is Lykken's GKT a valid scientific test or is it too quackery?   

[George W. Maschke]

Although it's not without weaknesses and vulnerabilities, I don't think the GKT is quackery.

[Ex Member]

I think "Peak of Tension" is a more apt name. "Guilty Knowledge" is an implication; POT more correctly describes some shift in psychological stress, the root cause of which cannot be precisely determined.

[Drew Richardson]

A Peak of Tension (POT) test is a poorly designed concealed information test (CIT).  Unlike David Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) format, the POT involves QUESTION presentation in KNOWN (to the examinee) SEQUENCES, which renders the individual test items NOT independent of one another and therefore having the test results not being amenable to the normal statistical analysis of a properly designed CIT.

A GKT can be poorly constructed and confounded as well by asking questions as opposed to presenting subject areas and alternative answers which are repeated by the examinee.  If a GKT is constructed to involve questions answered with alternative answers repeated by the examinee, in effect, one has created and confounded a CIT with a lie detection test (something which has no validity in its own right and is not made better by confusing/confounding with a CIT).

[George W. Maschke]

The Mozilla Archive File Format (MAFF) used by Ex-Examiner to archive the Polygraph Place private forum has been deprecated, that is, it is no longer supported in Mozilla Firefox. Therefore, AntiPolygraph.org is undertaking a project to make this archive readable with any browser. The process is labor intensive and will take time. For now, you can review the most recent 80 message threads here:

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml

[George W. Maschke]

At this time, a little more than half of the Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum has been made available for direct browsing. 18 of the 33 index pages, comprising 720 message threads from 13 February 2008 to 20 May 2013 are now available for review:

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-055.shtml