Old pieces of crap generally fall to ruin before they become genuinely old. If it is old enough to be old, and still usable, it is a well-made item and the craftsman deserves to be recognized for a lasting contribution.
I value some things that are older than I am, but not just because they're old. I like Craftsman bungalows and Art Deco items for their design rather than their age.
You are obviously a person of great discernment and taste. Fortunately (although never really out of style...), Mission or Arts and Crafts design is experiencing another resurgence, as is Deco.
Fact is, you and your accompanying colleague accepted the conventional wisdom (and unfortunately still accepted in some quarters) that polygraph tests actually determine if the subject is lying. What they detect are the physiological or behavior signs of stress or fear. The all too fallible results are generally not admissible in court. But, despite the so-called science behind them having been repeatedly debunked and a marked tendency toward false-positive results, they are still being used by some law enforcement organizations and in far too many government job screenings, in particular. The upshot is that your overly cautious (as indicated by his driving) snout or informant was more likely driven by generalized fear and anxiety (as the overly cautious often are), than necessarily concern about being caught out as a liar. So, putting your faith in at best questionable science may have cost you a NYPC award, maybe even a third Pulitzer --- or at least a raise to $125 a week.
Let us not forget that this was in 1974 or 1975 and that Gene was, as are most 24-25 year olds, pretty much an ignoramus. And in those years, most people were pretty ignorant about the polygraph. So accepting conventional wisdom would not have been a significant sin at the time. After all, there had to be a time in which such "wisdom" still was, in fact, thoroughly conventional.
There were already questions being raised at the time about the reliability of polygraph tests. But the point is, Gene otherwise had no reason to doubt the veracity of his source --- at least he didn't mention any misgivings and in fact, said he was able to confirm some of what he was told or given as evidence. So, instead of looking for similar ways to confirm other supposed evidence, he went for the shiny object. That not only did the source agree to the test, but drove Gene and his partner to it (albeit very carefully) also raises doubts. Assuming there was more meat on the bone of the story, appears to me Gene and the authorizing exec editor outsmarted themselves. I gather his paper didn't print a qualification of some kind about the installments already published based on the sole source for their underlying evidence having failed a lie detector test.
I am very familiar with the polygraph machines, and they detect response. You’re correct. A GOOD operator sets a baseline and sometimes other parameters to use. You aren’t showing a “true-false” monitor, you’re interpreting much more. Nothing is infallible, but you’re wrong to discard their value outside of court.
They are better than flipping a coin to figure out whether someone is telling the truth, but far from achieving consistent and reliable results. The issue is how and when they are used and the extent to which their results have salience or are given prominence among other observations or considerations. In Gene's anecdote, he didn't indicate he had any previous reason to believe his source was playing fast and loose with the truth before the lie detector test, just that he thought it best to cover his young ass (and that of his no doubt equally young colleague). Not a bad thing to do, under the circumstances, but hardly unequivocal evidence of lying. It was simply easier to take the path of least resistance and drop the story, which probably would have run its course shortly thereafter anyway.
About today's poll, my opinion varies, depending on what the old thing is. (My husband and I are two of those old things.) I am sentimental about items passed down to me from loved ones. I do prefer houses and furniture made in classic colonial style to the modern styles of today. I love classic clothes, paintings and songs, and believe that old appliances were made to last and today they are not. Jewelry does not interest me, though I love the rock and gem collection at the Smithsonian! My idea of a fun Saturday has never included visiting antique stores, yet I love seeing well-made items of the past in museums, especially the museum in Colonial Williamsburg, which, by the way Gene, has a wonderful collection of antique clocks. I treasured my Grandmother's treadle Singer sewing machine which started me on my love of sewing at age 13, yet I am awestruck by the touch-screen machines of today and the research and effort that have gone into creating them.
I have noted a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but which no one else has noted. Maybe it's just me, or my browser, but... how come the letter 'y' and the letter 'x' do not come through in the boldface text in Gene's entry? The 'y' simply disappears, and the 'x' is replaced by a double-quote. What gives, man?
For the past four years, I have been methodically going thru my parents "stuff", well mostly my mother's. after inheriting their pretty stuffed with stuff house. The best thing my Mom did was to create a "packing list" for all the boxes from the house they lived in for 40 years to the retirement home - which I discovered in a three ring binder underneath a bed in the guest room along with 20+ years of bank statements and financial docs. Mom included the "provenance", as they say on Antiques Roadshow, to just about everything. If she had not done that, I wouldn't have known that the green colored glass citrus squeezer hanging up on a hook near the oven was once owned by her paternal grandmother. Given the approximate time frame of its manufacture, along with the light green coloring, I deduced that it is likely made of uranium glass. It's also about the only thing from that Great Grandma in the house. It's a keeper. And I moved it to a safer location. YMMV.
As much as it pains me, I must grudgingly offer my congratulations on the Evil Empire returning to the Fall Classic. Sometimes paying a guy a reported $31MM for the season pays off.
I’ve seen enough of lie detectors in “true crime” TV that I’ve decided I don’t want to know too much about them, lest I ever find myself subject to one. I’d be completely overthinking the thing the whole time and assuredly tripping it up.
I know a tiny bit about lie detectors and have been tested and passed. But the real expert wrote a book "Of Spies and Lies" and it may be the best source you can get.
I cannot select any of the responses to the poll. Whether and how much I value the artifact depends on its history with me, my family and my friends.
Trying to “heart” this one because that’s exactly how I feel. My father’s childrens rocking chair I value. The fact that it’s antique I don’t care.
"anti-que?"
Old pieces of crap generally fall to ruin before they become genuinely old. If it is old enough to be old, and still usable, it is a well-made item and the craftsman deserves to be recognized for a lasting contribution.
Yep. An old piece of crap is still crap. An old, preserved interesting item, like say a clock, has value, at least to some.
I value some things that are older than I am, but not just because they're old. I like Craftsman bungalows and Art Deco items for their design rather than their age.
You are obviously a person of great discernment and taste. Fortunately (although never really out of style...), Mission or Arts and Crafts design is experiencing another resurgence, as is Deco.
Fact is, you and your accompanying colleague accepted the conventional wisdom (and unfortunately still accepted in some quarters) that polygraph tests actually determine if the subject is lying. What they detect are the physiological or behavior signs of stress or fear. The all too fallible results are generally not admissible in court. But, despite the so-called science behind them having been repeatedly debunked and a marked tendency toward false-positive results, they are still being used by some law enforcement organizations and in far too many government job screenings, in particular. The upshot is that your overly cautious (as indicated by his driving) snout or informant was more likely driven by generalized fear and anxiety (as the overly cautious often are), than necessarily concern about being caught out as a liar. So, putting your faith in at best questionable science may have cost you a NYPC award, maybe even a third Pulitzer --- or at least a raise to $125 a week.
Let us not forget that this was in 1974 or 1975 and that Gene was, as are most 24-25 year olds, pretty much an ignoramus. And in those years, most people were pretty ignorant about the polygraph. So accepting conventional wisdom would not have been a significant sin at the time. After all, there had to be a time in which such "wisdom" still was, in fact, thoroughly conventional.
There were already questions being raised at the time about the reliability of polygraph tests. But the point is, Gene otherwise had no reason to doubt the veracity of his source --- at least he didn't mention any misgivings and in fact, said he was able to confirm some of what he was told or given as evidence. So, instead of looking for similar ways to confirm other supposed evidence, he went for the shiny object. That not only did the source agree to the test, but drove Gene and his partner to it (albeit very carefully) also raises doubts. Assuming there was more meat on the bone of the story, appears to me Gene and the authorizing exec editor outsmarted themselves. I gather his paper didn't print a qualification of some kind about the installments already published based on the sole source for their underlying evidence having failed a lie detector test.
Indeed, polygraphs are just tools for detectives to gain leverage.
I am very familiar with the polygraph machines, and they detect response. You’re correct. A GOOD operator sets a baseline and sometimes other parameters to use. You aren’t showing a “true-false” monitor, you’re interpreting much more. Nothing is infallible, but you’re wrong to discard their value outside of court.
They are better than flipping a coin to figure out whether someone is telling the truth, but far from achieving consistent and reliable results. The issue is how and when they are used and the extent to which their results have salience or are given prominence among other observations or considerations. In Gene's anecdote, he didn't indicate he had any previous reason to believe his source was playing fast and loose with the truth before the lie detector test, just that he thought it best to cover his young ass (and that of his no doubt equally young colleague). Not a bad thing to do, under the circumstances, but hardly unequivocal evidence of lying. It was simply easier to take the path of least resistance and drop the story, which probably would have run its course shortly thereafter anyway.
About today's poll, my opinion varies, depending on what the old thing is. (My husband and I are two of those old things.) I am sentimental about items passed down to me from loved ones. I do prefer houses and furniture made in classic colonial style to the modern styles of today. I love classic clothes, paintings and songs, and believe that old appliances were made to last and today they are not. Jewelry does not interest me, though I love the rock and gem collection at the Smithsonian! My idea of a fun Saturday has never included visiting antique stores, yet I love seeing well-made items of the past in museums, especially the museum in Colonial Williamsburg, which, by the way Gene, has a wonderful collection of antique clocks. I treasured my Grandmother's treadle Singer sewing machine which started me on my love of sewing at age 13, yet I am awestruck by the touch-screen machines of today and the research and effort that have gone into creating them.
What will the major announcement be? Any guesses? The Post is taking us back? A special Election jokes edition? A new judge?
I suggest, in a great and long overdue burst of contrition, it will be Gene and Pat finally revealing their consistently inking love children.
Depends on the antique. Some have more meaning than others. See: https://www.c-ville.com/keeping-time
I have noted a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but which no one else has noted. Maybe it's just me, or my browser, but... how come the letter 'y' and the letter 'x' do not come through in the boldface text in Gene's entry? The 'y' simply disappears, and the 'x' is replaced by a double-quote. What gives, man?
For the past four years, I have been methodically going thru my parents "stuff", well mostly my mother's. after inheriting their pretty stuffed with stuff house. The best thing my Mom did was to create a "packing list" for all the boxes from the house they lived in for 40 years to the retirement home - which I discovered in a three ring binder underneath a bed in the guest room along with 20+ years of bank statements and financial docs. Mom included the "provenance", as they say on Antiques Roadshow, to just about everything. If she had not done that, I wouldn't have known that the green colored glass citrus squeezer hanging up on a hook near the oven was once owned by her paternal grandmother. Given the approximate time frame of its manufacture, along with the light green coloring, I deduced that it is likely made of uranium glass. It's also about the only thing from that Great Grandma in the house. It's a keeper. And I moved it to a safer location. YMMV.
As much as it pains me, I must grudgingly offer my congratulations on the Evil Empire returning to the Fall Classic. Sometimes paying a guy a reported $31MM for the season pays off.
Gene, did that Arlene reporter eventually become The Rib?
I’ve seen enough of lie detectors in “true crime” TV that I’ve decided I don’t want to know too much about them, lest I ever find myself subject to one. I’d be completely overthinking the thing the whole time and assuredly tripping it up.
I know a tiny bit about lie detectors and have been tested and passed. But the real expert wrote a book "Of Spies and Lies" and it may be the best source you can get.
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/9780700611683/