Florida Terror-Alert Students Refuse Lie Tests

NewsMax.com ^ | 9/18/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[Gracey]

jmichel@larkinhospital.com

This is the e-mail addy, in case anyone wants to write to Larkin Hospital and tell them your thoughts.

[solmar_israel]

Yes, people like that are why its 99.99% and not 100.

He is not your typical polygraphie...

My point is that the average person is not equipped to trick the polygraph, even if they download all those nice little 'how to' guides from the internet.

I guarantee you those guys in question (in this post) are no Aldrich Ames. Additionally, I never said rely on it solely. It is simply one important tool amongst many.

[Misterioso]

There are already people on FR calling for their heads - that's who cares.

This issue has brought out quite a few hang'em-from-the-closest-tree types. I forget that the Jerry Springer audience hangs around here until something like this shows up. It's times like this when you realize that alcohol and FR don't mix so well.

[John T. Kennedy]

Yes, people like that are why its 99.99% and not 100

If you did an actual scientific study of it you'd find that it was nothing like 99% acurate. It's junk science.

[solmar_israel]

I didn't say the polygraph is 99% accurate.

I said a clear positive, when administered by a professional (for example, someone doing background checks at the CIA, or a cop with a lot of experience) is 99.99% accurate.

[MadisonA]

Well in my opinion I think the woman was telling the truth Here is what happened IMO.....the men were royally pissed off at being "singled out" as terrorists everywhere they went after 9/11 because of their ethnicity. So they decided to get even by giving people something to really sweat about. I don't think they counted on the woman taking serious action and they thought they would continue on with the rest of their day like nothing ever happened. She would have to be a mental nutcase to go after 3 men for absolutely no reason right after a pleasant breakfast with her son. Those people are out there though.

My opinion on polygraphs is that they are very good. I think they're correct 90% of the time, if not more. Personally I think incorrect results are false negatives in favor of liars.

[goody2shooz]

They are spouting lies.

Few young men are capable of telling the truth when they've done something really stupid, never mind that as Muslims their religion allows them to lie to non-Muslims.

So you go right ahead and have a snit over this. But I tell you, they are lying and Eunice Stone is telling the truth.

[goody2shooz]

"...calling for their heads..."

Puh-leeze! You're exagerrating.

These three young men did something really, really stupid and they ended up with a lot of negative attention. More than likely their relatives all jumped down their throats and now to save face the three are spouting lies.

Taking a polygraph for something like this is not a life or death event, it is a "no brainer". The fact they've refused, and Eunice Stone has not speaks volumns about her integrity.

Coming clean and telling the truth would be mature. Frankly, I wouldn't want any of the three as my doctor, since they neither tell the truth nor take responsibility for their actions.

[MHGinTN]

4. to make a fuss to discourage others from reporting suspicious behavior. Would they do that?... Do ya think they're planning something?[/sarcasm]

[The Great Satan]

The refusal came after their accuser, Georgia resident Eunice Stone, said she'd be willing to submit to a lie test to prove her story, challenging them to do the same.

Hmmm, I believe this woman's telling the truth, and the three muslim types are liars.

[John T. Kennedy]

Taking a polygraph for something like this is not a life or death event, it is a "no brainer". The fact they've refused, and Eunice Stone has not speaks volumns about her integrity.

Do you draw the same conclusion about Anita Hill, who took a polygraph, and Clarence Thomas, who wouldn't?

[aruanan]

Hildy, toenail's entirely correct about polygraphs. They are notoriously unreliable. "...in the hands of a properly trained expert" in the case of polygraphs is like saying, "Well, a real psychic can so see the future".

[aruanan]

Please tell me you're jokeing.

I don't think so, but we can hope. However, given the high level of knee-jerk jingoism on a lot of threads....If someone came up with the idea of singing "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy" while waving a U.S. flag with one hand and the other one resting on the Bible in order to demonstrate their "with us"-ness, some of these people would declare those who declined such a moronic exercise as being "with the terrorists". Yeah, witches can't be drowned so our experience indicates either a non-existent population of witches, due to all the drowned non-witches, (which can't be true because we know there are witches) or a specialized ability of witches to avoid having to take the test. Because of this, we can see that anyone who is against the test must, therefore, be either a witch or a witch supporter!

In the case of Muslim terrorists, there exists, indeed, the equivalent of witches. Some people, though, caught up in the hysteria of trying to apprehend them, see every means proposed as being reliable on account of what it promises to deliver, not on what it actually can deliver. Because of this, they see any criticism of the means as support of that which the means was intended to detect. This is truly reasoning on the brain stem level.

[goody2shooz]

Yes.