Cullen's book

So I just finished reading Cullen's book on Columbine... and wow, I am genuinely shocked by how much bullshit was in this book. Anyone else bothered by how much he lied? Like saying Eric was a master psychopath who when he walked into rooms, lady's panties automatically fell down. (If that were true, he wouldn't have done this.) And how Dylan was just some depressed follower that got tricked into it by Eric? Like, why so many lies? I get everyone has their own opinion, but this is just plain wrong, and millions of people have read this book and believe what he has said. Spreading false information is horrible.

OH DAMN! Where's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]!?

But yeah most people dislike Cullen's take on Columbine.

What pissed me off the most is that he claimed they were never bullied.

Pretty sure Eric was shirtless in class one day...for a mummy presentation. If Cullen was correct I don’t know how every woman didn’t automatically get pregnant....

Screamingophelia wrote:

Pretty sure Eric was shirtless in class one day...for a mummy presentation. If Cullen was correct I don’t know how every woman didn’t automatically get pregnant....

I think people with more than a passing interest in this crime know how full of shit Cullen is. For whatever reason, he had his head so far up Dwayne Fuselier's ass that despite tons of evidence to the contrary he believed every single thing Fuselier spouted as "fact" for why E& D did what they did.

The sad part is, I think outside of circles like ours (I'm a newbie but including myself in with you guys ) Cullen's version of events is how Columbine and Harris and Klebold are viewed by the vast majority of the population.

thelmar wrote:

I think people with more than a passing interest in this crime know how full of shit Cullen is. For whatever reason, he had his head so far up Dwayne Fuselier's ass that despite tons of evidence to the contrary he believed every single thing Fuselier spouted as "fact" for why E& D did what they did.

The sad part is, I think outside of circles like ours (I'm a newbie but including myself in with you guys ) Cullen's version of events is how Columbine and Harris and Klebold are viewed by the vast majority of the population.

You are correct. I spoke to people who were underclassman at Columbine st the time or in junior high then went to Columbine who believe his version

thelmar wrote:

The sad part is, I think outside of circles like ours (I'm a newbie but including myself in with you guys ) Cullen's version of events is how Columbine and Harris and Klebold are viewed by the vast majority of the population.

I don't know about that. I think the popular depiction of Eric and Dylan is still the "bullied loner" type, because it's been ingrained into popular culture long before Cullen was around.

QuestionMark wrote:

thelmar wrote:

The sad part is, I think outside of circles like ours (I'm a newbie but including myself in with you guys ) Cullen's version of events is how Columbine and Harris and Klebold are viewed by the vast majority of the population.

I don't know about that. I think the popular depiction of Eric and Dylan is still the "bullied loner" type, because it's been ingrained into popular culture long before Cullen was around.

agreed, especially when you've got popular artists like Eminem ("when a dudes getting bullied and shoots up his school and they blame it on Marilyn") reinforcing it

QuestionMark wrote:

thelmar wrote:

The sad part is, I think outside of circles like ours (I'm a newbie but including myself in with you guys ) Cullen's version of events is how Columbine and Harris and Klebold are viewed by the vast majority of the population.

I don't know about that. I think the popular depiction of Eric and Dylan is still the "bullied loner" type, because it's been ingrained into popular culture long before Cullen was around.

That's at least more accurate than Cullen.

23september wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

thelmar wrote:

The sad part is, I think outside of circles like ours (I'm a newbie but including myself in with you guys ) Cullen's version of events is how Columbine and Harris and Klebold are viewed by the vast majority of the population.

I don't know about that. I think the popular depiction of Eric and Dylan is still the "bullied loner" type, because it's been ingrained into popular culture long before Cullen was around.

agreed, especially when you've got popular artists like Eminem ("when a dudes getting bullied and shoots up his school and they blame it on Marilyn") reinforcing it

I think many people like us do get it, but read the comments section of any Columbine video on YouTube and for every person who writes that they were bullied you'll find equal numbers of people saying, they weren't really bullied, weren't bullied much so had no reason to strike out, THEY were the bullies, or Eric was just a psychopath.
I've stopped discussing the case with "regular" people because I get frustrated that much of what the people I know IRL regurgitate about it is what's been presented on TV.

(And I, of course, don't feel bullying was the sole cause, nor a justifiable cause for their actions).

ChaotixBoy wrote:

So I just finished reading Cullen's book on Columbine... and wow, I am genuinely shocked by how much bullshit was in this book. Anyone else bothered by how much he lied?

Cullen and Larkin are probably the most misleading and most simplistic takes on the event. Both contain some valuable parts, but you need to weed this out from the BS.

In Larkin's book it is easy: Read the interviews with the students, then make your own judgement knowing who was in what HS faction). The rest of Larkin's book is BS.

With Cullen's book it is harder. The valuable parts are ones where he is trying to summarize the points raised by Dr.Ochberg, but he does it in a clumsy, simplified-as-heck manner. Which is usually what happens when a journalist is trying to sum up the findings of a clinical psychologist.

ChaotixBoy wrote:

Like saying Eric was a master psychopath who when he walked into rooms, lady's panties automatically fell down. (If that were true, he wouldn't have done this.)

Or at least he would have caused a lot of pain and suffering to a lot of women, instead of shooting random people.

ChaotixBoy wrote:

And how Dylan was just some depressed follower that got tricked into it by Eric? Like, why so many lies?

If ignorance and conspiracy both appear to be possible explanations, ignorance is always the most likely. I don't think Cullen is on a missin to lie to us (neither is Larkin), rather they are just relying on false information and on top of that make bad interpretations of the facts.

Dave Cullen was fake news before fake news was kewl.

I still remember the day I first stumbled upon the steaming pile of shit that is Cullenbine.

When I read that Eric Harris "got chicks - lots and lots of chicks," I threw the fucking book across the room. I must have flung that book against the nearest wall at least a dozen times before I made it to the end of the first chapter.

When I finally reached the last page, I felt as if I had been butt-raped with a chainsaw. I was almost bald from having ripped all of the hair out of my head in frustration over Cullen's fabrications. My fists were bloody and raw from all of the times I pounded the table in anger over Cullen's lies. My voice was hoarse from having screamed "Dave, you fucking asshole, where is your fucking *evidence* for this bullshit that you're pulling out of your ass?!?" ten thousand times.

That was nine years ago.

Over time, the raw pain of my encounter with Dave Cullen's magnum opus subsided somewhat, but the scars - mental and physical - never went away.

I don't spend much time thinking about Columbine these days, but when I do, it still pisses me off that a charlatan like Cullen can make so much money by pissing on the graves of Eric, Dylan, and their victims.

LPorter101 wrote:

Dave Cullen was fake news before fake news was kewl.

I still remember the day I first stumbled upon the steaming pile of shit that is Cullenbine.

When I read that Eric Harris "got chicks - lots and lots of chicks," I threw the fucking book across the room. I must have flung that book against the nearest wall at least a dozen times before I made it to the end of the first chapter.

When I finally reached the last page, I felt as if I had been butt-raped with a chainsaw. I was almost bald from having ripped all of the hair out of my head in frustration over Cullen's fabrications. My fists were bloody and raw from all of the times I pounded the table in anger over Cullen's lies. My voice was hoarse from having screamed "Dave, you fucking asshole, where is your fucking *evidence* for this bullshit that you're pulling out of your ass?!?" ten thousand times.

That was nine years ago.

Over time, the raw pain of my encounter with Dave Cullen's magnum opus subsided somewhat, but the scars - mental and physical - never went away.

I don't spend much time thinking about Columbine these days, but when I do, it still pisses me off that a charlatan like Cullen can make so much money by pissing on the graves of Eric, Dylan, and their victims.

YES!    I knew you would stumble upon this!

[quote="ShadowedGoddess"]

LPorter101 wrote:

Dave Cullen was fake news before fake news was kewl.

I still remember the day I first stumbled upon the steaming pile of shit that is Cullenbine.

When I read that Eric Harris "got chicks - lots and lots of chicks," I threw the fucking book across the room. I must have flung that book against the nearest wall at least a dozen times before I made it to the end of the first chapter.

When I finally reached the last page, I felt as if I had been butt-raped with a chainsaw. I was almost bald from having ripped all of the hair out of my head in frustration over Cullen's fabrications. My fists were bloody and raw from all of the times I pounded the table in anger over Cullen's lies. My voice was hoarse from having screamed "Dave, you fucking asshole, where is your fucking *evidence* for this bullshit that you're pulling out of your ass?!?" ten thousand times.

That was nine years ago.

Over time, the raw pain of my encounter with Dave Cullen's magnum opus subsided somewhat, but the scars - mental and physical - never went away.

I don't spend much time thinking about Columbine these days, but when I do, it still pisses me off that a charlatan like Cullen can make so much money by pissing on the graves of Eric, Dylan, and their victims.

  I have not laughed so hard or nodded so much in agreement in a long time. Thank you for this masterpiece!!

Tommy QTR wrote:

What pissed me off the most is that he claimed they were never bullied.

He didn't say that. He says they were perpetrators more than victims and that while they had some bad days, there's no evidence that the bullying led directly to the massacre. He also said that when airing their grievances jock bullies were never mentioned, which is an unfortunate stretch.

I myself believe it was a smaller factor.

While I believe the primary mistake of Cullen's book is that he uses something that is probably only partially true (psycho/depressive) to explain the entirety of the massacre, I'd like someone to list all the things he says in the book that can be proven false, since he did take out the Brenda Parker story in a later edition.
I mean, let's do something constructive like that instead of just digging up this tired subject for the 46,380th time and just rehashing the same "Cullen sucks!" "Yeah, he's HORRIBLE!!!!" stuff yet again. We must have had this exact thread over and over and over again by now.

They weren’t bullied as much as they think they were. Key word is think

Maybe I’m tired but what does it mean when you that they weren’t bullied as much as they think they were, who is “they” . There is evidence to bullying and even though the boys didn’t write so much about it in their journals doesn’t mean that there is no evidence, The 11 K and interviews with Devon and Chad are some pretty good evidence. we don’t know how it affected them. We can imagine just from studying the way way Eric and Dylan were we would infer that it would affect them negatively but also differently.

I will always believe the words of people who knew Eric and Dylan like Brooks who said bullying was a major factor than idiots like Cullen and others who have no idea what they're talking about.

What pisses me off is that the principal of the school knew of the bullying, but did nothing about it. I'm sorta surprised they didn't go after the principal.

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

We must have had this exact thread over and over and over again by now.

Yep, this is beating a dead horse by now.

I'd like to read it, but never bothered since it's never in in the library. But I think Lunkhead had a good idea, about making a list of everything wrong with the book and perhaps even sending it to him.

I'll do it myself but that'll take a few weeks, gotta borrow/read it first

23september wrote:

I'd like to read it, but never bothered since it's never in in the library. But I think Lunkhead had a good idea, about making a list of everything wrong with the book and perhaps even sending it to him.

I'll do it myself but that'll take a few weeks, gotta borrow/read it first

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Cullen is very much aware of the various shortcomings within his book. Some things were taken out or fixed in later reprints, such as the Brenda Parker debacle as Lunkhead McGrath said.

As for other things good ol' Dave refuses to acknowledge the possibilities. Like Dylan was an equal participant, Eric Harris likely wasn't a true full out psychopath, etc.

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

 I mean, let's do something constructive like that instead of just digging up this tired subject for the 46,380th time and just rehashing the same "Cullen sucks!" "Yeah, he's HORRIBLE!!!!" stuff yet again.  We must have had this exact thread over and over and over again by now.

As I have said before the forum has some old school researchers, mixed in with several grades of newbies. Some are just beginning their Columbine journey, while others are in the early stages of debunking myths, reading through conspiracy theories etc. Then you have some that have been at this for a long time, having seen/heard/read it all.  

It does get tiring to see the same things repeated over and over. But this is what happens when you research a crime that is almost 20 years old.

I did read Cullen's book but took it with a pinch of salt. It's an enjoyable read but by no means the only source of information about Columbine out there. Also because I read a lot of information here before I read his book I knew which parts were fabricated and altered to go along with his idea of the truth of Columbine.

katherinex wrote:

I did read Cullen's book but took it with a pinch of salt. It's an enjoyable read but by no means the only source of information about Columbine out there. Also because I read a lot of information here before I read his book I knew which parts were fabricated and altered to go along with his idea of the truth of Columbine.

One could easily die from sodium poisoning if you took a pinch at EVERY falsehood in his first released book!

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

23september wrote:

I'd like to read it, but never bothered since it's never in in the library. But I think Lunkhead had a good idea, about making a list of everything wrong with the book and perhaps even sending it to him.

I'll do it myself but that'll take a few weeks, gotta borrow/read it first

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Cullen is very much aware of the various shortcomings within his book. Some things were taken out or fixed in later reprints, such as the Brenda Parker debacle as Lunkhead McGrath said.

As for other things good ol' Dave refuses to acknowledge the possibilities. Like Dylan was an equal participant, Eric Harris likely wasn't a true full out psychopath, etc.

True, I still like the idea of sending him a long list of things he got wrong and really back it up with facts, but he's proven to be quite ignorant

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

23september wrote:

I'd like to read it, but never bothered since it's never in in the library. But I think Lunkhead had a good idea, about making a list of everything wrong with the book and perhaps even sending it to him.

I'll do it myself but that'll take a few weeks, gotta borrow/read it first

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Cullen is very much aware of the various shortcomings within his book. Some things were taken out or fixed in later reprints, such as the Brenda Parker debacle as Lunkhead McGrath said.

As for other things good ol' Dave refuses to acknowledge the possibilities. Like Dylan was an equal participant, Eric Harris likely wasn't a true full out psychopath, etc.

I want a list of things that are FACTUALLY wrong, not just things people disagree with. Like the "a busty girl waved at them" or that one rap metal band not having an album out yet, or whatever the hell it was. You guys keep saying over and over again he got all these facts wrong and then you just bring up the ladies'-man stuff.
Now to be fair, Dave removed the Brenda Parker bit, but kept in the "lots and lots of chicks" line, which probably infuriates people here more than anything else.

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

23september wrote:

I'd like to read it, but never bothered since it's never in in the library. But I think Lunkhead had a good idea, about making a list of everything wrong with the book and perhaps even sending it to him.

I'll do it myself but that'll take a few weeks, gotta borrow/read it first

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Cullen is very much aware of the various shortcomings within his book. Some things were taken out or fixed in later reprints, such as the Brenda Parker debacle as Lunkhead McGrath said.

As for other things good ol' Dave refuses to acknowledge the possibilities. Like Dylan was an equal participant, Eric Harris likely wasn't a true full out psychopath, etc.

I want a list of things that are FACTUALLY wrong, not just things people disagree with.  Like the "a busty girl waved at them" or that one rap metal band not having an album out yet, or whatever the hell it was.  You guys keep saying over and over again he got all these facts wrong and then you just bring up the ladies'-man stuff.  
Now to be fair, Dave removed the Brenda Parker bit, but kept in the "lots and lots of chicks" line, which probably infuriates people here more than anything else.

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?

Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

It's amazing though we are still talking about Columbine 20 years later. I think the mystery can finally be solved as to why they did it if they release the basement tapes.

bradt93 wrote:

I think the mystery can finally be solved as to why they did it if they release the basement tapes.

Unless Eric and Dylan spelled it out for us, I very much doubt that. The true motive wouldn't be known even if we had all the evidence laid out in front of us, because quite frankly, we aren't Eric and Dylan, and therefore will never totally understand them (assuming of course they even understood themselves, which is doubtful as well).

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real. Certainly. I'm not saying it never happened. It happened. However I only think it is a smaller factor. How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you? I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.
The kid they threatened the most was Brooks, and look what happened there. They let him go. They let Evan Todd go too. I think it was dumb of Cullen to ask why they didn't just go blow up a football game if jock bullies were the primary reason, but I don't think it's dumb of him to point out how much time Eric spent threatening Brooks Brown and then did nothing to him, or to point out that no one they named in the basement tapes (like Brandon Larson) would be killed. I want to know why the people they hated the most weren't victims of what they did. And if Eric and Dylan weren't ladies' men, they were hardly two antisocial dorks, they took part in stuff like RNN and crap like that, they took part in school activities.

Cullen is unlikely to be mostly correct, but he is also not totally wrong, either. Glomming onto Dwayne Fuselier was a bit pathetic of Cullen, but I don't think it's any more pathetic than you guys automatically disqualifying Fuselier because his kid was there that day.

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    
The kid they threatened the most was Brooks, and look what happened there.  They let him go.  They let Evan Todd go too.  I think it was dumb of Cullen to ask why they didn't just go blow up a football game if jock bullies were the primary reason, but I don't think it's dumb of him to point out how much time Eric spent threatening Brooks Brown and then did nothing to him, or to point out that no one they named in the basement tapes (like Brandon Larson) would be killed.  I want to know why the people they hated the most weren't victims of what they did.  And if Eric and Dylan weren't ladies' men, they were hardly two antisocial dorks, they took part in stuff like RNN and crap like that, they took part in school activities.  

Cullen is unlikely to be mostly correct, but he is also not totally wrong, either.  Glomming onto Dwayne Fuselier was a bit pathetic of Cullen, but I don't think it's any more pathetic than you guys automatically disqualifying Fuselier because his kid was there that day.  

I can see that. From the Basement Tape Transcripts it is interesting when they talk about the people they want killed (namely Brandon Larson who Dylan wanted to stab and carry around his head) yet the actual "plan" was more impersonal.

I do agree with you about how E and D were somewhere in between, Eric wasn't a ladies man but even seeing them talk in various videos, they had inflection and personalities. They made people laugh. They weren't like Brooks described them as monosyllabic and monotone bores who couldn't string a sentence together.

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

What pissed me off the most is that he claimed they were never bullied.

While I believe the primary mistake of Cullen's book is that he uses something that is probably only partially true (psycho/depressive) to explain the entirety of the massacre, I'd like someone to list all the things he says in the book that can be proven false, since he did take out the Brenda Parker story in a later edition.  

When he took out the Brenda Parker story in the later edition, did he explain that it was because it was blatantly false or did he just omit it without comment?
The main problem I have with Cullen is that Brenda Parker was a known liar before Cullen's first book was published. So, either he is a terribly sloppy researcher (which I don't respect) or he intentionally tried to mislead (which I respect even less). When he was writing his book he had no way of knowing that the police would later release all of those documents and everyone would be able to figure out Parker was lying.

I have only read the first edition so honestly don't know if he did a mea culpa and said, "Yeah, I was wrong about Brenda Parker." or if he just took it out and hoped no one would notice.

the columbine shooters were actually chads that were in the national football league and fucked girls every 2 seconds, they had the nerds buy guns for them.

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    

I found this interesting, do you not think Dylan and Eric were seriously mentally ill? I personally think that Dylan displayed serious chronic depression at the very least, but I think we would find out more things if he had been able to be properly diagnosed. Eric we don't have many writings from which discusses how he feels other than how he feels regarding politics and other people in the world, which in turn does give us a hint about his mental state but he never details it the way Dylan does (although he does fill out that form with the checks)

Or maybe your definition of serious involves it showing more?

Just curious on what you think of Dylan and Erics mental state, and why it wasn't serious

23september wrote:

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    

I found this interesting, do you not think Dylan and Eric were seriously mentally ill? I personally think that Dylan displayed serious chronic depression at the very least, but I think we would find out more things if he had been able to be properly diagnosed. Eric we don't have many writings from which discusses how he feels other than how he feels regarding politics and other people in the world, which in turn does give us a hint about his mental state but he never details it the way Dylan does (although he does fill out that form with the checks)

Or maybe your definition of serious involves it showing more?

Just curious on what you think of Dylan and Erics mental state, and why it wasn't serious

I have to honest, I think there is a disconnect and some sort of mental health (or brain health) issue in someone that decides to commit a massacre like that. Dylan was not diagnosed and did need professional help. I think he needed to find someone really good that he connect with. Someone he could respect.

I think things built up in Eric over time and they fed off of each other, and what may have started off as a joke turned into something more serious. That would be something that I would love to go back in time and see, the conversation that started it all... because HOW, and how do you come and trust someone so much to do a murder/suicide mission with. It is fascinating.

Screamingophelia wrote:

That would be something that I would love to go back in time and see, the conversation that started it all... because HOW, and how do you come and trust someone so much to do a murder/suicide mission with. It is fascinating.

100% Agreed!  I would love to hear how that very first convo went, also the one that took it from merely venting into the start of what NBK became.

23september wrote:

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    

I found this interesting, do you not think Dylan and Eric were seriously mentally ill?

I think it depends on how you define mental illness.

Obviously Eric and Dylan were not schizophrenic for instance.

QuestionMark wrote:

23september wrote:

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    

I found this interesting, do you not think Dylan and Eric were seriously mentally ill?

I think it depends on how you define mental illness.

Obviously Eric and Dylan were not schizophrenic for instance.

Sure, but having an mental illness such as depression and having it be as serious as theirs, I do think it was serious. But I agree, they weren't Lanza mentally ill.

Didn't Eric have that quote in his rebdomine aol, "It's fun being schizophrenic"? I feel like I've read that

23september wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

23september wrote:

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    

I found this interesting, do you not think Dylan and Eric were seriously mentally ill?

I think it depends on how you define mental illness.

Obviously Eric and Dylan were not schizophrenic for instance.

Sure, but having an mental illness such as depression and having it be as serious as theirs, I do think it was serious. But I agree, they weren't Lanza mentally ill.

Didn't Eric have that quote in his rebdomine aol, "It's fun being schizophrenic"? I feel like I've read that

I believe so. I think he was trying to be funny.

QuestionMark wrote:

23september wrote:

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:

Screamingophelia wrote:

Two questions. Would you say the bullying is factually wrong since in the 11k and interviews with people like Chad, Devon and Sue confirm it to some extent?
Also there was an old forum member who has a blog and she did a chapter by chapter debunking of the book.. I can PM you if you have not seen it.

I want to look into what things are wrong according to Randy Brown and Ann Marie Hochhalter. Ann Marie especially since she is one of the only survivors that I have heard speak about the book to be honest.

The bullying was real.  Certainly.  I'm not saying it never happened.  It happened.  However I only think it is a smaller factor.  How does bullying, all by itself, make you want to shoot people who didn't bully you?  I'm not even saying there isn't an answer to that question, but I am saying that I believe much larger factors must be the reason behind a senseless massacre being perpetrated by two kids who weren't seriously mentally ill.    

I found this interesting, do you not think Dylan and Eric were seriously mentally ill?

I think it depends on how you define mental illness.

Obviously Eric and Dylan were not schizophrenic for instance.

This is pretty much what I meant, yes. Depression and or whatever the hell was wrong with Eric is not the same thing as hearing voices or cuckoo stuff or whatever Adam Lanza thought he was doing when he blew away those poor first graders. E&D knew what they were doing.

I get the impression people either think its complete trash or completely accurate. I read only parts of the book. I dont think its nearly as bad as people want it to be. Eric did have a number of dates, but Cullen goes to the extreme end.


Also, I dont think they were really that upopular. I believe that they were both liked and disliked by many. Some people disliked them because they were Troubled, or because they were perceived as outcasts. Others liked them really well. I dont think they were the most upopular students at the school, but, rather, it depends on who you are asking. Dave Cullen has been credited by some experts for hes book and critisized by journalist Jeff Kass.
This makes me think that the book is worth a trie, but thats my opinion