Dave Cullen whines about his hard life

I don't want to seem insensitive here, since Dave is writing about the tragedy in Orlando, but I think this is borderline ridiculous:

Dave Cullen wrote:

Seven years ago, I published a book on Columbine. Since then my inbox erupts after each mass murder—editors and news producers, asking me to address the same maddening question: why does this keep happening?

For the worst attacks, I’ll spend a week or two in deep immersion: hashing it out with psychologists and criminologists, and crystallizing the best ideas for print and TV.

It’s emotionally exhausting, but I hardly ever cry—that comes much later, if I’m lucky. More often, when I’m working, I go numb, and it’s hard to feel anything through that. I can feel the joy draining out of me, like a spigot has opened somewhere inside, but I can’t feel how or where or why it all goes. And then, when my part is over, I need a drink.

Cry me a fucking river, Dave. No one is asking you to go on national television and talk about every single mass shooting as if you're The Guy Who Knows Everything About Mass Shootings. You're doing this because you want the attention, or you think it will help your book sales. That's fine, but spare me the Oh-My-God-I-Am-So-Tormented crap.

Get over yourself.

P.S.: Your book is almost as full of shit now as it was seven years ago.

(I said almost because he did finally, after many years of listening to us bitch and moan about it, snip out the part about Brenda Parker. But I'll bet that he left in all of that maddening "Eric Harris got girls" bullshit. If he didn't, then please let me know. I'm certainly not going to buy another copy of it.)

You only get my money once, Dave..

Ewwwwwww what a phony! That's way too exaggerated. Nothing informative was even said there. I'm not here to hear about your feelings Cullen!

LPorter101 wrote:

I don't want to seem insensitive here, since Dave is writing about the tragedy in Orlando, but I think this is borderline ridiculous:

Dave Cullen wrote:

Seven years ago, I published a book on Columbine. Since then my inbox erupts after each mass murder—editors and news producers, asking me to address the same maddening question: why does this keep happening?

For the worst attacks, I’ll spend a week or two in deep immersion: hashing it out with psychologists and criminologists, and crystallizing the best ideas for print and TV.

It’s emotionally exhausting, but I hardly ever cry—that comes much later, if I’m lucky. More often, when I’m working, I go numb, and it’s hard to feel anything through that. I can feel the joy draining out of me, like a spigot has opened somewhere inside, but I can’t feel how or where or why it all goes. And then, when my part is over, I need a drink.

Cry me a fucking river, Dave. No one is asking you to go on national television and talk about every single mass shooting as if you're The Guy Who Knows Everything About Mass Shootings. You're doing this because you want the attention, or you think it will help your book sales. That's fine, but spare me the Oh-My-God-I-Am-So-Tormented crap.

Get over yourself.

P.S.: Your book is almost as full of shit now as it was seven years ago.

(I said almost because he did finally, after many years of listening to us bitch and moan about it, snip out the part about Brenda Parker. But I'll bet that he left in all of that maddening "Eric Harris got girls" bullshit. If he didn't, then please let me know. I'm certainly not going to buy another copy of it.)

You only get my money once, Dave..

VERY MUCH AGREED.I hate to say this since it's not nice but I've heard more than one person refer to him as a "media whore" and I have to say I agree.

LOL I guess researching mass shootings can be emotionally draining but what a FWP for him. No one has a gun to his head making him do any of this. But he is "oh so strong"

I honestly dont blame him. He was there when that happened.

None of us have any idea what that must be like. It can be a tough is due to talk about even for someone like me that have never even experienced something remotely like gun violence.

No offensive,OP, and the ut your being kind off insensitive.

I honestly do blame him, because nobody is putting a gun to his head (figuratively speaking, of course) and forcing him to go on CNN.

Save your sympathy for the real victims, not the charlatans like Cullen.

Does anybody still watch CNN? I haven't been to an airport in a while, so I wouldn't know.

It isn't wrong to feel burdened when exposed to suffering. I would question more why you would voluntarily choose to read the thoughts of someone you dislike and become angry that they have normal feelings.

LPorter101 wrote:

I honestly do blame him, because nobody is putting a gun to his head (figuratively speaking, of course) and forcing him to go on CNN.

Save your sympathy for the real victims, not the charlatans like Cullen.

Does anybody still watch CNN? I haven't been to an airport in a while, so I wouldn't know.

.

My only point in making this argument is that it's not a particularly pleassant topic to adress, and yes, someone have to that as well. Allthough, I dont see the point with writing exstensive amount of books on it, given the effects of copycat.


'Save your sympathy for their real victims', eer...how do you know I dont feel sympathy for them ?  Cause, thats not even true.  Maybe you should stop being so pre- conceived, if you are ever going  to make a decent argument, m'kay?  Cause otherwise, the joke is on you

[quote="Dyngus"]It isn't wrong to feel burdened when exposed to suffering. I would question more why you would voluntarily choose to read the thoughts of someone you dislike and become angry that they have normal feelings.[/quote

Somebody has to counter the bullshit.

LPorter101 wrote:

Dyngus wrote:

It isn't wrong to feel burdened when exposed to suffering. I would question more why you would voluntarily choose to read the thoughts of someone you dislike and become angry that they have normal feelings.[/quote

Somebody has to counter the bullshit.

And why is it bullshit? How do you know hes not genuine?

For the record, he was there and withnessed the trauma himself.

What gives you guys the right to ascribe intentions to him that he doesnt necessarily have?

Its OK to disagree, and not like everything that someone else has to say, but, come on, this is just speculative. And mean.

Quote :

For the record, he was there and withnessed the trauma himself.

Dave Cullen was inside the school at the time of the shooting? Was he inside the library? Inside the cafeteria? Inside Dave Sanders' classroom? No, he was standing outside along with a thousand other reporters.

Yeah, it's a depressing story, and, yeah, life is hard, and, yeah, Cullen seems to have a drinking problem. But, yeah, I don't really feel any sympathy for him. Maybe I'm a heartless asshole, but I don't give a shit about his feelings.

I say again that nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to spend years of his life obsessing about school shootings. He was looking for a payoff. There was money to be made and he went after it. Fair enough. But if he can't take it, if he can't handle it, then he has no one to blame but himself.

Quote :

What gives you guys the right to ascribe intentions to him that he doesnt necessarily have?

What gives you the right to tell me what to think?

I have never argued that Dave Cullen doesn't have the right to express his own opinion. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. And I can say whatever the fuck I want. He has his rights and I have mine.

To be honest though, Dave Cullen ascribes a LOT of intentions to Eric and Dylan as well as many survivors.

Correct me if I am wrong (because I could be....) didn't he write in his book that Anne Marie thought Eric and Dylan were cute and Anne Marie was like WTF!?!?

Norwegian wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Dyngus wrote:

It isn't wrong to feel burdened when exposed to suffering. I would question more why you would voluntarily choose to read the thoughts of someone you dislike and become angry that they have normal feelings.[/quote

Somebody has to counter the bullshit.

And why is it bullshit? How do you know hes not genuine?

There is such a thing as being genuinely full of shit.

LPorter101 wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Dyngus wrote:

It isn't wrong to feel burdened when exposed to suffering. I would question more why you would voluntarily choose to read the thoughts of someone you dislike and become angry that they have normal feelings.[/quote

Somebody has to counter the bullshit.

And why is it bullshit? How do you know hes not genuine?

There is such a thing as being genuinely full of shit.

He isnt. And even if he was, that doesnt mean he is in this case

Screamingophelia wrote:

To be honest though, Dave Cullen ascribes a LOT of intentions to Eric and Dylan as well as many survivors.

Correct me if I am wrong (because I could be....) didn't he write in his book that Anne Marie thought Eric and Dylan were cute and Anne Marie was like WTF!?!?

Besides the point here.

I was only bringing up the point that many people are ascribing intentions on people. Dave Cullen on people who went to the school and people on the thread to Cullen...

Screamingophelia wrote:

I was only bringing up the point that many people are ascribing intentions on people. Dave Cullen on people who went to the school and people on the thread to Cullen...

.

I get that, but I react to how the OP treats Cullen, here, because he seems to be suggesting that Cullen wrote this in order to get sympathy. I just think thats wrong and a bit insensitive

Norwegian wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

I was only bringing up the point that many people are ascribing intentions on people. Dave Cullen on people who went to the school and people on the thread to Cullen...

.

I get that, but I react to how the OP treats Cullen, here, because he seems to be suggesting that Cullen wrote this in order to get sympathy. I just think thats wrong and a bit insensitive

Fair enough. You think it's wrong and it's insensitive.

Honestly, I don't care. I don't feel any sympathy for Dave Cullen, and I don't care about his feelings. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

What is left to say? You've made your point and I've made mine. You're not going to convince me that I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong, so we might as well drop it. I'm still not entirely certain why you're going around and bumping threads from several years ago.

Here, let me throw you a bone and say something nice about Cullen. "More shirtless pics, Dave! Your nipples look absolutely ravishing!"

Norwegian wrote:

Its OK to disagree, and not like everything that someone else has to say, but, come on, this is just speculative. And mean.

It's very funny. Because I kind of thought the same way too at one point. But now? After learning just how much he got wrong, or mischaracterized? After he threw his weight behind No Notoriety and gun control advocates? Why should I care if people want to tear into him? He's a grown man, loaded with cash, loved by the people who love easy answers to complex problems. You shouldn't feel the need to stand up for him, because there's no point.

QuestionMark wrote:

He's a grown man, loaded with cash, loved by the people who love easy answers to complex problems. You shouldn't feel the need to stand up for him, because there's no point.

This.

LPorter101 wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

I was only bringing up the point that many people are ascribing intentions on people. Dave Cullen on people who went to the school and people on the thread to Cullen...

.

I get that, but I react to how the OP treats Cullen, here, because he seems to be suggesting that Cullen wrote this in order to get sympathy. I just think thats wrong and a bit insensitive

Fair enough. You think it's wrong and it's insensitive.

Honestly, I don't care. I don't feel any sympathy for Dave Cullen, and I don't care about his feelings. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

What is left to say? You've made your point and I've made mine. You're not going to convince me that I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong, so we might as well drop it. I'm still not entirely certain why you're going around and bumping threads from several years ago.

Here, let me throw you a bone and say something nice about Cullen. "More shirtless pics, Dave! Your nipples look absolutely ravishing!"

Well, if you care that much, why even bother to post? Also, I think it says much more about you when your only response is that I dont have sympathy for the victims at Columbine. What kind of bullshit is that?

Maybe learn to think before you bounce off on the internet. Ive had my fair share of jerks on the internet, BTW, and I set the record straight if I have to. You dont care about the consequences for what you do online, thats on you. That doesnt mean people dont have the right to call you out on it.

Theres a thing called 'responsibilty' and 'online etiquette'. You have a right to say what you think, but people also have the right to call you out on it, when they think that this is going to far or they think it's unacceptable..

Quote :

Theres a thing called 'responsibilty' and 'online etiquette'. You have a right to say what you think, but people also have the right to call you out on it, when they think that this is going to far or they think it's unacceptable..

As I said, you've made your point, and I've made mine. Not much more to say.

Dave Cullen has been showered with praise for eleven years now. He's a best-selling author and a nationally-known TV personality. If he can't cope with an occasional bit of criticism - fair or unfair - then he is too psychologically fragile to be a public figure and should go cower in a fortified bunker in New Zealand.

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Theres a thing called 'responsibilty' and 'online etiquette'. You have a right to say what you think, but people also have the right to call you out on it, when they think that this is going to far or they think it's unacceptable..

As I said, you've made your point, and I've made mine. Not much more to say.

Dave Cullen has been showered with praise for eleven years now. He's a best-selling author and a nationally-known TV personality. If he can't cope with an occasional bit of criticism - fair or unfair - then he is too psychologically fragile to be a public figure and should go cower in a fortified bunker in New Zealand.

Well, how many times do I have to? Anyone should take criticism if its valid and based on facts. What you are doing has absolutely nothing to do with criticism. What you are doing is to imply that Dave Cullen says what he says because hes looking sympathy and not because hes genuineinely depressed. Come on, you shouldnt just assume that...

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its OK to disagree, and not like everything that someone else has to say, but, come on, this is just speculative. And mean.

It's very funny. Because I kind of thought the same way too at one point. But now? After learning just how much he got wrong, or mischaracterized? After he threw his weight behind No Notoriety and gun control advocates? Why should I care if people want to tear into him? He's a grown man, loaded with cash, loved by the people who love easy answers to complex problems. You shouldn't feel the need to stand up for him, because there's no point.

I do, in this case, because theres a huge difference between critcism and mean spirited attitude towards someone just because you dont like them. So if someone has easy answers to a lot of people and have a lot of cash, does that make it right to treat them the wrong way? Does it deprive people of any responsibilty of what they say on the internet? Of course not. Dont treat other people the way you dont want other people to treat you. That applies to people you dont like aswell


As for the book itself, its not really that bad. I think you should trie and read it and not base your opinion solely on what other people have said. There were å lot of errors in that book when it first came out, but that was eventually ruled out/ changed. Such as the Brenda Parker- story

Norwegian wrote:

Well, how many times do I have to?

Uh...

More than once is generally considered excessive if the guy you're arguing with is trying to end the argument.

Norwegian wrote:

So if someone has easy answers to a lot of people and have a lot of cash, does that make it right to treat them the wrong way?

Why should I give a shit if someone does? Dave Cullen is not exactly a helpless, groveling victim here.

Norwegian wrote:

Does it deprive people of any responsibilty of what they say on the internet?

What does this even mean? What responsibility? Most importantly who cares? Who cares what strangers on the internet have to say? Why should people care what strangers on the internet have to say?

Norwegian wrote:

Dont treat other people the way you dont want other people to treat you.

This is a hollow platitude that assumes "what goes around comes around" or "karmic justice". It's meaning is rendered totally hollow when you realize that yes, some people end up rewarded for bad (or even evil) actions, and others are punished for good ones.

Not that what I said matters in this context though, since all we're talking about is mean words directed at a public figure.

Norwegian wrote:

As for the book itself, its not really that bad. I think you should trie and read it and not base your opinion solely on what other people have said. There were å lot of errors in that book when it first came out, but that was eventually ruled out/ changed. Such as the Brenda Parker- story

I did read it. Then I saw what people said about it. I thought at first they were exaggerating until they started noting specific, glaring flaws (and you'd be surprised how many were unrelated to Brenda Parker).

[quote="QuestionMark"]

Norwegian wrote:

Well, how many times do I have to?

Uh...

More than once is generally considered excessive if the guy you're arguing with is trying to end the argument.

Norwegian wrote:

So if someone has easy answers to a lot of people and have a lot of cash, does that make it right to treat them the wrong way?

Why should I give a shit if someone does? Dave Cullen is not exactly a helpless, groveling victim here.

Norwegian wrote:

Does it deprive people of any responsibilty of what they say on the internet?

What does this even mean? What responsibility? Most importantly who cares? Who cares what strangers on the internet have to say? Why should people care what strangers on the internet have to say?

Norwegian wrote:

Dont treat other people the way you dont want other people to treat you.

This is a hollow platitude that assumes "what goes around comes around" or "karmic justice". It's meaning is rendered totally hollow when you realize that yes, some people end up rewarded for bad (or even evil) actions, and others are punished for good ones.

Not that what I said matters in this context though, since all we're talking about is mean words directed at a public figure.

Norwegian wrote:

As for the book itself, its not really that bad. I think you should trie and read it and not base your opinion solely on what other people have said.  There were å lot of errors in that book when it first came out, but that was eventually ruled out/ changed. Such as the Brenda Parker- story

I did read it. Then I saw what people said about it. I thought at first they were exaggerating until they started noting specific, glaring flaws (and you'd be surprised how many were unrelated to Brenda Parker). [/qu


Doesnt matter..People should take responsibilty for what they say online. If they have a need to degrade or hurt other people,,they shouldnt be complaining when called out on it. A lot of people care what arrangere post on the Internet, BTW,, but it's not like whatever you say online doesnt have consequences Irl. It does actually. If you dont have the balls to say something ugly to someone face to face, because you know that it will have consequences, why do it online? Cause, lets face it: Your not immune from consequences, regardless wether irl or online. Hiding behind å Computer is certainly no excuse. Public figure or not


Well,,have you read the first version or the updated version? Because they are not the same thing?

Norwegian wrote:

People should take responsibilty for what they say online.

Again, what does this mean?

Norwegian wrote:

A lot of people care what arrangere post on the Internet,

I'm going to let you in on a little secret; If you care what a stranger says about you on the internet, you're a loser, and an entitled, narcissistic one too.

Norwegian wrote:

BTW,, but it's not like whatever you say online doesnt have consequences Irl. It does actually.

This statement is actually so ludicrous to me that I'm not even sure where to start.

Norwegian wrote:

If you dont have the balls to say something ugly to someone face to face, because you know that it will have consequences, why do it online? Cause, lets face it: Your not immune from consequences, regardless wether irl or online. Hiding behind å Computer is certainly no excuse. Public figure or not

I mean I've said a lot of nasty things to people's faces. Do you think I wouldn't say anything to Cullen's face if I had the chance?

Norwegian wrote:

Well,,have you read the first version or the updated version? Because they are not the same thing?

Okay, how different from each other are they? Because AFAIK the only thing significantly different from the first and revised version is the Brenda Parker story.

Gee, I wish my life was as hard as his.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

People should take responsibilty for what they say online.

Again, what does this mean?

Norwegian wrote:

A lot of people care what arrangere post on the Internet,

I'm going to let you in on a little secret; If you care what a stranger says about you on the internet, you're a loser, and an entitled, narcissistic one too.

Norwegian wrote:

BTW,, but it's not like whatever you say online doesnt have consequences Irl. It does actually.

This statement is actually so ludicrous to me that I'm not even sure where to start.

Norwegian wrote:

If you dont have the balls to say something ugly to someone face to face, because you know that it will have consequences, why do it online? Cause, lets face it: Your not immune from consequences, regardless wether irl or online. Hiding behind å Computer is certainly no excuse. Public figure or not

I mean I've said a lot of nasty things to people's faces. Do you think I wouldn't say anything to Cullen's face if I had the chance?

Norwegian wrote:

Well,,have you read the first version or the updated version? Because they are not the same thing?

Okay, how different from each other are they? Because AFAIK the only thing significantly different from the first and revised version is the Brenda Parker story.

Its not even remotely that hard to comprehend. It means that just because you are online that doesnt mean you should say whatever you want. It may even fall back on them sooner or later, and it's also extremely cowardly.


Uhm...If you truly think people care what others say online because they are narssisstic, you have no idea what narssissm is. Studies reveal that it's actually the internet trolls that are narrssistic in fact. So if anything,,get your facts straight, if you are going to toss out such argument. Actually have some sense of what narssissm, in fact,, means.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Narcissism is way more common than people think. It's also a very toxic trait. Textbooks aren't enough of a guideline - you need to interact with one to know how they operate.

On the surface the stereotypical school bully could be considered narcissistic.

Also: Yes, everyone says nasty stuff to others. Most of the time, we learn to take responsibilty, apologize and move on. And, well, if you Said anything to Cullens face than you are less of a coward, atleast, because atleast, you dont hide behind your nickname and computor. But I highly doubt most people will.

In any case, Ive checked many of Cullens claims, and it's not that inaccurate. If you still believe that Eric and Dylan were the lowest of the low in HS, that Eric never bullied people, that he wasnt a psychopath,that Dylan was the same as Eric, etc. You really need to scrutinize your own understanding of facts, because thats just not true

Ivan wrote:

Narcissism is way more common than people think. It's also a very toxic trait. Textbooks aren't enough of a guideline - you need to interact with one to know how they operate.

On the surface the stereotypical school bully could be considered narcissistic.

Not necessarily, because people dont know how to spot one, a lot of the time. Yet, thats not the point. The point is, being sensitive about what people say to you isnt the same as being a narssisst. Sensitivity about how other people judge you is part of the narssism, but not the other way around.


They could be, but not all the time. Some people outgrow their bullying behaviour, some people dont. Its not all Black and white

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Narcissism is way more common than people think. It's also a very toxic trait. Textbooks aren't enough of a guideline - you need to interact with one to know how they operate.

On the surface the stereotypical school bully could be considered narcissistic.

Not necessarily, because people dont know how to spot one, a lot of the time. Yet, thats not the point. The point is, being sensitive about what people say to you isnt the same as being a narssisst. Sensitivity about how other people judge you is part of the narssism, but not the other way around.


They could be, but not all the time. Some people outgrow their bullying behaviour, some people dont. Its not all Black and white

What you're referring to is called a narcissistic injury. Someone with narcissistic traits could become aggressive or even violent if pressured enough.

So narcissistic people are, to some degree, sensitive. They aren't psychopaths.

Norwegian wrote:

Also: Yes, everyone says nasty stuff to others. Most of the time, we learn to take responsibilty, apologize and move on. And, well, if you Said anything to Cullens face than you are less of a coward, atleast, because atleast, you dont hide behind your nickname and computor. But I highly doubt most people will.

In any case, Ive checked many of Cullens claims, and it's not that inaccurate. If you still believe that Eric and Dylan were the lowest of the low in HS, that Eric never bullied people, that he wasnt a psychopath,that Dylan was the same as Eric, etc. You really need to scrutinize your own understanding of facts, because thats just not true

Eric was too sensitive to be a psychopath. I'd say, like Hitler, he was narcissistic. A lot of narcissistic people are dangerous - including murderers.

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Also: Yes, everyone says nasty stuff to others. Most of the time, we learn to take responsibilty, apologize and move on. And, well, if you Said anything to Cullens face than you are less of a coward, atleast, because atleast, you dont hide behind your nickname and computor. But I highly doubt most people will.

In any case, Ive checked many of Cullens claims, and it's not that inaccurate. If you still believe that Eric and Dylan were the lowest of the low in HS, that Eric never bullied people, that he wasnt a psychopath,that Dylan was the same as Eric, etc. You really need to scrutinize your own understanding of facts, because thats just not true

Eric was too sensitive to be a psychopath. I'd say, like Hitler, he was narcissistic. A lot of narcissistic people are dangerous - including murderers.

That might be a fair point. I can't make that statement as Im not a psychiatrist or psychologist or anything like that. But therefore I guess we just have to trust the experts on this. Either a narssisst or a psychopath. Something like that(as the experts disagree, somewhat)

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Also: Yes, everyone says nasty stuff to others. Most of the time, we learn to take responsibilty, apologize and move on. And, well, if you Said anything to Cullens face than you are less of a coward, atleast, because atleast, you dont hide behind your nickname and computor. But I highly doubt most people will.

In any case, Ive checked many of Cullens claims, and it's not that inaccurate. If you still believe that Eric and Dylan were the lowest of the low in HS, that Eric never bullied people, that he wasnt a psychopath,that Dylan was the same as Eric, etc. You really need to scrutinize your own understanding of facts, because thats just not true

Eric was too sensitive to be a psychopath. I'd say, like Hitler, he was narcissistic. A lot of narcissistic people are dangerous - including murderers.

That might be a fair point. I can't make that statement as Im not a psychiatrist or psychologist or anything like that. But therefore I guess we just have to trust the experts on this. Either a narssisst or a psychopath. Something like that(as the experts disagree, somewhat)

Reading his journal gives a lot of secondary insight. He craved attention - wanted proof he was above others. That's why he wrote what he did and acted like the insecure dweeb he was. A psychopath would have enough innate self confidence and bravado to know. Either way the kid was sick in the head.

Norwegian wrote:

Its not even remotely that hard to comprehend. It means that just because you are online that doesnt mean you should say whatever you want. It may even fall back on them sooner or later, and it's also extremely cowardly.

Sounds ridiculous.

Norwegian wrote:

Uhm...If you truly think people care what others say online because they are narssisstic, you have no idea what narssissm is.

Does it matter? If you care about strangers making fun of you on the internet you are a pathetic loser. Nobody should have to cater to your feelings. Frankly if it hurts that much just turn the damn computer off for a while and get some sunshine.

Norwegian wrote:

Studies reveal that it's actually the internet trolls that are narrssistic in fact. So if anything,,get your facts straight, if you are going to toss out such argument. Actually have some sense of what narssissm, in fact,, means.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh bullshit. This is the kind of crap that's just used to push an agenda - that we should censor the internet "for our own good".

Good to see LPorter101 still banging the drum about Cullen!

I think he was on a hiatus when I last posted here...

Draw_It_White wrote:

Good to see LPorter101 still banging the drum about Cullen!

I think he was on a hiatus when I last posted here...

Cullen is the literary piñata that keeps on giving.

People are dying, starving, being abused, and are homeless... and he's whining about people not liking his book? smfh

I have mixed feelings on what he said. I can empathize with him to a certain degree, sometimes having such dark tragedies on your mind so often can really take a toll on you and make you depressed. However, he does seem to be very melodramatic. He has control over what he does with his life. He's not forced to attend interviews or discuss mass shootings. However, I do feel that he is probably depressed and suffering on the inside. Even though I don't like him at all, I do understand why he feels that way.