Im coming to an end with the whole Columbine shooting.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Its not that I dont like it that people diagnose someone thats dead or not present. I find it puzzling to be exact. But I assume that they have their qualified reasons even if its not usually the way that it should have been done.

The point isnt the ethics of doing so. The point is wether thats possible. Which it is. Ethical or not is a complete different discussion.

When judging whether or not someone's opinion is credible and worthy of listening to, you must not look only at their schooling/qualifications but their motives, past actions, and their character. A reverend with a PhD in Religious Studies who gets caught bad mouthing a person because of their race is not someone you want teaching your child about morals. A lawyer and graduate of Harvard Law School, who knows it is unethical to have an affair with a jurist on a trial he is prosecuting, even if they do not discuss the case together, but does so anyway, is not someone I would hire as my District Attorney. A best-selling author who skates the boundaries of what is plagiarism of others works without full-on plagiarizing is not someone I would want teaching me about how to write a book. And, as an extreme example, Josef Mengele earned a medical degree at the University of Frankfort but he performed horrific experiments on live human beings. I wouldn't be taking medical advice from him.    

You are putting trust and value on the opinions of people who are violating the ethics of their profession. If they are willing to violate the ethics of their profession (and in this instance, as far as evaluation of Eric Harris is concerned, this is not debatable, especially if they don't qualify that they could be wrong in their opinions), why would I trust them? If I know someone is doing something that they have been warned not to do, I have to ask myself what are their motives? What do they gain from it? If they are committing this wrong action, why should I trust them?

I want you to know that I appreciate you. Despite our differences of opinion, you are always very respectful and you do not slip into personal attacks or snide remarks nor accuse people of saying things they are not. That said, our opinions on this subject (and that of whether there is definitive proof that Eric and Dylan were bullied ) are completely at odds and after much back and forth discussion I see no way that we would bridge the chasm enough for the discussions to be rewarding or a learning process for either of us. As such, I'm bowing out of this discussion but I look forward to participating in others with you which might help both of us advance our understanding of what happened at Columbine.

Frank Ochberg is very skilled at what he does. There are, of course, certain things one can critisize Cullen for, but hes right on track here: He never came up with the leader/follower all by himself. Thats Dwayne Fuselier. He never came up with the idea that Eric was a psychopath. That was the investigators in the case. Is it ethical? Thats a whole different question. Is the analysis correct? Thats up for a specialist to decide and not for us to speculate. Unless you are doing some sort of education in the field.

That aside, we Will probably never fully understand what happened at Columbine, and experts that have researched this issue Will probably have disagreements over what role bullying and the culture of Columbine played. Adding more confusion to it, like Newman and others have done wont fix anything. Hopefully we can trie to prevent gun violence in the future

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

Its not that I dont think they werent bullied. Both Far From the tree and A mothers reckoning suggests that its fully possible. But its not answer typically set in Stone, as far as I see it. I believe in the burden of proof philosophy that whoever makes a claim has to back them up. To me the bullying aspect is more confusing than it is reassuring, because we hear multiple different claims back and forth, by experts, law enforcement and even the withnesses themselves. Regardless what is true, someone is not going to like the answer. I dont in cases like these, and Im pretty sure Im not alone here.

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

But random "psychiatric experts" who "diagnosed" Eric without ever having met him are totally legit.

It is not a question of whether it is ethical or not (while it is not), but it is a matter of whether or not it is LEGITIMATE. If you never met or worked with Eric its likely ehat you're basing your diagnosis on isn't valid or legitimate to his true frame of mind.

That is what those of us who have careers and education in this and related fields are telling you, and you keeo googling random people who are doing precisely what their field and governing body says is unethical and is likely to not be legitimate or correct, in an effort to challenge us.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] your mental gymnastics to believe precisely what you want to believe is without doubt objectively correct is absolutely astounding.

[quote="milennialrebelette"]

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

But random "psychiatric experts" who "diagnosed" Eric without ever having met him are totally legit.

It is not a question of whether it is ethical or not (while it is not), but it is a matter of whether or not it is LEGITIMATE. If you never met or worked with Eric its likely ehat you're basing your diagnosis on isn't valid or legitimate to his true frame of mind.

That is what those of us who have careers and education in this and related fields are telling you, and you keeo googling random people who are doing precisely what their field and governing body says is unethical and is likely to not be legitimate or correct, in an effort to challenge us.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] your mental gymnastics to believe precisely what you want to believe is without doubt objectively correct is absolutely astounding.[/quote

Im pretty sure Ochberg knows what hes doing. The Goldwater Rule specifies that its unethical. And, besides, IDK your education, because I dont even know who you are. Why should I take what people are saying at face value? Of course we can all say this wasnt legitimate to hes own frame of mind. Er can all argue that diagnosing someone wo their presence is unethical(it very likely is). That doesnt mean that the point is invalid, which I have very good reason to doubt. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

Not entirely, because Eric talks about anything from drunk drivers to whatever and oftentimes he contradicts himself. Like Langmann suggested, they contradict themselves all the time.

When it comes to the school records, it briefly mentions one incident Where he is hit with balls and pushed against a locker. One incident.

And than there are accounts from friends. Many of those are contradictory. Some have stated that they were bullied, but there are also some statements which suggests that they never did see any bullying. On top of this, some statements are false. And this is crucial to understand the whole perspective. On top of this, I think its important to question: How much of the harassment was in response to their own alienating behaviour? They themselves intimidated a girl as far back as 8th grade. They bullied a disabled boy to the point Where the parents called in the admin. Its possible that they may have been bullying victims(that is, both bullies and subjected to bullying [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Those that occupy the middle ground. Some statements support this. But its difficult to make complete sense out of the facts , when there are many conflicting statements. On top of this, one expert that helped investigate the case, suggests that they were not bullied. Again, conflicting statements.

'We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'.

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

We have to look behind the stereotypes that we are led to believe in regards to school shootings. Dare to be critical, sort to speak. In this case, it seems to me like there is no perfect answer. Its all very conflicting

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

Basically, from what Cullen says here, they were not allowed to speak to the public. What it also suggest is that there would be resistance to diagnosing someone at that age. But it also suggests that dr Robert Hare was called in, and some of the worlds leading psychologists.

Norwegian wrote:

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

Basically, from what Cullen says here, they were not allowed to speak to the public. What it also suggest is that there would be resistance to diagnosing someone at that age. But it also suggests that dr Robert Hare was called in, and some of the worlds leading psychologists.

Those paragraphs right here are in the nutshell why you can't trust anything Cullen says. What a blatant misinterpretation of events to push your narrative. So Ochberg admits it's unprofessional to diagnose teenager with psychopathy, something that all psychologists should know. And then this little anecdote about summit, where ONE person (and we don't know who is this person, what this person thought and if it's actually happened) raised his hand and said "Harris was full blown psychopath". And then out of sudden "Colleagues agree". ONE colleague agreed. That's it. If this whole event happened in the different way, and all experts present were questioned about the subject of Eric's psychopathy, then it should've been described that way. And of course, this mention of Doctor Hare, who was mentioned as a expert who was present at the summit. That's it. Basically he was present in the building. But now you can see where all those stories of "Hare diagnosed Harris as a psychopath" Are coming from. This is textbook example of irresponsible journalism.

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

Not entirely, because Eric talks about anything from drunk drivers to whatever and oftentimes he contradicts himself. Like Langmann suggested, they contradict themselves all the time.

When it comes to the school records, it briefly mentions one incident Where he is hit with balls and pushed against a locker. One incident.

And than there are accounts from friends. Many of those are contradictory. Some have stated that they were bullied, but there are also some statements which suggests that they never did see any bullying. On top of this, some statements are false. And this is crucial to understand the whole perspective. On top of this, I think its important to question: How much of the harassment was in response to their own alienating behaviour? They themselves intimidated a girl as far back as 8th grade. They bullied a disabled boy to the point Where the parents called in the admin. Its possible that they may have been bullying victims(that is, both bullies and subjected to bullying [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Those that occupy the middle ground. Some statements support this. But its difficult to make complete sense out of the facts , when there are many conflicting statements. On top of this, one expert that helped investigate the case, suggests that they were not bullied. Again, conflicting statements.

'We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'.

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

We have to look behind the stereotypes that we are led to believe in regards to school shootings. Dare to be critical, sort to speak. In this case, it seems to me like there is no perfect answer. Its all very conflicting

Look, i really don't like to talk about issue of their bullying anymore. It's beyond tiresome. But i just can't help myself - you said school record briefly mention one incident, and then you mention TWO incidents (in the gym and with the locker). Even if they happened on the same day, it's still two different incidents. You contradict your own words.
I am currently reading Rita Gleason book, and her chapter on bullying is very good, well researched and convincing.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

Not entirely, because Eric talks about anything from drunk drivers to whatever and oftentimes he contradicts himself. Like Langmann suggested, they contradict themselves all the time.

When it comes to the school records, it briefly mentions one incident Where he is hit with balls and pushed against a locker. One incident.

And than there are accounts from friends. Many of those are contradictory. Some have stated that they were bullied, but there are also some statements which suggests that they never did see any bullying. On top of this, some statements are false. And this is crucial to understand the whole perspective. On top of this, I think its important to question: How much of the harassment was in response to their own alienating behaviour? They themselves intimidated a girl as far back as 8th grade. They bullied a disabled boy to the point Where the parents called in the admin. Its possible that they may have been bullying victims(that is, both bullies and subjected to bullying [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Those that occupy the middle ground. Some statements support this. But its difficult to make complete sense out of the facts , when there are many conflicting statements. On top of this, one expert that helped investigate the case, suggests that they were not bullied. Again, conflicting statements.

'We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'.

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

We have to look behind the stereotypes that we are led to believe in regards to school shootings. Dare to be critical, sort to speak. In this case, it seems to me like there is no perfect answer. Its all very conflicting

Look, i really don't like to talk about issue of their bullying anymore. It's beyond tiresome. But i just can't help myself - you said school record briefly mention one incident, and then you mention TWO incidents (in the gym and with the locker). Even if they happened on the same day, it's still two different incidents. You contradict your own words.
I am currently reading Rita Gleason book, and her chapter on bullying is very good, well researched and convincing.

The balls and the pushing into lockers are mentioned as one particular incident. Its more in the direction they hit him with balls in the gym and he got pushed against a locker again after this. This is mentioned in Langmanns book 'Why Kids kill'. I make sure to find it when I have the time, but its also possible to find in Langmanns book. I also make sure to look up Gleasons book

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

Not entirely, because Eric talks about anything from drunk drivers to whatever and oftentimes he contradicts himself. Like Langmann suggested, they contradict themselves all the time.

When it comes to the school records, it briefly mentions one incident Where he is hit with balls and pushed against a locker. One incident.

And than there are accounts from friends. Many of those are contradictory. Some have stated that they were bullied, but there are also some statements which suggests that they never did see any bullying. On top of this, some statements are false. And this is crucial to understand the whole perspective. On top of this, I think its important to question: How much of the harassment was in response to their own alienating behaviour? They themselves intimidated a girl as far back as 8th grade. They bullied a disabled boy to the point Where the parents called in the admin. Its possible that they may have been bullying victims(that is, both bullies and subjected to bullying [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Those that occupy the middle ground. Some statements support this. But its difficult to make complete sense out of the facts , when there are many conflicting statements. On top of this, one expert that helped investigate the case, suggests that they were not bullied. Again, conflicting statements.

'We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'.

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

We have to look behind the stereotypes that we are led to believe in regards to school shootings. Dare to be critical, sort to speak. In this case, it seems to me like there is no perfect answer. Its all very conflicting

Look, i really don't like to talk about issue of their bullying anymore. It's beyond tiresome. But i just can't help myself - you said school record briefly mention one incident, and then you mention TWO incidents (in the gym and with the locker). Even if they happened on the same day, it's still two different incidents. You contradict your own words.
I am currently reading Rita Gleason book, and her chapter on bullying is very good, well researched and convincing.

The balls and the pushing into lockers are mentioned as one particular incident. Its more in the direction they hit him with balls in the gym and he got pushed against a locker again after this. This is mentioned in Langmanns book 'Why Kids kill'. I make sure to find it when I have the time, but its also possible to find in Langmanns book. I also make sure to look up Gleasons book

No need to look, i know about those two incidents. You are describing two different incidents - bullying in the gym and bullying in the hallway.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

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

Basically, from what Cullen says here, they were not allowed to speak to the public. What it also suggest is that there would be resistance to diagnosing someone at that age. But it also suggests that dr Robert Hare was called in, and some of the worlds leading psychologists.

Those paragraphs right here are in the nutshell why you can't trust anything Cullen says. What a blatant misinterpretation of events to push your narrative. So Ochberg admits it's unprofessional to diagnose teenager with psychopathy, something that all psychologists should know. And then this little anecdote about summit, where ONE person (and we don't know who is this person, what this person thought and if it's actually happened) raised his hand and said "Harris was full blown psychopath". And then out of sudden "Colleagues agree". ONE colleague agreed. That's it. If this whole event happened in the different way, and all experts present were questioned about the subject of Eric's psychopathy, then it should've been described that way. And of course, this mention of Doctor Hare, who was mentioned as a expert who was present at the summit. That's it. Basically he was present in the building. But now you can see where all those stories of "Hare diagnosed Harris as a psychopath" Are coming from. This is textbook example of irresponsible journalism.

It isnt my narrative. Also, neither is it Cullens narrative . I outlined this countless times that this isnt Cullens claim.

Its Ochbergs, Fuseliers and a host of other prominent experts narrative. There are countless other sources to reveal that this is, in fact, coming from Fuselier and Ochberg has been outspoken about this.

Now; there are some things I doubt in regards to Cullens book. Such as Eric being a chick magnet or how he represents hes fact. I also think that people should be considering that Maybe there isnt one way of understanding the Columbine shooting. But its Just not true that Cullen made up this claim as people say. As with tons of other claims that Ive fact checked in regards to psychopathy. No, its not true that psychopaths cant kill themselves. No, its not true that they cant be depressed. And so on. Yet, somehow these claims are being made by plenty of people that havent really accepted the notion that he was a psychopath. Yet, thats doing it with claims that are not true.

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

Not entirely, because Eric talks about anything from drunk drivers to whatever and oftentimes he contradicts himself. Like Langmann suggested, they contradict themselves all the time.

When it comes to the school records, it briefly mentions one incident Where he is hit with balls and pushed against a locker. One incident.

And than there are accounts from friends. Many of those are contradictory. Some have stated that they were bullied, but there are also some statements which suggests that they never did see any bullying. On top of this, some statements are false. And this is crucial to understand the whole perspective. On top of this, I think its important to question: How much of the harassment was in response to their own alienating behaviour? They themselves intimidated a girl as far back as 8th grade. They bullied a disabled boy to the point Where the parents called in the admin. Its possible that they may have been bullying victims(that is, both bullies and subjected to bullying [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Those that occupy the middle ground. Some statements support this. But its difficult to make complete sense out of the facts , when there are many conflicting statements. On top of this, one expert that helped investigate the case, suggests that they were not bullied. Again, conflicting statements.

'We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'.

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

We have to look behind the stereotypes that we are led to believe in regards to school shootings. Dare to be critical, sort to speak. In this case, it seems to me like there is no perfect answer. Its all very conflicting

Look, i really don't like to talk about issue of their bullying anymore. It's beyond tiresome. But i just can't help myself - you said school record briefly mention one incident, and then you mention TWO incidents (in the gym and with the locker). Even if they happened on the same day, it's still two different incidents. You contradict your own words.
I am currently reading Rita Gleason book, and her chapter on bullying is very good, well researched and convincing.

The balls and the pushing into lockers are mentioned as one particular incident. Its more in the direction they hit him with balls in the gym and he got pushed against a locker again after this. This is mentioned in Langmanns book 'Why Kids kill'. I make sure to find it when I have the time, but its also possible to find in Langmanns book. I also make sure to look up Gleasons book

No need to look, i know about those two incidents. You are describing two different incidents - bullying in the gym and bullying in the hallway.

It is the same, actually. I know Im not confusing it as two separate incidents. I Just need to find it First

As for Rita Gleasons book I downloaded it and it seems promising, but there are allready some questionable arguments She makes. Im still willing to give it a shit

Norwegian wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

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

Basically, from what Cullen says here, they were not allowed to speak to the public. What it also suggest is that there would be resistance to diagnosing someone at that age. But it also suggests that dr Robert Hare was called in, and some of the worlds leading psychologists.

Those paragraphs right here are in the nutshell why you can't trust anything Cullen says. What a blatant misinterpretation of events to push your narrative. So Ochberg admits it's unprofessional to diagnose teenager with psychopathy, something that all psychologists should know. And then this little anecdote about summit, where ONE person (and we don't know who is this person, what this person thought and if it's actually happened) raised his hand and said "Harris was full blown psychopath". And then out of sudden "Colleagues agree". ONE colleague agreed. That's it. If this whole event happened in the different way, and all experts present were questioned about the subject of Eric's psychopathy, then it should've been described that way. And of course, this mention of Doctor Hare, who was mentioned as a expert who was present at the summit. That's it. Basically he was present in the building. But now you can see where all those stories of "Hare diagnosed Harris as a psychopath" Are coming from. This is textbook example of irresponsible journalism.

It isnt my narrative. Also, neither is it Cullens narrative . I outlined this countless times that this isnt Cullens claim.

Its Ochbergs, Fuseliers and a host of other prominent experts narrative. There are countless other sources to reveal that this is, in fact, coming from Fuselier and Ochberg has been outspoken about this.

Now; there are some things I doubt in regards to Cullens book. Such as Eric being a chick magnet or how he represents hes fact. I also think that people should be considering that Maybe there isnt one way of understanding the Columbine shooting. But its Just not true that Cullen made up this claim as people say. As with tons of other claims that Ive fact checked in regards to psychopathy. No, its not true that psychopaths cant kill themselves. No, its not true that they cant be depressed. And so on. Yet, somehow these claims are being made by plenty of people that havent really accepted the notion that he was a psychopath. Yet, thats doing it with claims that are not true.

Hello. I’m not much of a poster. More of an occasional lurker and reader. But can you please provide some links to just a few of these countless other sources? I know I’d love to read more about all of these qualified experts opinions on Eric’s psychopathy. “ Its Ochbergs, Fuseliers and a host of other prominent experts narrative. There are countless other sources to reveal that this is, in fact, coming from Fuselier and Ochberg has been outspoken about this.” I’m really looking forward to reading a bit more about it.

[quote="Norwegian"]

milennialrebelette wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Only definite evidence Im aware of that they were bullied is the school record and their journals. I think Eric mentions it briefly that hes being bullied. Governor Bill Owens mentions it briefly that they were both bullies and bullied.

The school record briefly mentions one incident Where Eric is being slammed into a locker and Where they hit him with balls. The rest are statements. Peter Langmann did a Great Job counting many of these incidents,but he also points out that they should be taken with caution. Which I agree with.

So ONLY evidences of bullying we have are school records and their own words, and it's not enough for you?

But random "psychiatric experts" who "diagnosed" Eric without ever having met him are totally legit.

It is not a question of whether it is ethical or not (while it is not), but it is a matter of whether or not it is LEGITIMATE. If you never met or worked with Eric its likely ehat you're basing your diagnosis on isn't valid or legitimate to his true frame of mind.

That is what those of us who have careers and education in this and related fields are telling you, and you keeo googling random people who are doing precisely what their field and governing body says is unethical and is likely to not be legitimate or correct, in an effort to challenge us.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] your mental gymnastics to believe precisely what you want to believe is without doubt objectively correct is absolutely astounding.[/quote

Im pretty sure Ochberg knows what hes doing. The Goldwater Rule specifies that its unethical. And, besides, IDK your education, because I dont even know who you are. Why should I take what people are saying at face value? Of course we can all say this wasnt legitimate to hes own frame of mind. Er can all argue that diagnosing someone wo their presence is unethical(it very likely is). That doesnt mean that the point is invalid, which I have very good reason to doubt. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm not trying to diagnose anyone here. What I'm telling you is while people can hypothesize as much as they'd like, you cannot say any of these supposed diagnosises are valid because 1) none of these people ever met Eric in real life (telemedicine would fall under this) and 2) all the evidence collected was from when Eric was under the age of 18. His writing shows what he wished he was and wanted others to see. If his life was a feature film, his writing is a mere snapshot, the title page he created and he wanted others to see. However the rest if his life and who he was would be the film. Without actually having worked with Eric you are missing out on a huge part of who he was and to find out how much of his writing was teenage bluster.

You've responded a lot about how you believe you can use his writing to legitimitely diagnosis him in spite of never having met him. But you haven't really addressed the other main issue, not being able to diagnosis adolescents with personality disorders.

I have a MSW (masters in social work) from University of Hawai'i Manoa and my LCSW certification (licensed clinical social worker) as well as qn additional a post grad certificate in High Risk Youth Counseling from Metropolitan State University of Denver. I have my LAC, Licensed Addiction Counselor certification, the highest level in Colorado's addiction counseling ceretification. I also have a state-issued special service provider (SSP) license in Colorado with a school counselor endorsement to practice.

I am qualified to diagnosis mental health issues. I cannot prescribe medication and I am not a doctor or psychiatrist.

Norwegian wrote:

Its genuinely unwise not to. Even if people are wrongly diagnosed that doesnt mean its unwise.

It depends on the type of expert. I wouldn't trust my intuition when it comes to my physical health. You would be unwise to self-diagnose, as that's more harmful than just winging it.

Ligeya wrote:

Sorry, but i think people gave you actual valid reasons why they doubt this diagnosis. Diagnosis of a teenager with psychopathy, diagnosis post mortem, diagnosis without personal meeting - the most important rules of diagnosing mental issues were broken. And you say - Oh, you all just don't want to accept the facts.

It's not a formal diagnosis-no postmortem diagnosis is-but it's still possible to speculate based on what the patient said or did in his lifetime. For example, take neurologists as an example. You can show them video clips of the patient exhibiting symptoms of a neurological disorder, but without knowing how the patient feels, or how long he or she has had that disorder, the neurologists can only speculate based on their medical expertise and experience.

There's a misnomer out there about psychopathy, which is a subset of ASP. The patient has to be over 18 to get this diagnosis; however, there's an exception, and that is the presence of a conduct disorder. Teenagers before the age of 16 are often diagnosed with the disorder, which is the precursor to ASP (Antisocial Personality Disorder). Oftentimes, these youngsters grow out of this phase before they reach 18. However, in order to be diagnosed as such, the patient has to display symptoms consistent with conduct disorder up to 6 months to a year. Patients who were diagnosed with a conduct disorder in their youth, and who carry on their antisocial behavior past age 16, usually meet the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy.

jada887 wrote:

Ligeya wrote:

Sorry, but i think people gave you actual valid reasons why they doubt this diagnosis. Diagnosis of a teenager with psychopathy, diagnosis post mortem, diagnosis without personal meeting - the most important rules of diagnosing mental issues were broken. And you say - Oh, you all just don't want to accept the facts.

It's not a formal diagnosis-no postmortem diagnosis is-but it's still possible to speculate based on what the patient said or did in his lifetime. For example, take neurologists as an example. You can show them video clips of the patient exhibiting symptoms of a neurological disorder, but without knowing how the patient feels, or how long he or she has had that disorder, the neurologists can only speculate based on their medical expertise and experience.

There's a misnomer out there about psychopathy, which is a subset of ASP. The patient has to be over 18 to get this diagnosis; however, there's an exception, and that is the presence of a conduct disorder. Teenagers before the age of 16 are often diagnosed with the disorder, which is the precursor to ASP (Antisocial Personality Disorder). Oftentimes, these youngsters grow out of this phase before they reach 18. However, in order to be diagnosed as such, the patient has to display symptoms consistent with conduct disorder up to 6 months to a year. Patients who were diagnosed with a conduct disorder in their youth, and who carry on their antisocial behavior past age 16, usually meet the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy.

I definitely do NOT see any signs of conduct disorder in either boy. I've worked with children with conduct disorder. Maybe the few times people say Dylan couldn't handle his anger but that doesn't match up with the kids I've seen with conduct disorder. That would be considered incredibly minor for a child with CD. He or she would be attacking teachers, caregivers, starting at a young age. They attack animals often. They wouldn't be invited to play groups because they'd bite, kick and attack other children and as they grow into adolesence, as boys domestic abuse and sexual asault is common and for girls many get pregnant at young ages, 13, 14, 15, etc

Many are kids in the foster care system or were adopted, who were exposed to high levels of violence and instability as youth and who didn't have proper attachment with their mothers and orher primary guardians as infants and toddlers. There's often a lower IQ level and other cognitive issues. It's often aomethung that comes after attachment disorders.

Conduct disorder doesn't match up with all the stories and accounts of Eric and Dylan at all.

milennialrebelette wrote:

Conduct disorder doesn't match up with all the stories and accounts of Eric and Dylan at all.

True. I think Eric and Dylan might meet the criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder, which is a milder version of Conduct Disorder. The behavior has to be present at least once a week for six months if the child is 5 years or older. Some of the symptoms of ODD are frequent temper tantrums, excessive arguing with adults, vindictive and defiant behavior. The patient has to meet at least four of the symptoms, if I recall. This disorder is less well-documented than antisocial personality disorder (ASP) or conduct disorder (CD) because the DSM-5 groups ODD in the Attention Deficit/Disruptive behavior category, not what you would expect.

I was never that interested in Columbine anyway. I mostly joined this forum to discuss other mass shootings.