what are my rights with a private poly?

[Skeptic]

Gino, am I incorrect, or are you virtually DARING any of the readers (or "shills" as you call them) of TLBTLD to sue AntiPolygraph.Org?  I just want to make sure I am reading your post correctly.  Do you think that there might be some lawyer out there who would take this case on principal instead of the want of money?  It could happen!  I am so pleased that your disdain for those who you seek to "help" has now been made public.  And to think, all those folks came to you and your Namebase friends believing that you would help them.  How wrong they were! So you think there is some connection between discovery of what techniques are used to detect countermeasures and a suit by someone that they followed your posted advice, admitted using countermeasures? Where did you learn that? Did you sleep through most of your classes in civil procedure?

Torpedo, to even a casual reader, it's painfully evident you're taking the words of others out of context, misrepresenting others' responses to you and completely ignoring numerous points.  In fact, it's so bad you're pretty much carrying on a conversation with yourself.

Just thought I'd give you a "heads-up"...

Skeptic

[Twoblock]

Torpedo

You should run for a political office. Maybe for a U.S. Congressional office. You do have a knack for twisting other's statements into meaningless rhetoric. A natural for a politician. Geno also suggested a polygrapher bring suit against this website which you failed to address.

Could you pass a polygraph, without using countermeasures, with one question being "do you lie to and deceive others to achieve your objective"? As I have said before, politicians should have to pass a polygraph in order to assume and hold their office.

[G Scalabr]

Gino, am I incorrect, or are you virtually DARING any of the readers (or "shills" as you call them) of TLBTLD to sue AntiPolygraph.Org?

Not exactly the readers. I think it was pretty clear that I was challenging polygraphers to set something like this up if they feel that it would be so damaging to us. If you look up "shill" in Webster's revised unabridged Dictionary, you will learn that it means: One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. I'm pretty confident that I got my point across considering that fact that all of the other posters besides you understood what I proposed.

How wrong they were! So you think there is some connection between discovery of what techniques are used to detect countermeasures and a suit by someone that they followed your posted advice, admitted using countermeasures?

Torpedo, you're being deceptive! If we were in the same room, I would request that you wheel your chair into the corner and pull mine up knee-to-knee with you. You are straight-out manufacturing statements to support your weak argument.  

Someone who is following our posted advice will not admit to using countermeasures

We make it abundantly clear in our writing that the only way one can be caught using countermeasures is to admit it (have you actually read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?) Furthermore, we caution that such admissions are not to be made under any circumstances.

It's nothing more than elementary logic. Our advice is to never admit to employing countermeasures. An individual admits to employing the 'measures. Therefore, it can be deduced that said individual is not following our advice.

So you think there is some connection between discovery of what techniques are used to detect countermeasures and a suit by someone that they followed your posted advice, admitted using countermeasures?

Since your hypothetical suit revolves around a plaintiff that has been caught using countermeasures, this fact is going to have to be established. Because those who admit to using countermeasures are going to have a pretty tough time advancing the argument that they were following our advice, the detection of the countermeasures will have to be established by the polygrapher. Considering the courts' deep-rooted skepticism of polygraphy, this is going to be a tough thing to prove. The "this chart shows countermeasures—polygraphers universally agree" argument isn't going to get very far.

Do you think that there might be some lawyer out there who would take this case on principal instead of the want of money?

Sure, there are lawyers that take cases on principle. There are also lawyers bring frivolous actions knowing that they have a high profit potential. They are comfortable with rolling the dice on court sanctions and possible disbarment. I'm just not sure that there are all that many attorneys looking to bring frivolous actions with no profit potential like the one you describe above.

Still, I have hope. The costs would pale in comparison to the value of the nationwide publicity that your proposed lawsuit would get us.

[gelb disliker]

damned_already,

Above is the haughty, arrogant and condescending attitude you can expect from your polygraph interrogator should you actually dare to challenge his authority with honest, pointed questions concerning the validity of the polygraph prior to your interrogation.

Hey!  This reference sounds like Edward Gelb!   I think it fits Eddie Gelb to a T!