A word or two from the "other side"

[beech trees]

When you are done with your name calling and character attacking, I suggest you go back to the beginning of this thread and read the first few posts between myself and George.  When I said that persons of the anti-poly orientation on this site often resort to ad hominem argument, I should have just cited you.

You really don't have a clue what an ad hominem argument is, do you? Even after definitions and links about ad hominem arguments were posted you continue to make this meritless attack on me?

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Thus, I post the assertion that polygraphy is a pseudo-scientific fraud with no basis in science, and is worthless as a screening tool as it is wholey lacking in validity-- I back up my assertion by pointing to the *lack* of evidence to the contrary, in this case the total absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that polygraphy is any more accurate than chance (this among many other pieces of evidence bolstering my assertion). I am met with accusations that I am a felon and salacious personal inquiries about my motivations to post my assertion. THAT is an argument ad hominem.

Calling the purveyors of a fraud 'hucksters' is not an ad hominem argument, it is a careful and accurate choice of word that deftly describes polygraphers. A huckster is one who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product. I cannot think of a more accurate label for polygraphers, especially when considering the pre-test interview and the Stim Test, and any post-test interrogations.

And despite your use of "fifty cent words," your hostile tone detracts from any sense of intellect you may hope to portray.

I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here. Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies. You are not the first to mention 'hostility', but in my opinion you are confusing aggressive skepticism with hostility. When I am met with gratuitous assertions and ad hominem arguments, I reply with fervor, pointing out the ludicrousness of your side's tactics-- all to illustrate to the disinterested third parties or readers straddling the fence on the issue of polygraphy just how insane it is to trust people like you-- polygraphers-- with determining any part of the hiring process, the screening process, and in many cases the post-conviction process. Perhaps others in your aquaintance would meet the accusation of being a felon meekly and with little argument-- but not I. Perhaps others would cave when met with bluff and bluster about detecting countermeasures. Perhaps others would sit back and accept the inflammatory, worthless accusations from your side that George and the anti-polygraph movement are somehow akin to racist, neo-Nazi hate groups or that this board is a clearinghouse of information for pedophiles and other sex-offenders. Not me.

As an aside I do have to make the observation that I had no idea that members of the law enforcement community had such delicate feelings.

In your attack on my last post regarding the CPT JONES scenario, you claimed that my critique showed polygraphers (and it seemed you specified the two posting on this thread) were snake oil salesmen.  Meanwhile, what I cited were the possible issues which may have adversely affected the outcome of the examination.

And then I pointed out the absurdity that those cited externalizations should have any bearing on a scientifically grounded examination. It is also important to note that should an examinee cite any of those as reasons to question the validity of his or her impending polygraph he would in almost every instance be met with suspicion and accusations of guilt from the polygrapher. Can you imagine what a polygrapher would do or say if, as the bp cuff is about to be applied, the examinee said, "I'm sorry, I'm stopping the exam because I don't feel this test will yield a valid result owing to the fact that you the polygrapher have failed to establish a suitable rapport with me the examinee"?

If it is acceptable for YOU to make the assertion that failure to establish rapport will affect the validity of the test, then why is it not acceptable for the examinee to make the exact same claim?

I'll address your specious 'polygraphy is like a medical biopsy' simile in another post. Thus far polygraphy is like a metal detector, like a counseling session, and now like a medical biopsy. Sure it is.

[beech trees]

Ah, so finally I did get the insulting attack I was trying to evoke!  Perhaps I do not control your BP, but I obviously can push the right buttons.  At least when it comes to historical trivia, you can come up with a little substance -- but then when given the opportunity, you return with an attack on the person, not his argument.

Rejoice in your hollow victory, servant of The People. I knew what you did and why you did it, thus any 'button pushing' was fruitless and really transparent-- which is why (as I have already pointed out) I chose to answer your question as to the legitimacy of the Gadsden Flag seen in my posts.

You had no 'argument' with regard to the Gadsden Flad, only a misguided notion that it would somehow be offensive to those with a 'patriotic soul'. If ignorance of our nation's rich history and the importance of the Gadsden Flag can be characterized as an 'argument' on your part, then certainly it can be further characterized as a stupid, uneducated one by me.

[Public Servant]

I hadn't really thought about trying to 'portray intellect' here

Very successful I'd say.  However, you are the champ at trivia.  While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag.

I'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling.  I'd say this thread has run its course.  If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.  

Any hopes I have with regard to contributing here surround the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used by our local, state, and federal government agencies

With your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.

And if you believe it is not ad hominem to call someone names based on generalizations, or a person's beliefs, than you will forgive this assessment:

You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm.   Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem.  However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts.  You stand alone on this one.

Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.

[beech trees]

Very successful I'd say.  However, you are the champ at trivia.  While I am more versed in our nations history than you will ever know, you are correct I am not familiar with every single battle flag.

Glad I could answer your questions about the famous Gadsden Flag then. The fact that those questions were couched in a sly affront at my patriotism rather color your insults later on in this post. If you don't like terse, tell-it-like-it-is replies, perhaps you should do a bit of reflection on your own writing style. In addition, in the future I hope you won't be surprised when, after insulting someone's knowledge of American history and their patriotism, you are met with a certain amount of tight-lipped invective in the response.

I'd say, thanks to Beech Trees, the conversation here has regressed to name calling.  I'd say this thread has run its course.  If you have something constructive to discuss, I may converse with you again in another thread.

I don't recall engaging in name calling in any of my posts. I do recall pointing out your ad hominem arguments and gratuitous assertions. I do recall describing the pseudo-science of polygraphy (and by necessity then, polygraphers in general)  as 'hucksterism' and 'hucksters'. I do recall your compatriots comparing this website and George Maschke to neo-Nazi racist skinhead hate groups. So, lie about the nature of this discussion all you wish, and fall back on your tried-and-true method of misrepresenting, finger-pointing, and just plain whining-- the posts are here for all to see and make their own conclusions. At the end of the day, the facts remain the same:

1. You lie to polygraph examinees, and in return expect blind obeisance and faith in the process and your ability to divine truth from falsehood based on a brief interview, and on-the-spot creation of questions, and the scratchings from a polygraph. (Except of course in those cases where one has the misfortune of having a polygrapher administer the test 'wrong', the polygrapher chooses the wrong 'comparison questions', the polygrapher fails to establish 'rapport', or if you the potential examinee fail to trust, or are too intellectual or too introspective, too passionate, too well-educated, or most incredibly, simply built physically 'wrong' or just plain mentally 'unsuitable').... ad infinitum

2. You have failed to prove your gratuitous assertions that you can and have caught examinees using countermeasures.

3. In lieu of (2), you have failed to accept Dr. Richardson's countermeasures challenge.

4. You vacillate between a. exhorting potential polygraph examinees *not* to use countermeasures because you can catch them doing so and b. blaming George for threatening national security and the sanctity of ongoing criminal investigations because--why? When arguing from this latter viewpoint you validate the notion that countermeasures DO work and you are unable to detect them. You've left more than one person scratching their head with this little dichotomy.

With your techniques, you'll never convince anyone.

Oh, ok

You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm.   Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem.  However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts.  You stand alone on this one.

Ironic and slightly hypocritical of you when you asked me about the nature and origins of the flag seen in my posts. Rather thankless as well. In the future, I will remember that you use replies to off-topic questions as ammunition to insult the poster.

And, to reiterate, I have repeatedly tried to engage in you in intelligent discourse, asking you to back up your gratuitous assertions here. I should have known when, in your very first post, you wrote:

Sorry, I'm not going to get in to validity or accuracy here.

[Polycop]

You are a pseudo-intellectual cloaked in a firm grasp of trivial facts, and sarcasm.   Your inability to refrain from hostile attacks on all who disagree with you during what should be intelligent discourse, indicates a low self esteem.  However, unlike you, I will not generalize by extending this assessment to your counter-parts.  You stand alone on this one.

Later Pot, the kettle has better things to do with his time.

Public Servant,

I don't know about you, but I have decided Beech Trees is just about the most entertaining guy I have ever read.  I log into the site every day just to view the latest repetition of ignorance spewing forth from his keyboard.  He makes me smile, he truly does...

As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in.  They will always be outsiders looking in.  This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy.  Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period.  They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.

I just feel really sorry for the innocents they take with them and I truly hope their damage continues to be limited.  Guys like BeechTrees are a lost cause and I do not know if I would continue to feed their delusions....

Polycop...

[Anonymous]

Polycop,

You write:

...As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in.  They will always be outsiders looking in.  This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy.  Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period.  They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focused their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything...

Quite to the contrary, the utter disdain I note in beech tree's posts regarding polygraph screening appears to be quite sincerely expressed and would indicate to me that the last place he would want to be is in your shoes, i.e., on the inside looking out.  It appears to me that he is not only content with his role of critic-at-large on the outside looking in, but that he would welcome legions of others providing independent oversight (also from vantage point of from the outside looking in) to clean up and likely dismantle the world of polygraph screening.  Am I wrong, beech??

[George W. Maschke]

Polycop,

With reference to your remarks to Public Servant:

As you know, the anti-poly folks who post to this site are outsiders looking in.  They will always be outsiders looking in.  This is one thing they cannot change and it drives them crazy.  Anger, frustration, and jealousy is what motivates them, period.  They will never have what they think they are entitled to, and they have focussed their sights on the group of people who have what they don't and as a result they blame for just about everything.

What is it that you, Public Servant, and others in your "group" have that we ("the anti-poly folks") want but don't have?