Opera Baby: A Disgruntled Polygrapher?

[Anonymous]

The following animation calls to mind the behaviors displayed by some of our pro-polygraph friends in the days since the National Academy of Sciences released its polygraph report:
  
http://www.whoohoo.net/operababy/operababy.swf  
  
 

[Twoblock]

What a BLAST. You sure are correct.

The last week or so the only thing they can do is "character assasination". They have been asked repeatedly to stick to debating pros and cons of the polygraph. Apparently they have not the intelligence to do this and have reverted to spewing libelous rhetoric. They are so dumb they think asphalt is rectum trouble.

[Twoblock]

WARNING WARNING

OPERA BABY CONTAINS A VIRUS. I sent it to one of my email accounts for mass forwarding and my anti-virus software detected the virus and deleted the attachment.

DO NOT FORWARD

[George W. Maschke]

Twoblock,

I saved the file to disk and checked it with Norton Antivirus: no virus found.

[mulletthunter]

A photo of George Mascke has been submitted to the following web site.  It is possible he will become MOTW!

http://www.mulletsgalore.com/
 

[Seeker]

What is it with the children?
 

[Fair Chance]

The name calling is getting to an all time high and the logical arguments are in the basement.

[wonder woman]

C'mon.....now you are accusing the pro-polygraphers of planting viri?.....isn't that a stretch George et al?

[Fair Chance]

Dear wonder woman,

I hope you are better at using your "magic" lasso then interpreting words.  George M. stated that no virus was found.  How do you interpret that into "accusing the pro-polygraphers of planting viri?"

No accusastions were made.

[wonder bra]

With "magic lantern" (not magic lasso) it would depend on which virus scanner was used.

"Symantec has gone on the record as saying they would cooperate with the FBI, and give Magic Lantern immunity from detection. Sophos would not. McAfee's position depends on which report you read. " quoted from http://online.securityfocus.com/columnists/44

 

[Twoblock]

Folks, I have to make an apology. I finally made a mistake albeit an honest one. NO VIRUS.

When I forwarded the site to my email address a message appeared. "Outlook Express removed access to unsafe material". It wasn't my anti-virus program. When my son, who is pretty sharp on computer technology, checked it out, he explained that OE was just telling me that Opera Baby was not a protected site and was subject to a virus. When he reran the virus check, no virus was found. I jumped the gun.

Now I can look forward to my second mistake.

[Laughing]

You have way to much time on your hands.

[Twoblock]

Laughing - I assume that shot was ment for me.

I am 72 years young and can afford to schedule my time as I see fit. However, being in the mining business, I probably do more work in one day that you do in a year. You seem to have a little time on your hands and I predict you will have more until you find another line of work.

Since the NAS report, you probably have to laugh to keep from crying. 10/4?

[rfk]

Wow! Such a wealth of info! I just wanted to find a way to toss another idea into the anti-polygraph/cvsa arena, but not realted to either of the two subject areas in terms of hardware. Incidentally, such 'hardware' typically falls into the novelty gimmickry category. Polygraph 'machines' essentially have not changed in fundamental design such the parlor days of the early 1900s; cvsa 'hardware' essentially is a pile of cobbled-together junk (albeit in nice-looking and expensive packages) whose input purportedly relies upon the victims input, but in reality, does little more than respond to internal circuit noise generated by a microphone input.
Secondly, not nearly enough attention has been placed upon the polycrap and cvsa operators themselves, who've collectively and individual have been perpetuating a myth for a very long time. The weight of their 'evidence' relies upon a tactic of endlessly repeating vocal claims of veracity without a single shred of 'real' evidence. This is a sound psychological approach that relies upon the idea that if you say something enough times, pretty soon everyone within hearing range begins to believe it to be 'factual'; a tactic employed during the fifties by communists to brainwash western POWs; and employed today by the Chinese.
WRT the 'operators' themselves, not enough can be said against them. They are, without exception, a person or persons, who've acquired a smattering of educational courses in psychology, physiology, sociology, criminal investigation and law, but do not have what it takes to actually be a one of those bonafide professionals. They typically are unable to make a commitment, they are without exception pathological underachievers who didn't do well in any mainstream school but 'polygrapher U'. And lastly, they are persons whose main goal in life is to make as much money as they can for as little actual work as they can get away with, with the added bonus of having the means of torpedoing as many people as they can legally get away with, said bonus whose reward is to stroke their pathetic, self-centered little egos. Have I said enough?
rfk  

[rfk]

Oops! Forgive the grammatical errors of my first (last) and only, admittedly long and verbose post to your marvelous forum. Next time, if I'm allowed a next time, I will make use of the  'preview page' feature before I actually send it out.
rfk