Philly polygraphers let one squeak through

[Skeptic]

If I were interested in learning more about the polygraph and the authors of this site, I really would like to know the true motives of the individuals.  No one can deny that you are a highly intelligent person, but maybe you were outsmarted on the day of your polygraph examination and you gave that one disqualifying admission. I certainly don't know, but inquiring minds want to know!  

Mr. Dawg,
Although it seems like a favorite topic among polygraphers here, I would like to point out (again) that George's background or credentials have absolutely no bearing as to the accuracy of his information or the ethical questions regarding his position.

The continual attempts to redirect the debate through ad hominem arguments and credentialism fallacies should be duly noted by all readers for what it is: forfeiture of any debate about the polygraph.

I believe George Maschke, like myself and all other posters, have the right to provide as much or as little information regarding themselves as possible.  The arguments either stand or fall on their own, and George's are well-documented and referenced.

Perhaps should the day come when polygraphers address those arguments and the definitive findings of the NAS report directly, musing on the motives of individual posters will be worthwhile.  I am doubtful that day will arrive soon.

Skeptic

[Skeptic]

And by the way, Breeze, I'm sorry you feel my insistence on holding you responsible for your own words constitutes "hysterical" behavior.  You'll pardon me if I disagree, as well as if I determine for myself what "my role" (if one can be defined) is in these discussions.

Skeptic

[The_Breeze]

Dawg
You have hit on a key point that makes the faithful here nervous....did the leader make admissions that show the polygraph functioned correcty, leading to a proper DI call?. (As polygraphers see it)
Always someone will blurt out that this does not matter, that George could be a rapist etc. etc. and that has nothing to do with the arguement over validity.  As if someones background, ethics and history would never have a bearing on what they espouse currently.  Mark Mallah said recently that I was the only person following this line, which is clearly not true.  I guess what we do Know about George's lack of candor is looked at like some kind of diversionary tactic instead of what it truly is. ( A fairly serious credibility dilemma)
Credibility.....that abstract and quaint notion when you have been so very wronged.
Two Block, sorry I ignored you.  Just what would said politicians be polygraphed on? What is the topic we are discussing here.  A polygraph to see if they have done exactly what? you may be getting little response to your question because it shows little understanding of how the tool is used.  Our applicants may be tested on material presented in their applications. Criminals are tested on specific acts.
Refine your idea and run it through the backchannel committee for re-submission.
As to mining, sounds like hard work.  I did see the mining/prospecting channel on Dish but you are clearly on a different level than those chucks.  Bears? I have already checked that block so no worries, you keep bulldozing the countryside, and Ill shoot them when they flee your mining tool.  Set it up!

[Skeptic]

As if someones background, ethics and history would never have a bearing on what they espouse currently.

Breeze,
You'll note that no one has claimed the above -- someone's background may indeed have a bearing on what they espouse.  You have simply failed to show how George's background has anything to do with his arguments here.  That's called argumentum ad hominem.

For your reading enjoyment, here is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

      The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
      argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
      person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
      Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
      gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
      attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

      There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
      (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
      the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
      (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
      assertion the author points to the relationship between the
      person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
      (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
      person notes that a person does not practise what he
      preaches.

Examples:

      (i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
      following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
      (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
      taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
      hominem circumstantial)
      (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
      are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
      circumstantial)
      (iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
      more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

      Identify the attack and show that the character or
      circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
      or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:

Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80


George didn't come up with the idea that the polygraph is flawed and easily beaten, nor is he remotely alone in his claim that he was wrongly tagged as deceptive.  Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences said just this in their recent report.  Thus,
your assertion that his character in any way influences his message is completely bogus and ad hominem on its face.


And since you said people here claim background never has anything to do with the positions they espouse, let me add the following:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Straw Man
Definition:

      The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
      usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

      (i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just
      wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
      Canada.
      (ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
      the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
      should realize that there are more important things than
      convenience.

Proof:

      Show that the opposition's argument has been
      misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
      argument. Describe the stronger argument.

References

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138

[The_Breeze]

Skeptic
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about.  Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity!  I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams".  In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion.  You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??

[Skeptic]

Skeptic
Since I just posted, and I immediately received your "thoughts" we now have an interesting new tactic to talk about.  Will anyone who has a concern, thought, hesitation or difference with the view here, be subjected to a canned response such as yours?
I have been hunting in Mexico for 5 days, just when did you compose and pull together your little response (oft repeated here) such creativity and spontaenity!  I know you girls have little strategy sessions, but give me a break or Ill cut and paste Rosevelts "strenuous epigrams".  In those words written long ago, you will receive guidance on how to conduct your life in a manly fashion.  You may or may not find this instructive.
Do you have anything not prepared you want to say?
What is your favorite hamburger helper since we are on the topic??

Sigh.  did you bother to read anything from what I posted, Breeze?

Anything at all?

Really, I was trying to make things as easy for you as I could...rather than post links, I even brought the relevant information here to you for your perusal.  

Obviously, it was my mistake to assume you are interested in honest debate regarding the polygraph.  Others have evidently picked up on this; I must be a slow learner.

Skeptic

[Anonymous]

Breeze,

If memory serves correctly, on at least two occasions in the past you have informed us you were leaving us (message board participation) for more meaningful pursuit with the intention of not returning to those who you generally characterized as not appreciating your input.  The merits of that input not withstanding, I believe your continual "bad penny" returning act has led to a credibility problem for you (Are you hoping if you do this enough we will eventually beg you to stay??).  By contrast nothing, including your cowardly and libelous innuendo, has in any way tarnished George's credibility, unlike your own words that have tarnished yours.

[The_Breeze]

Anon.
I believe I have recently said I would minimize involvement.
Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.
And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?  How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site? some here need this for validation, some say its relaxing, others say they just like to argue.
Nothing any of you say affects me in the least, and Im sure I wont be on the calendar when it gets published.
Skeptic....nice dodge.  No one noticed, really.
Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

[Skeptic]

Skeptic....nice dodge.  No one noticed, really.

I'm sorry, Breeze -- was there a point to your complaint about my posting methodology, aside from avoiding what I wrote to you?

Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

In fact, IIRC, I have criticized ad hominem attacks made against pro-polygraph people.  Of course, "everyone does it" is hardly a defense, wouldn't you agree?

Skeptic

[beech trees]

Will you point out every ad hominem attack say, uh Beech Trees makes on your foes? or do you only want to point this out for my benifit.  Since you still have your archived text, why not a quick cc?

To my knowledge, I have never made an ad hominem attack on these boards in lieu of a reasoned counterpoint to an argument in which I am engaged. If you would care to point out where I have done so, I'd be happy to reconsider that position. When the debate breaks down (as it inevitably does when you or one of your ilk becomes frustrated that the smoke-and-mirrors crap that you're taught to say in polygraph school results in howls of laughter from our side), I usually try to refrain at least for a little while from wallowing in the gratuitous insults.... however...

Pinhead replies beget fullbore retorts. I don't back down from the debate and I certainly don't back down when the bullying starts from your side.

[The_Breeze]

BT
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down.  Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard.  This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you.  I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post.  Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face.  I will let others decide if you could ever have anything original to bring here.
Skeptic wonders if I want to debate the polygraph.  Check my posts for my interests.  I have always been mystified at the sloppy legal advice and guidance given by a few posters here to applicants and others, who are merely trying to educate themselves and unfortunately landed here.  My focus has been the ethical considerations, more than the technical. (which I am not qualified to comment on)
Far from being ashamed at what I have written friend skeptic, perhaps someone who has not bought into the victim mindset in vogue here will actually think and consider before gratuitously clenching thier buttcheeks or attempting to manipulate thier breathing.  But I think you know this, when you make your attempts to marginalize my comments.
But lets talk about something else, if anonymous agrees.
Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder.  Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission!  It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation.  So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.

[Anonymous]

Wow Breeze...another amazingly short week since we last were subjected to inane commentary from you.  Perhaps in the next week () you might care to peruse the NAS panel report.  It might suggest something meaningful for you to bring to our attention...  With regard to your stated intended behavior regarding frequency of message board posts and your credibility deriving from actual practice, I personally could care less.  It is not your credibility with regular contributors to this site that is at stake for you though but with those not aligned and whom you might care to influence and who might consider the apparent (or lack thereof) stability of your thoughts and intentions...

[George W. Maschke]

Breeze,

You write in part:

Deputy Dawg believes that the ghost writer of Capt. Jones tale is none other than the founder.  Aside from the ethics of posting a testamonial in this way, there is alot in that post that is instructive.
If it is George, he may be the most over qualified applicant in history to fail to receive a reserve commission!  It certainly would go far in explaining many questions I have had as to motivation.  So George, are you the mysterous, often decorated Capt of reserves?, or is it just another clumsy attempt by your enemies to confuse the issue.
Lets hear directly from George on this point, not his screening staff.

As a general rule, I do not comment on the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous writings (including your own).

[beech trees]

Im imposing a once a week schedule on myself, since this is largely a waste of time.

I find your posts quite lucrative.

And since I will never get a real answer to any ethical point I have ever raised here, why engage in useless back and forth with the disaffected?

To the best of my recollection you have only raised one ethical 'conundrum' here, one of your very first postings questioning the ethics of using countermeasures (and by necessity lying about their use) when applying for federal law enforcement (FBI I think). When thoughtful replies concerning that aspect of polygrapy were posted, you somehow morphed our responses into a discussion about the court-sanctioned technique of lying to suspects, or undercover law enforcement lying during the course of an investigation-- a cognitive leap that still leaves me scratching my head.

How could I possibly be concerned with my credibility on this site?

Indeed, how could you? The fact that your vituperative, non-stop boorish spew reflects badly on your character, your department, and most importantly your intelligence would be of little importance to you since you hold everyone on these boards who does not think exactly the way you do (or indeed, is not similiarly employed and does not have the same political affiliations) in utter contempt. I ask you, given the transparency of your loathing, why should we likewise care what you have to say?

[beech trees]

BT
Thanks for pointing out that when you insult some poster here that you assume is your intellectual inferior, its because the conversation has broken down.

It is your fabrication, not mine The Breeze, when you write 'intellectual inferior'. Please do not attribute words or thoughts to me that I have not written.

Your cure for such break down is of course to try and humble your opponent from your keyboard.

Your characterization, not mine.

This is justified because you have quite a superior intellect, and common rules of decorum could never apply to one such as you.

My goodness detective, are YOU about to lecture me on the rules of decorum? Is there no end to the depths of your arrogance?

I believe you called me a liar (in so many words) on my very first post.

No, I did not detective. I merely questioned seeming inconsistencies within your first few posts and asked for clarification. What is the problem with that?

Im sure such boldness is quite a release for you and may be the closest thing to danger you will ever face.

I've made it a consistent rule to not comment in any way about my profession nor my life experiences, because (as I have always asserted), they bring nothing to the validity of the debate surrounding the abuse of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy-- not to mention the fact that my stance could, if discovered, bring an end to my chosen career. Nevertheless, you caught me in an especially cranky mood, breeze.

On September 14th of last year I led a three man team onto the pile that was formerly known as The World Trade Center. The group with whom I went to New York handed out Ultrathermic torches (which burn at 8900 degrees instead of 1800 like an acetylene torch). We handed out IR pole cams, which had a chest monitor and a pole that would extend to about fifteen feet... these could be probed in the pile to see if there were bodies or hazards before they were uncovered. We gased, oiled and handed out small portable generators that could be taken on the pile to run light equipment. We taught ESU and firefighters going on the pile how to use the equipment. We also took the equipment from those coming off the pile, refilled the oxygen tanks, replaced the used batteries with new recharged batteries and re-outfitted the new guys going on the pile. In addition, I worked two thirty-six hour shifts at Ground Zero NYC excavating and searching for survivors.

Guess what? None of the above means jack to our discussion here-- just like the number of times you've faced danger yourself likewise means jack. It's irrelavent. Batman is fond of the piss analogy, so I'll use it here-- it's a pissing contest that has no bearing whatsoever on these discussions.