Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CONDIT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (150)	7/14/2001 11:14:19 AM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1669

If he had failed the test (shock!), we would never know about it.

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (150)	7/14/2001 12:46:36 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 1669

>>What if he had failed the private test. Would you be as quick to discount the results?<< That's a very excellent and fair question... probably not, but it would strengthen my hunch that he's guilty, and I would probably have said he can't even pass a make believe polygraph in non-hostile surroundings... again, I would have to agree with Carolyn, we would never know he took a polygraph if he had failed a private test... of course, he may have taken 25 private polygraph practice tests during that same session until he finally got so use to taking the test that he was able to lie successfully... in other words, how many mulligans did he take before he took the 'real' test... no one will ever know the real circumstances surrounding this private test... this is why I discount that test, it's a mockery... certainly, a police polygraph test is far more valid since it's under a more controlled setting, although I agree with you in general that polygraphs are useless and do not hold up in court... still, his obvious avoidance of a police polygraph only add further to his overall guilty demeanor..... GZ

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (150)	7/14/2001 12:58:52 PM
From: PatiBob	Respond to of 1669

What ever happened to truth serum? I know it's been used in the past......ok.......very way past. You just don't hear about it anymore.

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (150)	7/15/2001 10:56:37 AM
From: D.Austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1669

>>What if he had failed the private test. Would you be as quick to discount the results?<< One more---- In 1998, based on the findings of a lie-detector test conducted by Mr. Colvert, former Teamsters President Ron Carey denied under oath before a union watchdog agency any wrongdoing regarding suspected fraud in his re-election campaign. Mr. Carey swore he never embezzled any money from the union to help finance his campaign and knew nothing of a scheme to do so. Mr. Colvert said at the time Mr. Carey had passed his test with flying colors and there were no "indications of deception." A year later Mr. Carey was indicted on charges of perjury and making false statements during the investigation of his re-election, and currently faces a federal trial. He was ousted as president of the union after court-appointed investigators determined he was guilty of "extraordinarily serious misconduct" and had lied concerning his knowledge of the scheme. washtimes.com