Douglas Williams Pleads Guilty To Training Customers To Beat Polygraph 246
For quite a while, we've been following the case of Douglas Gene Williams, accused of and indicted for teaching people to pass polygraph tests that they might otherwise have been unable to, and for the claims he made in advertising this training -- and specifically for showing his techniques to some undercover Federal agents. Now, reports Ars Technica, Williams has pleaded guilty to five charges of obstruction of justice and mail fraud. From the article: Williams isn't the first person prosecuted for these type of allegations. An Indiana man was accused of offering similar services and was sentenced in 2013 to eight months in prison. The judge presiding over the case said the case blended a "gray area" of First Amendment speech and the unlawful act of instructing people to lie on polygraph tests issued by the federal government.
Williams' site, Polygraph.com, is now defunct.
They wore him down. (Score:5, Insightful)
The indictment says Williams told an undercover agent that "I haven't lived this long and fucked the government this long, and done such a controversial thing that I do for this long, and got away with it without any trouble whatsoever, by being a dumb ass." The authorities said he told another undercover agent that "I've taught a lot of those guys. In fact, there's a lot of government agents—FBI, Secret Service, NSA, all of those alphabet agencies—that have already retired, that I taught, years ago. And I know what I'm doing, and you will pass with no problem."
That's called "puffery" in the law or marketing to the rest of us.
Polygraph machines were invented in 1921 and their results are usually not admissible as evidence in court.
And why was law enforement - the Fucked up Bureau of Idiocy - FBI wasting millions of taxpayer dollars going after this guy?! Hmmm?!
The government wore this guy down, buried him in legal fees, stress, harassment, and just plain assholishness over a man that has shown polygraphs to be pseudo scientific bullshit.
Douglas Williams is actually innocent but just made a plea to get the grunts with the badges and guns off his back.
Re:They wore him down. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lie detectors are weird. They are kind of like Monty Pythons faith based apartment blocks.
They work (more or less) on people who believe they work. If someone publicly exposes how much they don't work, they will stop working at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So they're the placebo of tests?
Re:They wore him down. (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. Except it's being used as a prop by the examiner. Who is the real 'lie detector'. He just bluffs people into fessing up.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Placebos actually work. Lie detectors on the other hand, are just machines for confirming law enforcement biases.
Re: (Score:2)
Orkish technology. It works because everyone involved believes it works. Or doesn't let on otherwise.
I hear the red polygraphs work best.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard more than one defense attorney who has gone up against federal prosecutions admit they recommended suicide to their clients as a preferable alternative to the nightmare of being hounded, persecuted, slowly destroyed, and turned into a pariah by the federal monster.
I'm not even slightly joking.
Re: (Score:2)
I can teach you how to defraud the government.
Hire a tax attorney/CPA to do your taxes.
That or lobby for bills giving your company huge tax breaks and or subsidized tax payer monies.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, this. It seems like the logic here is 'to get a gov't job, you must pass a polygraph test. This man taught people how to skew the results of that test.'
Note that the requirement to get the gov't job isn't 'be truthful and accurate when answering questions about things like criminal history,' but 'pass the polygraph.' Validity of the polygraph doesn't enter into it.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm saying this before I RTFA so I'll revisit this statement if it makes me rethink but...why the fuck is it unlawful to teach people to "defeat" a method that doesn't even hold water within the very same legal system he is forced to plead guilt?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
At that point he is assisting in that person committing fraud.
It is the same for lock picking. You can teach it all you want. However if a person comes up to you and says I want to learn how to pick lock type X so I can break into my neighbors house, you are now in trouble if you teach them how to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes sense in a technical way, I concede. I guess it only brings me back to thinking how wrong (morally and technically) it is that something like polygraph test results are enshrined by law.
Re: (Score:3)
They should have hooked him up to a polygraph machine and asked him if he had ever given someone information about how to lie about a specific crime. If he passed, then he didn't do it!
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that a lot of the government agent type job applicants are very familiar with polygraphs already and likely know how to minimize their effectiveness already.
Maybe somebody applying to be a file clerk at the DEA wouldn't, but my guess is also most of those kinds of jobs aren't subject to this level of scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
And this, kids, is a prime example of what what's known as "wishful thinking".
Pledge innocent and demand polygraph for himself? (Score:2, Funny)
Couldn't he just pledged innocent and prove it with a polygraph test?
Re: (Score:2)
He probably couldn't have passed the test, since the test is so subjective, the examiner knows he can cheat the test, they would just say that the detected him cheating, therefore he has something to hide, therefore he must be lying.
Part of his technique (if you are going to lie) is to not tell the examiner that you know how to bet the test
Knowledge is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not prosecute people who lie under oath.
Or review our policy of using a technology that can be fooled.
No, no. Let's prosecute the guy sharing information. Yeah, that'll make us safe.
Lie detector tests are fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mythbusters Tested a Polygraph (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mythbusters won't air anything that might show people how to break the law without getting caught. So of course they're not going to show someone beating the poly. (Penn & Teller's Bullshit, otoh, did show folks beating a poly.)
For example, their episode on masking license plates from speed cameras was pretty bogus. They showed a few stupid devices, that wouldn't be expected to work, failing (surprise!), then "to prove it could be done" showed a jet-powered dragster passing the speed camera at like
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting to note also that the tests were conducted by Michael Martin, president of âZPresident of the Global Polygraph Network, an advocacy group so far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What spy novels are you reading...
Not nearly true... They ask you a series of questions that you know in advance and nothing the operator says need be taken personally. If they do anything else, it's not really a polygraph.
Political Speech vs. Commercial Speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what? If i create a new business that sells tin toil hats designed to thwart government mind control beams, how is that any different than teaching people how to pass some voodoo science polygraph test?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how they could possibly convict him for publishing or selling information that simply described how to defeat a polygraph. That's a definite First Amendment issue.
He screwed himself by running his mouth about how he had "F****d the government" and by coaching someone to pass the polygraph test, knowing(believing) that their intent in doing so was to get a government job.
Re: (Score:2)
And polygraph results aren't admissible in court.
I hope this guys techniques are all over the internet for everyone to learn and practice.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. There are private outfits that will administer polygraphs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can improve the truth of your statements by redacting some of the excess verbiage:
Polygraphs are only used by government agencies. There aren't any substantial uses for these. Just adding inefficiency to the process.
Re: (Score:2)
From the court transcript... (Score:2, Funny)
Prosecutors were not amused when Douglas volunteered to take a polygraph test to prove that he wasn't teaching people how to beat polygraph tests.
Not really about lie detectors per se (Score:5, Informative)
I took a look at the actual indictment. Well, at least the first few pages. Remember how people still insist to this day that Bill Clinton wasn't impeached (he was - impeaching does not mean convicting) or that he was impeached for "cheating on his wife"? Years later, the lies spun by his spin doctors still hold fast in many minds. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury in a civil trial. Now the event he committed perjury about was cheating on Hilary, but he was impeached for lying about it while under oath, not for the actual act of cheating on her. Similarly, this indictment isn't really and truly about beating lie detector tests. The government's contention is that Williams had a business whose purpose was to enable people ineligible for certain government jobs to get those jobs through lying and deception. This is defrauding the US government because salaries would be paid to those ineligible people. The government also contends that he enriched himself (through fees he charged) by encouraging people to lie to and deceive the federal government into hiring ineligible people for jobs. The first 6 or so pages I looked at don't actually mention anything about lie detector tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling information on how to cheat isn't the same as cheating. In the case of those who used his information, those individuals should be subject to sanction. for example, I can tell you how to hotwire a car. I can even demonstrate it on my own vehicle and provide teaching aids that can allow you to be able to do it yourself. However if you steal a car using the methods I teach, you're committing the crime. I realize that free speech only goes so far such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater but he
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you take that to a logical conclusion then, some religions are guilty of being an accessory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Selling information on how to cheat isn't the same as cheating.
No, but selling information on how to break the law is against the law. It's called being an accessory.
Re:Not really about lie detectors per se (Score:5, Interesting)
While yes, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying on a civil case -- it was a foregone conclusion BEFORE they impeached him that there was no perjury nor would he be able to be convicted.
Perjury charges are usually very difficult for prosecutors to prove because perjury is a crime of intent. This means that a defendant charged with perjury can only be found guilty if the prosecutor shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she intended to make the false statement under oath, or, that the witness told the lie on purpose. As such, criminal attorneys often defend their clients by arguing that the defendant did not intend to lie, or that the party believed the statement to be the truth at the time they made it.
The other thing is that it was not a Material Matter and it was not a criminal case. Having sex or not with Monica Lewinsky had beans to do with whether he forced himself on Jennifer Flowers (her own sister said she was trying to climb that pole for months).
Additionally, the Judge instructed that "sex was copulation between a man and a woman" -- so by the court rules laid out, Clinton's BJ was not considered "sex."
He was impeached, but he did not perjure himself. But he Republicans did, no numerous occasions in order to get him in the hot seat to talk about his penis.
This is just a public service announcement from people sick of us worrying about crap that doesn't matter instead of WAR CRIMES and an asshat like Bush that destroyed our economy, hired mercenaries, profited on war, approved torture, and made a fortune for oil companies and weapons dealers with a direct material benefit back to him -- and YET, we cannot investigate this unless there is a penis involved.
And we have another one of these scumbags from this rotten family in the pipe to go into office again and half the country thinks the Clintons are "more corrupt" even though they were exonerated on all 5 charges that Kenneth Starr spent 5 long years and more money than the 9.11 committee investigating.
Re: (Score:3)
"His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” Mark Sanford, Congressman from SC1 at the time.
(This is the same Mark Sanford who as Governor of SC was censured by the General Assembly for using public funds for travel to conduct an extramartial affair.)
Re: (Score:2)
The government's contention is that Williams had a business whose purpose was to enable people ineligible for certain government jobs to get those jobs through lying and deception.
What was the result when they hooked him up to a lie detector and asked him if this was his intention?
Re: (Score:2)
2) the republicans who pressure their interns for sex are all having gay sex.
Re: (Score:3)
He had sex with Monica under any reasonable definition of 'sex' (c.f. the cigar & dress) and had to try to contort the meaning of the word 'is'.
He was given bad instructions by the judge in how to answer the question, so he answered the (bad) question with the only truthful answer. That's not a lie.
Re: (Score:3)
He failed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He committed the crime of perjury while under oath in a trial.
He answered every question asked in a truthful manner, under the rules of the court he was sworn to answer to.
By your silly "you must tell all the truth anyone would want to know, regarless of the questions asked" implication, anyone found guilty in court who didn't confess, should have perjury added to their sentence.
I foolishly assume you have sources for that?
Yes. Have you not seen the large number of scandals involving married anti-gay Republicans having gay sex with pages and interns? If you are that dumb, nothing I say could cure it. If you
What can I say? (Score:2)
Frankly (Score:2)
beating a lie detector should be taught in elementary school...
Re: (Score:3)
It is, in Catholic schools. They just don't call it that.
Back at St Genevieve, I learned how to look Sister Margaret dead in the eyes and tell her, "No, sister, I didn't touch Donna Tomasina's ass in the hallway". And let me tell you, Sister Mags was a lot more accurate than any polygraph. And her punishment more swift and sure.
Ban plea deals (Score:5, Interesting)
No one should be coerced to plead guilty against the threat of huge sanctions.
Prosecutions are stacked against the defendant, particularly federal prosecutions. They are alone with their own resources against buildings full of government lawyers drawing a salary, with no incentive to seek justice, just convictions to pad their stats.
By forcing him to plead guilty to a lesser charge (to avoid something silly like 18 consecutive death sentences, or whatever they came up with), the rest of us are duped into believing that he actually did something wrong. Pleas should only be allowed on all charges, or none. Anything in between is institutional coercion, a corruption of justice.
Further, there should be a very, very high bar against charging someone for going about their ordinary business. If his business isn't illegal in general, it shouldn't be illegal when government agents lie to him.
If you pre-pay at a gas station and tell the cashier that you are filling up because you like your getaway car to be in top condition before you rob a bank, is that guy now a felon for not refusing your business? By the logic of this case, if you are an undercover cop he is.
We should be pissed about this. But we aren't. Why not?
Any other training illegal? (Score:2)
It is legal to teach people how to cheat at cards - they are called 'magic' lessons.
But illegal to teach people how to defeat a machine that is not allowable in a court of law?
Does anyone know of any other skill that it is illegal to teach? Anything?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to call BS on at least part of this statement. It is not illegal to build your own firearm, one of the primary weapons used in war. How could teaching how to build one be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
N/m I misread. Um, so yeah, you're right.
Not admissible does not mean not useful (Score:2)
Say a lie detector is correct 90% of the time. That would certainly be useful in a variety of situations as long as the results were supplemented by other information.
But would you want to use that in court? Juries would be so biased to follow whatever the lie detector said, no matter what the other evidence showed.
There is a reason we still use them, just not in court proceeding.
This is how a polygraph really works (Score:3)
Re:The trick... (Score:4, Interesting)
The other method is to simply be born a psychopath with an absence of conscience. So what point the test when 1% of the human population, 20% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes are the statistics for psychopaths. So what are they trying to achieve, let 50% of violent crimes go unprosecuted when those psychopaths readily pass the test.
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Interesting)
The other method is to simply be born a psychopath with an absence of conscience. So what point the test when 1% of the human population, 20% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes are the statistics for psychopaths.
And, apparently, many (most?) CEOs are psychopaths. Which Professions Have the Most Psychopaths? [time.com] (there's a list):
CEO is the profession with the most psychopaths.
Also noted here [washingtontimes.com] and here [forbes.com] and ... oh just Google "ceo" "psychopath"
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it actually in law that you can't tell folks how to beat a polygraph....or were they saying they were advertising this advice for sale but it was a fraud?
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's more that he was specifically stating that he would assist his customers in lying to the government on job applications and the like.
In unrelated news, I'm hosting a class on how to beat lie detectors, but it's for entertainment purposes only. And I'll take a lie detector test to prove it.
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pffff. . . . Loophole.
All he has to do is change the wording of his website a bit.
From " I will teach you how to lie to the Federal Government " to " I will teach you how to lie LIKE the Federal Government " and all will be golden.
He can even call it a " Politician Boot Camp ".
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what happened. Williams was instructing people on how to beat a machine that's not even reliable enough to be used in legal proceedings.
I imagine Williams doesn't have the resources, but I'm not sure I believe this would have held up under judicial scrutiny at a higher level.
I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exer
Re:The trick... (Score:4, Insightful)
that's actually what happened. he was contacted for his services by two undercover feds claiming they wanted to apply for federal gov't jobs; one said he'd slept with underage girls and the other said he'd smuggled drugs across the u.s. border. both wanted to beat a polygraph for the fed jobs (and told him as much) and he helped them both.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
FBI sting operations that seek to entrap people into breaking the law are really scummy.
It's just a shame Williams didn't make his customers submit to a "before" polygraph exam, to see whether or not they were feds.
Re: (Score:2)
I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exercises. We use a machine that measures heart rate and galvanic skin response to test our students. Once they learn the techniques, they can do with them what they want. It's not on me.
And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really how you cheat a lie detector you do math in your head (or other technique) on the calibration lie questions, e.g. did you ever cheat in school? The questions you are really trying to hide do nothing. So your physiological response is higher on them so they don't think you are lying on the actual questions.
Maybe what I just said, is illegal then again I am not in the US.
Also his book is/was available for free, I assume he charged for actual lessons with actual polygraphs, which actually us
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure what point people who push that statistic are trying to get across. Being a psychopath doesn't inherently make you a bad person, it turns out that it's just a description of how your brain is physically wired.
In many respects, having your brain wired that way is quite useful. For example, any profession that requires a high sense of objectivity would be much better performed by somebody who can turn off emotion like a switch and only turn it on when it suits them, which is a common trait in psy
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think your reasoning is very sound. Isn't it possible to be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer, and also be a bad person? Or, more specific to this argument, isn't it possible for a trait which makes you a great scientist to also make you a bad person? More importantly, is it possible to lack that trait, or to be a good person, and still be a great scientist, judge, journalist, or lawyer?
I believe the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The dirty little part left unsaid by many is that they think being truly objective IS being a bad person.
Re: (Score:2)
... somebody who can turn off emotion like a switch and only turn it on when it suits them ...
I think the problematic phrase is "when it suits them" and I would speculate that it rarely suits them to turn their emotions on and empathize with others, especially when doing so would conflict with personal gain.
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Psychopaths are able to look at the situation dispassionately, and make better utilitarian decisions, that bring the most benefit to the most people.
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader. Star ship captains get promoted to admiral by completing their mission, not saving their friends. Generals advance in rank by winning battles. CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
I think most people don't understand why psychopathy is. If they are so wary of psychopaths, why do they keep voting for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader. Star ship captains get promoted to admiral by completing their mission, not saving their friends. Generals advance in rank by winning battles. CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
A psychopath CEO will see the fine associated with dumping toxins in a river is smaller than the increased profits to be realized by not disposing of chemicals legally: organization and CEO goals aligned. A person with a conscience will a) want to obey a reasonable law and b) have some moral qualms about potentially poisoning a bunch of people, regardless of whether it will be traced back to them.
Corporations are basically amoral, immortal, and wield an enormous amount of influence in politics. One of the
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader.
Most organisations (I spell UK) have some sort of collective purpose otherwise they wouldn't be organisations. Inherently opposed to the selfish objectives of the psychopath.
CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
Often temporarily, only for it to tank right after they deploy their golden parachute. Or even before, they design it to work either way. This bonus idea was invented in the 70s. Even some business professors have started to notice it hasn't always worked out.
why do they keep voting for them?
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it
Re: (Score:2)
Because the ballot only has a choice between psycopath A and psycopath B.
Occassionally, an option for a third candidate with a different DSMIV diagnosis appears also.
Re: (Score:2)
I think being a psychopath (or having some of those traits) makes you more likely to be a leader because more likely to manipulate your way to the top. Whether you are better leader is questionable.
Captain Kirk was a bad leader, he would risk the entire ship, go down on way missions, but this was not because he was a not a psychopath, it was because it made a more interesting show. A psychopath will do what is in their best interest, not the crews, maybe go on way missions so you can get the hot alien chick
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confused psychopath with sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
according to this: http://www.differencebetween.n... [differencebetween.net] it is far more likely that they are psychopaths.
For better or worse, there are few differences between psychopaths and sociopaths. Some medical dictionaries even consider them to be synonymous
however the differences it does list basically say, a psychopath is an organized, successful sociopath.
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Interesting)
Suspected psychopaths can be identified through other traits, however if they're sufficiently high-functioning it typically takes a forensic psychologist and a bit of time to resolve. So you have to have both suspicion that someone is a pathological liar and access to a trained person to sort things out. So on the one hand it doesn't make them magically immune to investigation, but it does require different resources than standard police techniques. FBI staff for example do get some training in this area, but you need to have experience interviewing actual psychopaths to prepare you for dealing with them, it's one thing reading about them but quite another experiencing them in person.
(Incidentally, if people think Hannibal Lecter when they hear "psychopath" then think again, although he had some psychopathic traits (grandiose sense of self), he was really just yet another Hollywood-ised mad killer. The character from Wolf of Wall Street is probably the closest Hollywood has come to an accurate portrayal of a psychopath).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is not to clench your anus while you lie.
It is to clench your anus while the machine is being calibrated, prior to the questions.
Then, while you lie (or tell the truth but simply feel uncomfortable) the machine will not register your anxiety because it has been calibrated too high.
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Funny)
No matter how many of these tests I do, I still really dislike that anal probe that measures how stressed my anus is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From an information theoretic point of view, I would think you would want to clench your anus with 50% probability on each response, during calibration and use.
Re:The trick... (Score:5, Funny)
Um, that wasn't a lie detector.
Re: (Score:2)
It is to clench your anus while the machine is being calibrated, prior to the questions.
An obvious solution would be to have a sensor in the seat cushion to detect the clenching. In the past, people cheated by putting a thumbtack in their shoe. Now, polygraphs are usually administered with shoes removed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is to clench your anus while the machine is being calibrated, prior to the questions.
An obvious solution would be to have a sensor in the seat cushion to detect the clenching. In the past, people cheated by putting a thumbtack in their shoe. Now, polygraphs are usually administered with shoes removed.
That is already standard practice for some polygraphs.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahww That stinks you know...
Re:Illeagal Teaching? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a slightly more, shall we say, nuanced but generally agreeing position, in that much in the way I associate with people that are referred to as "hackers", are really people that are simply curious and want to learn how to do things, but in general aren't interested in doing anything criminal with that information.
And that's a GOOD THING.
I've had to explain to a few people why knowing about things like Trojans and rootkits, and lockpicking and social engineering is GOOD in the hands of good people who can use it to defend against people who aren't nearly as good.
It's better than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalala bad things won't get me if I just ignore them".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like teaching anyone anything should never be illegal. Wanting to learn is the most natural human trait in the world.
Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MRA conspiracy theory #736.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you're just being goofy, I want you to stop and think.
I mean really THINK.
Is it possible to verify this? If you THINK about it, you'll realize the answer is yes -- you can verify it.
Next time you see a gender politics thread, give it a whirl. Do a few anon posts, do a few signed in. Try taking a position that agrees. Try taking a position that disagrees. See what stays and what's left.
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually documented that except for last Friday, there have been MRA clickbait articles on Slashdot every single Friday going back to 2014.
And every single one of them has comments that include the term, "SJW".
Now, the fact that someone unironically uses the term "SJW" in a posted story is probably
Re: (Score:2)
The man has to plead guilty for telling the truth. Lie test is just a scam to begin with, and the guy is just instructing people how to beat the scam.
Polygraphs are NOT scams, they are but a tool you can use to try and determine if somebody is lying or not. But like any tool, they have their limitations. Just like that stud finder in your tool box sometimes doesn't show the stud, or may report one that's not really there, polygraphs may have false triggers and fail to spot the real thing.
If you are intent on getting away with your lie, you don't beat the polygraph really, you trick the operator who's using the polygraph. He was training folks the me