The small questions thread

InFiNiNcEX5 wrote:

Eric had waaay too much love and sympathy for animals to be a classic psychopath! I sure would like to see Albert's testimony regarding his sessions with Eric..

Any idea if Mr and Mrs Harris got a look at those? I know that they wanted to at some stage or another.

InFiNiNcEX5 wrote:

Eric had waaay too much love and sympathy for animals to be a classic psychopath! I sure would like to see Albert's testimony regarding his sessions with Eric..

<----- THIS. He was also aware of the feelings of his family and tried to minimize the pain he would cause them in his own (twisted) way. Seems the boy was all full of repressed FEELS. ;) Why else did he have to try so hard to prove his "hatred" for the world and all the people in it? Seems like he was an emotionally immature adolescent full of "big thoughts and ideations", yet jeez...was the guy an entitled little asshat sometimes. And I mean that with affection.

This is the criteria Cullen uses to paint Eric as a psychopath, and why Cullen is truly brainless...

1) Eric lied.
They guy was planning mass murder, of course he lied.

2) Eric feigned remorse in his apology letter to the van owner.
No teenager forced to apologize is going to be genuinely sorry.

3) Eric showed no conscience towards others.
The football played who shoved Dylan in that video also showed no conscience. Maybe he's a psychopath too.

4) Eric wasn't angry, he had a deep contempt for others.
People usually have contempt for those they hate.

5) Eric had a mega superiority delusion.
The evangelical Christians in his area had this too. Maybe they're also psychopaths?


I want to kick Cullen in the teeth every time he opens his mouth.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

This is the criteria Cullen uses to paint Eric as a psychopath, and why Cullen is truly brainless...

1) Eric lied.
They guy was planning mass murder, of course he lied.

2) Eric feigned remorse in his apology letter to the van owner.
No teenager forced to apologize is going to be genuinely sorry.

3) Eric showed no conscience towards others.
The football played who shoved Dylan in that video also showed no conscience. Maybe he's a psychopath too.

4) Eric wasn't angry, he had a deep contempt for others.
People usually have contempt for those they hate.

5) Eric had a mega superiority delusion.
The evangelical Christians in his area had this too. Maybe they're also psychopaths?


I want to kick Cullen in the teeth every time he opens his mouth.

I agree with a lot of your points and love the last line. But if you are referring to Eric in the one year before video that wasn't Dylan. It was Eric Veik instead.

OK. Thanks for the correction about the video. My point is that most, probably all, the teenagers at Columbine acted without conscience towards each other. They would lie about their behavior too, if a teacher confronted them. Lack of empathy and lying are normal in high school. If Eric is a psychopath for his lack of empathy, then the entire Columbine football team are psychopaths too.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

This is the criteria Cullen uses to paint Eric as a psychopath, and why Cullen is truly brainless...

1) Eric lied.
They guy was planning mass murder, of course he lied.

2) Eric feigned remorse in his apology letter to the van owner.
No teenager forced to apologize is going to be genuinely sorry.

3) Eric showed no conscience towards others.
The football played who shoved Dylan in that video also showed no conscience. Maybe he's a psychopath too.

4) Eric wasn't angry, he had a deep contempt for others.
People usually have contempt for those they hate.

5) Eric had a mega superiority delusion.
The evangelical Christians in his area had this too. Maybe they're also psychopaths?


I want to kick Cullen in the teeth every time he opens his mouth.

Is it bad that I find this whole post funny? In a good way though, as I agree.

Jenn wrote:

RaiseTheFist wrote:

This is the criteria Cullen uses to paint Eric as a psychopath, and why Cullen is truly brainless...

1) Eric lied.
They guy was planning mass murder, of course he lied.

2) Eric feigned remorse in his apology letter to the van owner.
No teenager forced to apologize is going to be genuinely sorry.

3) Eric showed no conscience towards others.
The football played who shoved Dylan in that video also showed no conscience. Maybe he's a psychopath too.

4) Eric wasn't angry, he had a deep contempt for others.
People usually have contempt for those they hate.

5) Eric had a mega superiority delusion.
The evangelical Christians in his area had this too. Maybe they're also psychopaths?


I want to kick Cullen in the teeth every time he opens his mouth.

Is it bad that I find this whole post funny? In a good way though, as I agree.

No don't feel bad. I found it really funny too.

CatherineM813 wrote:

RaiseTheFist wrote:

This is the criteria Cullen uses to paint Eric as a psychopath, and why Cullen is truly brainless...

1) Eric lied.
They guy was planning mass murder, of course he lied.

2) Eric feigned remorse in his apology letter to the van owner.
No teenager forced to apologize is going to be genuinely sorry.

3) Eric showed no conscience towards others.
The football played who shoved Dylan in that video also showed no conscience. Maybe he's a psychopath too.

4) Eric wasn't angry, he had a deep contempt for others.
People usually have contempt for those they hate.

5) Eric had a mega superiority delusion.
The evangelical Christians in his area had this too. Maybe they're also psychopaths?


I want to kick Cullen in the teeth every time he opens his mouth.

I agree with a lot of your points and love the last line. But if you are referring to Eric in the one year before video that wasn't Dylan. It was Eric Veik instead.

Which reminds me.. I wish we could get Eric Veik on this forum to pick his brains! OH, the stuff that guy knows.

One of my favorite quotes from Cullen: "Researchers often compare psychopaths to robots or rogue computers, like HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey-- programmed only to satisfy their own objectives. "

In Cullen's scientific opinion Eric is an Evil Computer because he was a selfish teenager.

Another Cullen quote: "His brain was never scanned, but it probably would have shown activity unrecognizable as human to most neurologists."

In Cullen's scientific opinion Eric was correct that he was fundamentally different than other humans.

Another Cullen quote: "He's not just conning you with a scheme, he's conning you
with his life. His entire personality is a fabrication, with the purpose of deceiving suckers like you."

In Cullen's scientific opinion Eric rants about mass murder on the web because he's conning people into believing that he's a good kid.

Another Cullen quote: "Even an earthworm will recoil if you poke it with a stick... Psychopaths make it that far up the emotional ladder, but they fall far short of the average golden retriever"

If Eric's community viewed him the same way that Cullen does, no wonder he drove bullets into their backs.

Quote :

If Eric's community viewed him the same way that Cullen does, no wonder he drove bullets into their backs.

Interesting point, really. Of course, we have to look at accounts from after the massacre, but few people, including most of Eric's "friends", say nice things. Sure, there were some people who stepped up with positive comments but not nearly the number that spoke for Dylan. Eric is described as mean, weird, angry, scary, etc.

From the small glimpses of his life we get on video, he doesn't really seem that way to me. Sad, lacking in self confidence, but smiled pretty often and cracked jokes that I would have laughed at. So did he really act in a way to earn such scorn? Or was this all based on his actions of 4/20? Or was he ostracized for some other reason?

(Forgive me if this is completely incoherent, I'm on Hour 8 of a 12-hour night shift. Made perfect sense to my sleepy, over caffeinated brain but maybe not to normal people.)

Wideawake wrote:

Quote :

If Eric's community viewed him the same way that Cullen does, no wonder he drove bullets into their backs.

Interesting point, really. Of course, we have to look at accounts from after the massacre, but few people, including most of Eric's "friends", say nice things. Sure, there were some people who stepped up with positive comments but not nearly the number that spoke for Dylan. Eric is described as mean, weird, angry, scary, etc.

From the small glimpses of his life we get on video, he doesn't really seem that way to me. Sad, lacking in self confidence, but smiled pretty often and cracked jokes that I would have laughed at. So did he really act in a way to earn such scorn? Or was this all based on his actions of 4/20? Or was he ostracized for some other reason?

(Forgive me if this is completely incoherent, I'm on Hour 8 of a 12-hour night shift. Made perfect sense to my sleepy, over caffeinated brain but maybe not to normal people.)

You're right.

Personally, I can't recall any positive thing said about Eric by a former friend at Columbine. His own parents have written him off as an irredeemable psychopath.

Was Eric "mean, weird, angry, scary, etc."? When I look at the videos of him, his taste in clothing, music, and entertainment was probably different than other teenagers in his community. Since high-schoolers form friendships based on their interests, this might be what put him in the minority.

But Eric held Dylan's friendship for years. He appeared to be respectful and entertaining to his friend. I doubt Eric lacked any social skills.

Eric was different than the majority for certain. And he got called a faggot because of it. If he ever did complain about it, I'm sure he was told to stand up for himself.

How do you personally think Eric was treated by his community pre-Columbine? And how do you personally think he should have reacted?

RaiseTheFist wrote:

Wideawake wrote:

Quote :

If Eric's community viewed him the same way that Cullen does, no wonder he drove bullets into their backs.

Interesting point, really. Of course, we have to look at accounts from after the massacre, but few people, including most of Eric's "friends", say nice things. Sure, there were some people who stepped up with positive comments but not nearly the number that spoke for Dylan. Eric is described as mean, weird, angry, scary, etc.

From the small glimpses of his life we get on video, he doesn't really seem that way to me. Sad, lacking in self confidence, but smiled pretty often and cracked jokes that I would have laughed at. So did he really act in a way to earn such scorn? Or was this all based on his actions of 4/20? Or was he ostracized for some other reason?

(Forgive me if this is completely incoherent, I'm on Hour 8 of a 12-hour night shift. Made perfect sense to my sleepy, over caffeinated brain but maybe not to normal people.)

You're right.

Personally, I can't recall any positive thing said about Eric by a former friend at Columbine. His own parents have written him off as an irredeemable psychopath.

Was Eric "mean, weird, angry, scary, etc."? When I look at the videos of him, his taste in clothing, music, and entertainment was probably different than other teenagers in his community. Since high-schoolers form friendships based on their interests, this might be what put him in the minority.

But Eric held Dylan's friendship for years. He appeared to be respectful and entertaining to his friend. I doubt Eric lacked any social skills.

Eric was different than the majority for certain. And he got called a faggot because of it. If he ever did complain about it, I'm sure he was told to stand up for himself.

I know one of the girls he was friends with (Kristi Epling?) said he always smiled and gave her a hug, and people gave her shit about it. The people from Blackjack said he was a good kid and hard worker, the guy they worked for in the diversion program thought he did a good job. I just watched RR and he seemed to fit in fine with Mark Manes and the others on the tape. (Although I want to scream "Gun safety, dumbass!" through most of the video.)

Plenty of people talked about Eric flipping out - throwing ice at Judy Brown's car, screaming at the girl who hit Dylan's car. But then you have the stories of Dylan bullying freshmen, pushing girls in gym class and hitting a supervisor at Blackjack. But no, Dylan was so gentle and sweet. Uh huh...Anyway, it makes me wonder at what point exactly Eric stepped over the line and went from being an outcast to a hated/feared pariah. I would give a lot to hear from Mike V, Eric Veik, the Harris family in general and learn more about who Eric was.

Also, Brooks wrote on Tumbler Dude was not what they think. He wasn't cool, he wasn't smooth. He was awkward. Insecure. Not adorably - like badly. Not funny, just playing at it. Both of them. And angry. Neither were Tarantino characters except in their head. Instead, they were more like Napoleon Dynamite. Without the dancing. Or humor. I'm curious to know what exactly inspired this description of them, because I think the Napoleon Dynamite comparison is a bit harsh. They were teenage boys. Of course they were awkward and insecure and angry! Everything is naturally colored by their actions on 4/20, but how would they have been described prior to it? And I obviously have no life and put way too much thought into this. Sigh.

Quote :

I know one of the girls he was friends with (Kristi Epling?) said he always smiled and gave her a hug, and people gave her shit about it. The people from Blackjack said he was a good kid and hard worker, the guy they worked for in the diversion program thought he did a good job.

OK. You know a LOT more about this than I do. Thanks for these references.

Quote :

(Although I want to scream "Gun safety, dumbass!" through most of the video.)

This is EXACTLY what I also thought when I saw this video the first time. I kept thinking "Shit! Someone's going to shoot their own hand off any time now..."

Quote :

Uh huh...Anyway, it makes me wonder at what point exactly Eric stepped over the line and went from being an outcast to a hated/feared pariah.

It's hard to imagine that a guy who's shorter and skinner than most girls I know would have been feared during his life. Still, I think Eric would have been seen as strange at school simply because he had different interests than most of his peers. Like all teenagers, he fit in with like-minded people -it's just that there weren't many of them and his small group was outnumbered.

Perhaps people distance themselves from Eric now because that's the socially acceptable thing to do?

It's like you can split the world into pre- and post- Columbine. I read some guy complaining online that he can no longer wear his trenchcoat in public. He dubbed his coat "the coat of cause of irrational fear in stupid people".

Quote :

Also, Brooks wrote on Tumbler Dude was not what they think. He wasn't cool, he wasn't smooth. He was awkward. Insecure. Not adorably - like badly. Not funny, just playing at it. Both of them. And angry. Neither were Tarantino characters except in their head. Instead, they were more like Napoleon Dynamite. Without the dancing. Or humor.

Brooks Brown has frequently said that Eric and Dylan were seen as losers. The question is whether they were seen this way because they acted abnormally or because their community is full of intolerant cavemen. In all the videos I've seen, I've never seen them act abnormally.

Quote :

And I obviously have no life and put way too much thought into this. Sigh.

Somebody has to do the thinking. Cullen spent a decade researching Columbine and the best he could come up with was: The school principal hugs the kids so Eric must've been born evil. Cullen has no life AND no brains.

You've posed some good questions for me to think about. I have to apologize if my responses have been downright crappy. I'm actually pretty sick at moment (just got out of hospital) and my head is like scrambled eggs.

This is something that has been bugging me lately:

At 11:51am, the 911 call made by Patti Nielson from the library is terminated by the dispatch center since no more activity could be heard on the line.

Is this standard procedure? Especially given a situation of this magnitude?

What bothers me is this: Hypothetically speaking, IF that line had been left open - at least for evidentiary purposes or for fucksake, in an attempt to gain further knowledge of what's going on in the school - there remains the possibility that what happened LATER in the library could have been heard and/or recorded:

• Dylan and Eric's last moments...
  
• E&D's possible last discussion...
  
• Their suicide...
  
• Patrick Ireland...
  
• When Lisa Kruetz (the last survivor to be removed from the library) heard someone say, "You, in the library" followed by gunshots at 12:08pm, coinciding with the timeline of their suicides...
  
• SWAT (finally) entering much later...
  

Granted, I did find this: "The Nielson 911 call lasts 26 minutes. A dispatcher hung up because the only thing operators could hear was the blaring alarm, Davis [Jefferson County sheriff's spokesman] said." "Whether the gunmen's deaths were captured during the call is unclear." So it appears that Patty Nielson was asked to help enhance the tape. Article is here.

Also - How COULD the gunmen's deaths be captured if the call ended somewhere around 11:51am, while they're deaths are (officially) placed around 12:08pm. The call didn't even last that long according to the official timeline.

And secondly - How would Lisa Kruetz be able to hear someone talking (or Patrick Ireland be able to hear someone coughing) if the alarms were so loud that no other noise could be heard in the library according to Jeffco? Granted, Jeffco's not exactly known for being the paradigm of truth and transparency, so there may be many parts of the "official timeline" which are plain incorrect or confused. I personally don't take anything Jeffco says at face-value without other credible corroborating sources.


...I'm thinking myself in circles. It's late, I need a shower, the rest of my family is in bed, and I'm using my only peaceful moment of the day to overthink what I call my "Columbine Conundrum." Yes, I have a title for it. I might vie to add it to the DSM-V's list of psychiatric and mental disorders.


Gahr. I want to kick something. Preferably Jeffco's behind, but I'll settle for soothing myself with Reese's Peanut Butter Cups and Crystal Light.

Light bulb! I just remembered something. I had a discussion some time ago with a neighbor of mine that moved up here from Littleton. Granted, I (well, everyone in that house) at the time was a tad tipsy (ok, I was drunk), but she did have an immediate friendship with one of the ladies that was in the library during the shooting. I'm trying to recall some of the details she relayed to me that she received from said-person and if I'm correct, they are quite interesting. Next time I visit with her, I'll need to ask her again to clarify (hence, drunkeness is not exactly a reliable state of mind for me) the details we talked about. Some, she may not want me to share so I don't want to assume anything prematurely.

Now that I've written a novella, should I have given this its own thread?

Quote :

You've posed some good questions for me to think about. I have to apologize if my responses have been downright crappy. I'm actually pretty sick at moment (just got out of hospital) and my head is like scrambled eggs.

You haven't been crappy at all! I think it's a good discussion. I will have to read further into the 11K, I'm only about 3100 pages in, to see what else people said about them. It is long and frustrating, but a great source of info. Hope you're feeling better.

samanthab20,

Quote :

At 11:51am, the 911 call made by Patti Nielson from the library is terminated by the dispatch center since no more activity could be heard on the line.

Is this standard procedure? Especially given a situation of this magnitude?

I have a friend who works dispatch. I don't imagine that the rules are that different from place to place, so I'll see if she can't give me some insight into how/when they decide to terminate a call. As far as the volume of the alarms, I think we'd have to look at the distance of the phone from where the sound of the alarm was. Like if the alarm was directly over the phone, it would clearly be louder on the phone than across the room. Which to me would seem like a pretty big design flaw because if the alarm was going off and you needed to call 911, it wouldn't be much good if the dispatcher couldn't hear you.

Would love to hear the details if you remember/clarify them. I think this might actually fit nicely into the 911 Calls thread.

Wideawake wrote:

Also, Brooks wrote on Tumbler Dude was not what they think. He wasn't cool, he wasn't smooth. He was awkward. Insecure. Not adorably - like badly. Not funny, just playing at it. Both of them. And angry. Neither were Tarantino characters except in their head. Instead, they were more like Napoleon Dynamite. Without the dancing. Or humor. I'm curious to know what exactly inspired this description of them, because I think the Napoleon Dynamite comparison is a bit harsh. They were teenage boys. Of course they were awkward and insecure and angry! Everything is naturally colored by their actions on 4/20, but how would they have been described prior to it? And I obviously have no life and put way too much thought into this. Sigh.

Brooks is very stingy with his replies but especially with the, no doubt, voluminous Columbine related questions he received via his veeeery short stint on Tumblr. It's clear to me he still feels very much conflicted about it - more so than ever, especially regarding Dylan. In his book, he alludes that he rekindled his friendship with Dylan in their senior year, and they hung out, talked about music and creating plays. Brooks is still grappling with that past relationship with Dylan and the anti-Dylan he became in the blink of an eye. I think he prefers to not discuss it as it makes his head hurt so it's easier to deflect both E&D and rebuke them in curt replies to people. On Tumblr, Brook's primary agenda regarding all things Columbine was to discourage young people regarding the hero worship of Eric and Dylan, at all costs. So, he had to make them as completely UNcool as possible and so, grasps at the most slow, clueless, idiotic, awkward nerd ala "Napoleon Dynamite".

Well, yeah, Dylan was super shy, probably very likely had Avoidant Personality Disorder so I'm sure he'd have been the first to agree with Brooks that he wasn't a smooth piece of work in High School - but then, hey Brooks, how many teenage boys are? This is not news, Brooks, that very shy people are awkward and insecure. I give Eric an A+ at trying with girls but he tried too hard (Type A Aries trying to be in the drivers seat). His approach was stalkerish and clingy though I doubt he even saw that in himself. Problem was, Eric spent a lot of time whining while actually on a date about those who had been wronging him lately. Not a great social tactic if you want to date and keep a woman. Brooks is probably the anthesis of the two because he was intellectually chatty, social and great at public debate and probably associated with a variety of social cliques in the school. So, it's really not a fair assessment from him to paint E&D as nerdy, slow buffoons. I recall that Brooks has a reputation for lying and boasting (Nate Dykeman said this in the 11K) so there ya go: someone else trying to be cool and is not. Everyone tries so hard in HS to fit into something. Everyone. Eric and Dylan are not an exception to that rule but they did have their own, sarcastic, alienated style.

Wideawake,

Quote :

You haven't been crappy at all! I think it's a good discussion. I will have to read further into the 11K, I'm only about 3100 pages in, to see what else people said about them. It is long and frustrating, but a great source of info. Hope you're feeling better.

Thank you very much for your considerate words. (Little things like this actually do make me feel better).

I've been thinking about the question you posed: How much of the anger toward Eric is post- Columbine and how much is pre-?

I didn't think of it at the time, but I also remember reading a news article about some kid from a previous town that Eric lived in, saying that he was completely shocked because Eric was very normal. I think it's interesting that a kid from a different town would have one of the most positive things to say about Eric.

I wonder if there's an unwritten social rule in Littleton that it's unacceptable to express sympathy for Eric, and anyone doing so will be burned?

But I also find it hard to believe that Eric would have developed such intense rage -which I'm sure he didn't have as a child- if he'd felt his community accepted him. I find it interesting that his rage seemed to have begun in his teenage years -when sex hormones are starting to kick in.

InFiNiNcEX5,

Quote :

Brooks is very stingy with his replies but especially with the, no doubt, voluminous Columbine related questions he received

I wonder if Brooks is a little pissed off that his book didn't sell that well, but yet people expect him to answer Columbine questions for free.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

InFiNiNcEX5,

Quote :

Brooks is very stingy with his replies but especially with the, no doubt, voluminous Columbine related questions he received

I wonder if Brooks is a little pissed off that his book didn't sell that well, but yet people expect him to answer Columbine questions for free.

I don't think Brooks really cares one way or the other about the sales of his book. He was literally telling people on Tumblr that they can download it for free on Torrent sites.

Personally, I wonder why he even bothered to announce his presence on Tumblr at all and not expect those questions. It's ridiculous for him to think he could go public on Tumblr as everyone knows it has a younger crowd and not expect to be hounded with Columbine questions. It's not really like posting on Reddit where you have the intellectual discussions about the topic, it's Tumblr, where hormonal girls either obsess about anything under the sun from Bieber to E & D. Me thinks he craves any sort of attention even when it's bad attention. Whether he likes it or not, and regardless of whether he has a whole other adult life in the gaming industry, Columbine is still going to follow him around so he ought to curb the 'tude depending on the public venue he decides to crash. He wrote a book on it which, frankly, has rapidly becoming pretty out-of-date over the decade. He can't really expect the book to still do all the talking for him in answering people's question. Kids look up to him. They're looking at him and posing those 'no easy answers' questions to him. He is vague and clipped in his "answers". He just shouldn't expect to direct them to the book for everything. Plus, it's pretty evident he's not the same person now compared to the younger Brooks writing that book. He is less sympathetic and searching for answers. He's pretty done with talking in schools, etc. Brooks can't really expect to go public and side step the topic altogether or thumb his nose at people's fascination when a good chunk of his public identity is known for his association with E & D.

Ok, I'm finished with rant. heh. However, to sum it up: his stint on Tumblr was a big tease. If he wanted intellectual discussions with an adult crowd on a wide variety of topics, he shouldn't stayed where he was at.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

Wideawake,

Quote :

You haven't been crappy at all! I think it's a good discussion. I will have to read further into the 11K, I'm only about 3100 pages in, to see what else people said about them. It is long and frustrating, but a great source of info. Hope you're feeling better.

Thank you very much for your considerate words. (Little things like this actually do make me feel better).

I've been thinking about the question you posed: How much of the anger toward Eric is post- Columbine and how much is pre-?

I didn't think of it at the time, but I also remember reading a news article about some kid from a previous town that Eric lived in, saying that he was completely shocked because Eric was very normal. I think it's interesting that a kid from a different town would have one of the most positive things to say about Eric.

I wonder if there's an unwritten social rule in Littleton that it's unacceptable to express sympathy for Eric, and anyone doing so will be burned?

But I also find it hard to believe that Eric would have developed such intense rage -which I'm sure he didn't have as a child- if he'd felt his community accepted him. I find it interesting that his rage seemed to have begun in his teenage years -when sex hormones are starting to kick in.

InFiNiNcEX5,

Quote :

Brooks is very stingy with his replies but especially with the, no doubt, voluminous Columbine related questions he received

I wonder if Brooks is a little pissed off that his book didn't sell that well, but yet people expect him to answer Columbine questions for free.

On Youtube there's a video called Eric's friends in Plattsburgh and they said very positive things about him, They also expressed how shocked they were on what Eric had done and how people were describing him in the aftermath. I also agree with them that Eric turned into someone he probably would not have turned into if the Harrises had stayed in Plattsburgh.

I don't believe it was an unwritten rule that people couldn't express sympathy for Eric or say nice things about him. There were kind things written on his cross saying you still deserve our compassion, he is still god's child and is loved, start to forgive ,etc. Not everyone thought of him as a monster and some people even mentioned how sweet and polite he was.

I don't think Brook's cared about the money. I think he wrote the book so people can get a better understanding of Columbine.

InFiNiNcEX5,

Quote :

I don't think Brooks really cares one way or the other about the sales of his book. He was literally telling people on Tumblr that they can download it for free on Torrent sites.

Personally, I wonder why he even bothered to announce his presence on Tumblr at all and not expect those questions. It's ridiculous for him to think he could go public on Tumblr as everyone knows it has a younger crowd and not expect to be hounded with Columbine questions. It's not really like posting on Reddit where you have the intellectual discussions about the topic, it's Tumblr, where hormonal girls either obsess about anything under the sun from Bieber to E & D. Me thinks he craves any sort of attention even when it's bad attention. Whether he likes it or not, and regardless of whether he has a whole other adult life in the gaming industry, Columbine is still going to follow him around so he ought to curb the 'tude depending on the public venue he decides to crash. He wrote a book on it which, frankly, has rapidly becoming pretty out-of-date over the decade. He can't really expect the book to still do all the talking for him in answering people's question. Kids look up to him. They're looking at him and posing those 'no easy answers' questions to him. He is vague and clipped in his "answers". He just shouldn't expect to direct them to the book for everything. Plus, it's pretty evident he's not the same person now compared to the younger Brooks writing that book. He is less sympathetic and searching for answers. He's pretty done with talking in schools, etc. Brooks can't really expect to go public and side step the topic altogether or thumb his nose at people's fascination when a good chunk of his public identity is known for his association with E & D.

Ok, I'm finished with rant. heh. However, to sum it up: his stint on Tumblr was a big tease. If he wanted intellectual discussions with an adult crowd on a wide variety of topics, he shouldn't stayed where he was at.

I've given it more thought and think I was probably giving Brooks the benefit of the doubt too much. His behavior DOES paint the picture of a serious Attention Whore.

In the essay he wrote about video game violence, he made sure to let everyone know that he was a friend of the Columbine shooters. He's also been pretty arrogant in seeing himself as some sort of "moral guardian", looking down the nose at teenage girls who profess "love" for E/D -Why does he care if girls are attracted to his dead friends?

Brooks does seem to play to the Columbine card when it suits him and then complain that people are harassing him when it doesn't suit.

CatherineM813,

Quote :

On Youtube there's a video called Eric's friends in Plattsburgh and they said very positive things about him, They also expressed how shocked they were on what Eric had done and how people were describing him in the aftermath. I also agree with them that Eric turned into someone he probably would not have turned into if the Harrises had stayed in Plattsburgh.

In Eric's journal, he professes his love for violence. I'm interested, do you think this is a product of his anger, or do you think he still would have been a violent person even if he never moved to Littleton?

Wideawake

Quote :

Also, Brooks wrote on Tumbler Dude was not what they think. He wasn't cool, he wasn't smooth. He was awkward. Insecure. Not adorably - like badly. Not funny, just playing at it. Both of them. And angry. Neither were Tarantino characters except in their head. Instead, they were more like Napoleon Dynamite. Without the dancing. Or humor..

I've got one more thing to say about this. E/D can't have been as ridiculously insecure as Brooks makes them out to be if they made videos for their classmates to see. Eric approached quite a few girls, even if they did reject him. Blowing up a bomb at their workplace isn't exactly insecure behavior either.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

InFiNiNcEX5,

Quote :

I don't think Brooks really cares one way or the other about the sales of his book. He was literally telling people on Tumblr that they can download it for free on Torrent sites.

Personally, I wonder why he even bothered to announce his presence on Tumblr at all and not expect those questions. It's ridiculous for him to think he could go public on Tumblr as everyone knows it has a younger crowd and not expect to be hounded with Columbine questions. It's not really like posting on Reddit where you have the intellectual discussions about the topic, it's Tumblr, where hormonal girls either obsess about anything under the sun from Bieber to E & D. Me thinks he craves any sort of attention even when it's bad attention. Whether he likes it or not, and regardless of whether he has a whole other adult life in the gaming industry, Columbine is still going to follow him around so he ought to curb the 'tude depending on the public venue he decides to crash. He wrote a book on it which, frankly, has rapidly becoming pretty out-of-date over the decade. He can't really expect the book to still do all the talking for him in answering people's question. Kids look up to him. They're looking at him and posing those 'no easy answers' questions to him. He is vague and clipped in his "answers". He just shouldn't expect to direct them to the book for everything. Plus, it's pretty evident he's not the same person now compared to the younger Brooks writing that book. He is less sympathetic and searching for answers. He's pretty done with talking in schools, etc. Brooks can't really expect to go public and side step the topic altogether or thumb his nose at people's fascination when a good chunk of his public identity is known for his association with E & D.

Ok, I'm finished with rant. heh. However, to sum it up: his stint on Tumblr was a big tease. If he wanted intellectual discussions with an adult crowd on a wide variety of topics, he shouldn't stayed where he was at.

I've given it more thought and think I was probably giving Brooks the benefit of the doubt too much. His behavior DOES paint the picture of a serious Attention Whore.

In the essay he wrote about video game violence, he made sure to let everyone know that he was a friend of the Columbine shooters. He's also been pretty arrogant in seeing himself as some sort of "moral guardian", looking down the nose at teenage girls who profess "love" for E/D -Why does he care if girls are attracted to his dead friends?

Brooks does seem to play to the Columbine card when it suits him and then complain that people are harassing him when it doesn't suit.

CatherineM813,

Quote :

On Youtube there's a video called Eric's friends in Plattsburgh and they said very positive things about him, They also expressed how shocked they were on what Eric had done and how people were describing him in the aftermath. I also agree with them that Eric turned into someone he probably would not have turned into if the Harrises had stayed in Plattsburgh.

In Eric's journal, he professes his love for violence. I'm interested, do you think this is a product of his anger, or do you think he still would have been a violent person even if he never moved to Littleton?

That's a really good question. I believe if Eric had stayed in Plattsburgh it's possible that he probably would have turned out a lot differently. Based on what his Plattsburgh friends have said and things Eric described in school papers it sounded like he enjoyed living there, was a happy kid and had a great group of friends. He even mentioned in the Diversion questionnaire that moving to Littleton was a very traumatizing experience. Plus he never would have met Dylan and vice versa. They unfortunaly had a strong and negative influence on each other and fed off each other's emotions. Putting those two together was just a recipe for disaster.

CatherineM813,

Quote :

Plus he never would have met Dylan and vice versa. They unfortunaly had a strong and negative influence on each other and fed off each other's emotions. Putting those two together was just a recipe for disaster.

Thank you for your reply.

Maybe if Eric stayed in Plattsburgh he wouldn't have been prescribed anti-depressants and may not have been rejected from the Marines, giving him more hope for his future?

It's interesting that you see Eric and Dylan as an equally negative influence on each other. Most of the media has focused on how Eric encouraged Dylan to vent his anger homicidally. But since Eric doesn't seem particularly suicidal to me, maybe that's where Dylan influenced him -perhaps Dylan's suicidal mood rubbed off on Eric.

I think they probably did influence each other negatively. 'You kill with me, I'll die with you'. I definitely think if Eric stayed in Plattsburgh that he would not have gone down the route he did.

On Brooks: Yeah. Definite Attention Whore. I'm fairly sure several of his friends painted him as egotistical. I'm on Tumblr and totally realize that the Columbiners on there are rabid. It was intentional on his part to stray there.

Does anybody know what type of leg problem Eric had? I was looking through his medical records that I found on the Columbine Tag and ever since he was little he had a leg problem.

Does anybody know who won prom queen and king?

CatherineM813 wrote:

Does anybody know who won prom queen and king?

Dylan Klebold and Robyn Anderson? J/K but honestly, I have no clue.

I can't recall where, but I remember reading that Eric's parents lived in the state of Washington before he was born. I think it's also where Kevin was born. Does anybody know what city or town they lived in?

CatherineM813

Quote :

 Does anybody know what type of leg problem Eric had? I was looking through his medical records that I found on the Columbine Tag and ever since he was little he had a leg problem.

It appears that Eric had some kind of Congenital leg problem that existed from birth. His medical records indicate the following doctors visits:
02/17/82: Second Opinion on Congenital Leg Problem
02/23/82: Leg Problem
03/05/82: Leg Problem
03/19/82: Leg Problem
03/24/82: Leg Problem
04/02/82: Leg Problem
04/06/82: Leg Problem
04/23/82: Leg Problem
05/12/82: Leg Problem
06/09/82: Leg Problem
11/10/82: Leg Problem

The medical records in the Harris file go from 12/17/81 and up to 11/15/95, so we don't really know if there were any other medical issues with his leg before or after these dates. Obviously his leg condition was something noted by his parents as he was very young when he first sought medical attention.There are also some doctors visits recorded as "unknown" so they could have possibly been for a leg condition as well. pg(10094 - 10096)

Did their parents know they smoked?

deelightful wrote:

Did their parents know they smoked?

Good question. I'd like to know the answer to that too. My guess is they probably didn't know. They hid everything else from their parents, why would that be an exception? Unless their parents found cigarettes on them or caught them.

At some point, Eric writes in his journal about being good at lying. He gives an example of a lie he says such as : ''I've stopped smoking''. This seems to imply that somebody learned he was smoking and that he had to cover it up by saying that he had stopped. Could be to his parents, which would make sense.

Something I have been wondering for awhile. Rachel was older than Dylan but why was she a grade younger than him?

CatherineM813 wrote:

Something I have been wondering for awhile. Rachel was older than Dylan but why was she a grade younger than him?

In America, it's not uncommon for parents whose children don't turn 5 until August/September to hold them back a year. Dylan's parents must have started him in school just as he turned 5. Rachel's parents waited until she was 6. Perhaps they felt she wasn't ready yet when she was 5. She was born in 1981, correct?

That makes alto of sense and yes Rachel was born in August of 1981.

CatherineM813 wrote:

That makes alto of sense and yes Rachel was born in August of 1981.

Yes. So what happened was, Dylan started school in September, when he was still 4 years old. But, in America, as long as the student turns 5 before September 30th, they are allowed to start school at 4 years old. If the students birthday is October 1st or after, they have to wait until the following year to start.

With Rachel, she turned 5 in August. So when school started, probably at the end of August in Colorado, she had only just turned 5 and if your child turns 5 in August or September, you are allowed to let them wait until the following year to start.

Dylan's parents started him early, when he was 4 years old (getting ready to turn 5) and Rachel's started her late (right after her 6th birthday). So even though Dylan and Rachel were only a month apart in age, because their birthdays fell in August and September, their parents had the choice on when to start them. Dylan's parents said that he was very bright and gifted from the time he was a toddler. So it would make sense that he started at 4.

Think about that: if Dylans parents didn´t send him to school so early... maybe he would not know Eric and maybe Columbine would not happend. And Rachel would be alive. Crazy, I know.

Are the books of Kass and Brooks any good? I've skimmed through most of 11k, do these books have a lot of extra info that's not in the police report? I'm particularly interested in E&D's personalities and causes of 4/20

maninthebox wrote:

Are the books of Kass and Brooks any good? I've skimmed through most of 11k, do these books have a lot of extra info that's not in the police report? I'm particularly interested in E&D's personalities and causes of 4/20

Kass and Brooks's books are the two I have read so far along with The Strangeness of Columbine (loved it but...it's different). They're both very good. Kass has info that I had not read in other places online or otherwise.

Brooks puts you right there as it unfolds and has some personal insights about E&D and the whole event, both before and after it happens. Essential read.

Both books put things together in their own way that police files cannot. In my opinion, it makes sense to read those books.

My own question about Columbine books would be whether or not it's a good idea to get Comprehending Columbine when you've read other material. Mmm?

JayJay, thanks! I think I'll buy them, it's embarrassing that Cullen's is the only Columbine book I've ever read lol

Don't be embarrassed: we all make mistakes in life.

Haha, I've redeemed myself by devouring SBB and 11k. And I forgot, I also read the section on Dylan in A. Solomon's "Far from the tree", which was very informative

maninthebox wrote:

And I forgot, I also read the section on Dylan in A. Solomon's "Far from the tree", which was very informative

Oh, for sure, that's something I want to read too. Good idea.

The section in "Far from the tree" is very interesting and touching.

The Klebold part in that massive book is a short 12-page read. Whoa. I had a lump in my throat reading the comments by Mrs. Klebold... That's a hell of a way to gain wisdom in life, having a son commit a massacre and killing himself. But yes, she obviously has made an incredible, and positive, inward journey from all this. The author of the book is writing about Tom and Sue in an appreciative manner. They are indeed inspiring.

You've said well what I was trying to express. I've also watched "Rosemary's baby" (partly) because she mentions it in the book.

Spoiler:

Small question I have - where was Radioactive clothing filmed? I've read the answer somewhere, but can't remember now

They were driving around for the first part of it. If you mean whose house was the 2nd part filmed at? I believe that was Mike Vendegnia's house. If not his, it would have had to been Erik Veik's house. Pretty sure it was Mike's though.

Jenn wrote:

They were driving around for the first part of it. If you mean whose house was the 2nd part filmed at? I believe that was Mike Vendegnia's house. If not his, it would have had to been Erik Veik's house. Pretty sure it was Mike's though.

Yeah, I meant the house. Thanks!

Does Wayne Harris ever mention why he never did regular room searches for Eric after finding a propane bomb? That should have sent off warning signs, though maybe he just didn't want to believe it?

@Marco1211: I don't know myself, maybe someone else will have an answer for you, but my impression? It's that the basement was sort of a no-go place for the parents. It does seem like both parents, the dad at least, was in some denial, not wanting to see what was going on. He took some pipe bomb device but nothing else, apparently didn't search the whole room after that episode. ''Let's make sure he studies and sleeps and gets home by 6pm and get things done but, otherwise, we'll let him do whatever else he wants in his basement.'', may have been the logic behind it. It's not unique to them: many parents would not believe their kids capable of planning something like a shooting and would rather cut a teenage boy under pressure some slack...as long as he seems to behave.

For some reason, the mother said to police coming in on 4/20: ''don't go down there''. She may have been afraid of something being discovered or exploding, or, not believing her son was involved at that point, did not want the basement to be searched and turned around because what would Eric think when he got home later during the day?!? Who knows what she thought.

She did make sure she fed ''the monster down in his cave'' with slimjims and candies. Don't wake up the monster, less he devours you!