Helenjw
|
posted on September 18, 2002 03:02:20 PM new
Linda_K
I've never read so many different versions of one story in 10 years.
Several hours after Eunice had been identified as a diner, she was still being described as a waitress.
The alleged conversation changed several times.
Helen
|
donny
|
posted on September 18, 2002 03:08:08 PM new
Answer the question in general terms? What is the question?
Look at the title of this thread, Stusi. "Terrorists caught in Florida!"
You jumped to a conclusion. You were wrong.
Have you said that? Have you acknowledged - Gee, I jumped to a conclusion, I was wrong.
This woman did the same. And you won't hear her say "I jumped to a conclusion, and I was wrong" either. What she'll do, just as you're doing now, is continue digging herself into a hole.
This isn't surprising. This woman is a dumbass. This is what dumbasses do. Feel free to carry on, Stusi.
|
aposter
|
posted on September 18, 2002 06:38:22 PM new
Around the same time this came out, someone speaking on a radio talk show said "I called Cheney and told him to turn on the TV."
I don't believe they were talking about this incident. But, I was thinking it wasn't the first time I have heard of top officials watching network TV for the latest news.
That is scary.
JMHO, I think Helen is right about different variations of this story. I didn't hear any more after I turned ABC News off on that day, but it sounds like the muck rakers were out.
It is funny, but I have NPR on all day long and I didn't hear any guests from the incident and after that day I didn't hear anything about the incident. Maybe it was just entertainment TV milking it to death.
Or maybe it was on when I was out on errands.
[ edited by aposter on Sep 18, 2002 06:46 PM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on September 18, 2002 07:01:26 PM new
donny- You are really missing the point. You are choosing to believe that she made it up. She agreed to take a polygraph test. They refused! You can believe what you want. As they uncover more and more AlQaeda cells here, maybe you will begin to understand the obligation all Americans have to report anything suspicious.
|
donny
|
posted on September 18, 2002 07:17:33 PM new
No, Stusi, it's you who are missing the point.
This whole incident was a prime example of what's wrong with judging people on appearances, jumping to conclusions, and filtering information through our own prejudices.
Like that other mouth-breather, you just keep digging in and digging in. Now it's that they've refused to take a polygraph test. With an exclamation point.
|
stusi
|
posted on September 18, 2002 07:35:07 PM new
donny- isn't calling someone a mouth-breather jumping to conclusions? I will save my mouth-breathing breath and not dialogue with you. Remember not to turn any terrorists in tonight.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on September 18, 2002 10:40:14 PM new
There is a reason lie-detector tests aren't allowed in court: they don't work all that well. A nervous innocent person can come across as a liar, and calm guilty person able to control themselves can come across as a saint.
And besides that, no is required by law to take one. Condemning someone because they refuse to take such a test is ridiculous.
|
Borillar
|
posted on September 19, 2002 10:43:17 AM new
Bunni, the main reason that Lie Detectors are not admissable in court without the concent of the one tested is because the test does not work at all. The machine and measurements taken by the apparatus can not determine if someone is lying or not. What it relies upon is someone trained in reading PEOPLE when first psychologically set up with test questions and then plied with the real questions and to see what the difference in readings are between the two types of questions. Then, it is a matter of the judgement of the test-giver to determine if they fel that you are lying.
I read one university study where students who participated with lie detectors were split into two groups. Both were to tell lies during the test. The first group was informed about how phoiney the process was and was throughly convinced that there was no way for the machine to know that they were lying. The other students were told just the opposite, that the machbine was very accurate and could easily determine if they were lying. The results? Those who believed that the machine could not determine if they were lying got away with lying nearly 100% of the time; whereas only about 40% were able to in the second group.
As far as to WHY these three men would refuse to take a lie detector test, the Muslims that I know would be offended by such a request, as they believe in telling the truth at all times (even though they don't always practice it. LOL!) The students may have felt that their faith in Islam was being challenged with such a thing and would refuse it on general principles alone, even if they really did tell a lie.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on September 19, 2002 11:44:07 AM new
When giving a polygraph a trained person can obtain 3 kinds of results, truth, lie, and undecisive in a single test instance. Any trained polygraphist discards and reports the undecisive without predjudice to the person tested. Of the remaining, test after test has shown the results to be accurate to 87.5% with "truth" a more certain test than "lie". If the "undecisive" subjects can be given a series of multiple tests to create a baseline, then many of them can subsequently be determined to be "truth" or "lie".
The judges decision to disallow admission of tests was not based on accuracy. Many forms of evidence with less than 87.5% accuracy are permissible. The test was not submissible because, in the judge's opinion, it might lead to influencing a jury that basically "their job was done for them."
That's why they're used all the time. The most amazing thing they've discovered in years of testing is that very frequently a suspect will confess his crimes before being "uncovered" by a machine.
|
Borillar
|
posted on September 19, 2002 01:16:56 PM new
Yes, many people do believe in the Machine. There is a segment that no matter how they tell the truth, the machine and the polygrapher always determines that the subject is lying. There is a term for these folks, which escapes my memory at the moment, but they are not uncommon. Since the determination process is so subjective, judges wisely refrain from allowing testimony to appear in court, unless the test subject gives written permission to do so, and even then, many judges flat-out will not allow it. I read one article on it where those who are sociopath, who feel no remorse at lying, give false answers to the questions and fly through the test with brilliant colors! Therefore, the only people that it could possibly hope to be accurate on are those who believe that they will be found out if they tell a lie, which includes most of us. But that still does not make it admissible in court as evidence, no matter if the test subject agrees to or not.
[ edited by Borillar on Sep 19, 2002 01:18 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 04:16:46 PM new
According to a surveilance camera video, both cars did stop at the toll booth. When the toll booth operator was asked about her bogus report, she said that she was confused.
|
stusi
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:14:26 PM new
These guys were said to have admitted they made 9/11 related comments jokingly. They then changed their story after further consideration and possible advice of counsel. ANYONE making such comments should be stopped and questioned.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:22:10 PM new
I haven't read anywhere that they admitted making remarks about 9/11. Only Eunice said that.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:26:37 PM new
But, I am sure that if you search you may find anything that you would like to say about these students. What a media fiasco!
|
antiquary
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:37:23 PM new
Eunice sounds to me like she just stepped out of a Eudora Welty story and was briefly disoriented. As to the lie detector test, I've no doubt that she genuinely believes everything that she said.
sp
[ edited by antiquary on Sep 19, 2002 05:38 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:44:34 PM new
antiquary!! 
Eudora could have written a good story about that encounter. lol!
Helen
|
antiquary
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:51:39 PM new
Or Fanny Flagg maybe. 
Today either of them would probably be mistaken for journalists.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 05:54:29 PM new
LOL!
The journalists should change careers and write a novel. It must get boring in the news room. 
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 19, 2002 05:55 PM ]
|
antiquary
|
posted on September 19, 2002 06:03:40 PM new
There is a need today for good fiction writers since so many of the most promising story-tellers have been hired as speech writers for the Bush administration.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 06:19:20 PM new
I'm afraid that Tom Clancy may be moonlighting at the White House.
|
antiquary
|
posted on September 19, 2002 06:39:09 PM new
I think that maybe I detect echos of Stephen King and Anne Rice at times too. You really couldn't fault them for wanting to pick up an extra buck while it's still possible.
Nostradamus too! But that's probably just imitative.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 06:47:36 PM new
|
stusi
|
posted on September 19, 2002 07:10:49 PM new
The toll collector is saying that the driver of the second car said" If the other car didn't pay, I will pay for both cars, don't call police".
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 19, 2002 08:22:21 PM new
That's strange, stusi. I saw the video on TV, (MSNBC) Each car stopped at the toll booth and money was given to the woman in the booth.
also related to this story...
It's a common practice for stenographers at the White House to edit or "sanitize" speeches.
The most public allegation of transcript sanitizing was last September, when White House press secretary Ari Fleischer warned that Americans "need to watch what they say." The phrase did not at first appear in the White House transcript. (The stenographers recognized that it was inappropriate in America to make this statement)
Maybe it should have remained. If you mention bringing "it" (car) down, your journey may be delayed.
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2620
|
Borillar
|
posted on September 19, 2002 11:41:29 PM new
The title of the book about the Bush Years will be called, "The Man Who Would Be King"
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 20, 2002 06:19:20 AM new
....of the World
|
aposter
|
posted on September 20, 2002 06:50:03 AM new
...of the world.
No Helen, you are dead wrong on this one!
It is
...of the universe.
Thank god we aren't living on another planet yet so he could contaminate that too.
|
