These studies did show that specific-incident polygraph testing, in a person untrained in counter-measures, could discern the truth at "a level greater than chance, yet short of perfection".

A polygraph is not 50% reliable. As I stated, and as the link I provided you illustrated, when used correctly and under the right conditions, it is *more* than 50% reliable according to a study that was otherwise critical of polygraph tests. Which is why I said that, and qualified my statement appropriately, and…

The actual science shows that under certain conditions, a polygraph is better than random at discerning whether a subject was telling the truth. Thus, in a correctly controlled environment, a polygraph would be useful in the same way other probative evidence is useful: it is a piece of evidence meant to build a…

While neither are 100% reliable, there are also degrees of unreliability. Fact is, judges generally have discretion to allow or disallow the results of lie detector tests in court. This is because a polygraph can be both probative to the question of guilt and relevant to the case. The fact that a lie detector test is…

Like a master Persian rug weaver, I understand that to imitate perfection is an insult to God. Also, have you seen how much an editor costs these days? I mean do I look like a fucking Starbucks to you?

No one suggested a polygraph should be forced upon anyone. It simply calls in to question the reliability of his own polygraph that he did with a team he hired.

I'm not sure I understand the significance of the question. Only a state prosecutor or district attorney can decide to press charges in a criminal proceeding. If you want to know the specifics of the timing, look at this timeline. If you want to get a sense of the outcome of the custody battle, here is a NYT article…

While the polygraph test isn't discussed for obvious reasons, it is worth reading the NY Appellete Court decision on child custody. It verifies a lot of the things Dylan said in her rebuttal of Woody Allen's statement. I can't fine a public link to the original Supreme Court of NY case, but if I do, I will link it.

On the other hand, if she legitimately believes Woody Allen did molest her child, her hatred of him begins to look like a sensible reaction. Therein lies the difficulty in really piecing together what happened. Both sides have provided plausible but flawed narratives.

The real shocker is that Pennywise the Clown seems to agree. Turns out he was really just helping those kids conquer their inner demons all along.

Pitiful though your picayune ponderings present themselves, plainly my prurient punctiliousness positively predispositions me towards pedophilia.

Anyone you meet every day could be a child molester or not but you don't think of it;

It is worth reading Dylan Farrow's response:

I am pretty much in agreement. I think, as the title of the movie implies, it is a film about wrestling with the task of describing a whole with a part, namely the seeming impossibility if describing what it means to live with art. Because of the nature of his ambition, Caden keeps having to make his project larger…

I was skeptical at first, but I must say that this is an impressive act of mimicry. You pretty much nailed it. Are you on soundcloud?

Blackthorne was just a British pilot for a trading vessel. Of course, that wouldn't stop a Hollywood remake from rebranding him as a sexy ninja-pirate, but still.

I've liked it OK so far, but on your advice, I will check out the Australian version.

I take grave offense at that pun.

Having played around with significant quantities of gold, squishy is definitely not an accurate description.

Obviously I failed to beat the devil in my down south typing contest. Gold works way better on a keyboard.