For those of you who argue that Eric and Dylan were not bullied

Im interested in hearing why you think that is. Its easy to become rather confused about this. Besides, I gather its a bit of a touchy subject, given that a lot of people probably have a personal history of being bullied, and therefore feel like they can relate.

If Im going to weight in on why this, in my personal opinion, is so complicated:

I kind of feel like the school shooters has been kind of demystified through much of popular culture, as the Misfit(s) that strikes back with a vengeance.

I dont dispute that theres a certain amount of truth to it(some experts have argued that bullying is def a part of it). But obviously, they arent just bullied. That is, when bullying is part of the bigger picture.

But if we look to the sources of Harris and Klebold, that Ive weighted in both for and against the notion

- Brooks Brown writes in hes book that they were bullied to the extreme. I dont exactly recall all the details, only that bullying was a severe problem at CHS. Apparantly, Dylan was supposed to have been bullied, going all the way back to elementary school. Anyone else have confirmed that he was bullied during the CHIPS- programme or in middle school?

Far from the tree- interview with Sue and Tom Klebold- does mention The perfect storm, which they argue was a combination of bullying, mental illness and a negative peer influence through Eric Harris.

Governor Bill Owens report- briefly mentions that they were both bullies and bullied.

A mothers reckogning- Sue Klebold argues that she did not know what Dylans life was like at school. But She does allow that She believes Dylan to have been bullied given that it mirrors different conversations that they have had.

There are some valid points that needs to be picked up on

And now over to the other side of the argument-

There are some interesting points of view there aswell, that might speak against the notion-

Frank Ochberg- professional psychiatrist, helped during the investigation of the Columbine shooting, and worked on the profiles of Harris and Klebold. Famous for inventing rhe term 'Stockholm Syndrome'
. Why does he say that Eric and Dylan were not bullied? IDK and Ive been trying to dig up more from this person other than the NPR interview, cause I Couldnt really grasp why he said that. He writes it in a CNN article wo offering up why he thinks that they were not bullied. Im pretty sure there has to be a good reason for it, cause conclusions are not made out of the blue from someone that has studied something like this on such a deep level. Atleast, I dont think so. But, yet, I do believe that this is an eye opener to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Statements that are conflicting. A lot of Eric and Dylans friends suggested that they never did see them picked on. Some say that only Eric got harassed or bullied and others say both, and some claims that none of them were.

What are we to make out of such statements? I wish I had the idea, but I gather that evidence tends to be relevant

I remember hearing statements from a friend of hers, Devon Adams, from the documentary "On the Mind of Murderers" if I remember correctly, because I saw this documentary a long time ago, Devon said that when she was talking to Dylan, a thug or Jock she was He pushed towards the lockers and said something like "Why are you talking to fags? Are you a lesbian?".

I also remember the video of Eric Inside columbine where, although it is verified that the thugs pushed the one holding the camera, you can see how Eric lowers his head, as if he feels intimidated when he passes in front of them.

another case of bullying or testimony which I distrust a bit since I do not know if it certainly happened with Eric and Dylan's group or with another group / child was the incident ketchup, where used tampons and ketchup had allegedly been thrown at a group of boys to intimidate them, it was never clarified who they were, or if it really happened as such, but was quite mentioned when talking about bullying in columbine.

Another thing I remember is that Brooks had stated that in the smoking area they threw bottles at him and Dylan and that would cause them to leave. I'm not sure if that's true either, I think I mentioned it in his book. (Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm bad at remembering things exactly )


Other sayings that I remember clearly, is that someone had stated that Dylan was called "goofy" among other adjectives, I never knew if he took it really badly or felt harassed, there are no statements about it.


I can only mention statements that I remember with a bit of clarity, but to be honest, I cannot say if they were harassed / intimidated exactly, since there are statements that "cross" or contradict each other on this subject and it is confusing. I think that the children could have suffered teasing and feel harassed, and I do not deny that they could intimidate too. What I do not believe is that the main factor of the massacre has been bullying as has been popularly said, since if we analyze well, there are many other causes that could lead to the massacre, and I do not believe that they have suffered such bullying brutal enough to bomb and shoot his school, with the original goal of killing at least 100 people, as a "revenge". I do not think they are "justices of bullying" as many took it (especially the columbiners) but they were children who felt self-conscious, and probably with psychological problems that over time, due to various factors, increased although I don't doubt that harassment could also be one of them.

margaflor wrote:

I remember hearing statements from a friend of hers, Devon Adams, from the documentary "On the Mind of Murderers" if I remember correctly, because I saw this documentary a long time ago, Devon said that when she was talking to Dylan, a thug or Jock she was  He pushed towards the lockers and said something like "Why are you talking to fags? Are you a lesbian?".

I also remember the video of Eric Inside columbine where, although it is verified that the thugs pushed the one holding the camera, you can see  how Eric lowers his head, as if he feels intimidated when he passes in front of them.

another case of bullying or testimony which I distrust a bit since I do not know if it certainly happened with Eric and Dylan's group or with another group / child was the incident  ketchup, where used tampons and ketchup had allegedly been thrown at a group of boys to intimidate them, it was never clarified who they were, or if it really happened as such, but was quite mentioned when talking about bullying in columbine.

Another thing I remember is that Brooks had stated that in the smoking area they threw bottles at him and Dylan and that would cause them to leave.  I'm not sure if that's true either, I think I mentioned it in his book.  (Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm bad at remembering things exactly )


Other sayings that I remember clearly, is that someone had stated that Dylan was called "goofy" among other adjectives, I never knew if he took it really badly or felt harassed, there are no statements about it.


I can only mention statements that I remember with a bit of clarity, but to be honest, I cannot say if they were harassed / intimidated exactly, since there are statements that "cross" or contradict each other on this subject and it is confusing.  I think that the children could have suffered teasing and feel harassed, and I do not deny that they could intimidate too. What I do not believe is that the main factor of the massacre has been bullying as has been popularly said, since if we analyze well, there are many other causes that could lead to the massacre, and I do not believe that they have suffered such bullying  brutal enough to bomb and shoot his school, with the original goal of killing at least 100 people, as a "revenge".  I do not think they are "justices of bullying" as many took it (especially the columbiners) but they were children who felt self-conscious, and probably with psychological problems  that over time, due to various factors, increased although  I don't doubt that harassment could also be one of them.

Both Devons statement, coupled with the video Where they bumped Eric(Im not really sure it was Dylan holding the camera) is taken from a documentary. Larkin mentions the bumping in hes book and this is again mentioned by Sue Klebold. Brooks Brown says 'they are walking through the halls. Its their hall, their world'. This is very reminiscent of what he said in hes book. He argues that you if you crossed the jocks, you better get to the side, because theyd bump right into you.

The ketchup incident. This is mentioned by Lance Kirklin. Dylans mother said the same thing. Its also mentioned in the Governor Bill Owens report and in Newsweek. Sue Klebold suggests that this might have been in junior high.

Yes, I remember Langmann did mention this in hes book(s). I dont remember him mention that this was somehow connected to bullying. I think it was Just more a reference to Dylans behaviour or way of dressing. Other than that I believe that they were harassed but the extent to which is always interesting.

"Columbine Shooter's Mother: I Carry Him 'Everywhere I Go, Always' : NPR" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Skip to min 28 out in the podcast.

The host got a few details wrong. Dylan had talked about juniors that had been 'asking for it' to which Tom had said 'You cant fight them'. Its also mentioned at page 156 and 157 in her book(A mothers reckoning).

"The Missing Motive | Westword" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Forgiving my Columbine High School friend, Dylan Klebold | Westword" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think that Eric and Dylan certainly were bullied, with Eric arguably suffering more than Dylan. However, I remember reading something that said that Eric and Dylan also bullied someone else so I'm not sure if they were just bullied or if they were bullied and bullied other people as well.

lognifiiskurk wrote:

I think that Eric and Dylan certainly were bullied, with Eric arguably suffering more than Dylan. However, I remember reading something that said that Eric and Dylan also bullied someone else so I'm not sure if they were just bullied or if they were bullied and bullied other people as well.

Both boys bullied kids who were smaller, weaker, had mental disabilities or couldn't fight back in some other way.

lognifiiskurk wrote:

I think that Eric and Dylan certainly were bullied, with Eric arguably suffering more than Dylan. However, I remember reading something that said that Eric and Dylan also bullied someone else so I'm not sure if they were just bullied or if they were bullied and bullied other people as well.

Peter Langmann suggests that they sent threatning letters to a girl as far back as 8th grade. They are also said to have bullied Adam Kyler, who was a special ed kid.

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him. And it's just as possible it was something else, say the equivalent of wearing "GOD" on his shirt. Wrath usually refers to His wrath (I know it's also a song).

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.  I think the lie that both bombs failed prior to shooting, and people trying to make sense of it all, are easily led by those who buy the anti hero worship narrative. It's the only game in town.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

And I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a camcorder back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then, and it wasn't going to be broadcast everywhere. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver. He doesn't give them an eyeroll. It's Brooks fan fic.

cakeman wrote:

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Very possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him.

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

Also I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a video camera back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver.

Oh, I absolutely agree with a lot here. To built upon what you said, they not only said 'this is for all the shit you have been given us'. They also told everyone to stand up. I think many experts Ive researched have basically said that bullying can be a factor in regards to school shootings, yet not a cause. I sort of can see why that is, given that theres a link between bullying and mental health issues. On top of it, the Secret Service clarified that a lot of school shooters had left traces of being badly bullied.

Bullying does have an impact on people, which can effect them long into adulthood, lets not forget this. Do we know for certain that all of these things did not play a role for Dylan? Feeling like an outcast, feeling rejected by extended Family members, lack of female relationships, depression, and a bad peer influence from Eric? But as for Evan Todd, he didnt actually bully them, as far as I know. He probably picked on someone else and this got mixed up with Eric and Dylan. Iagree, because a lot of experts argue that what they say should be interpreted in the context of their own way of thinking.

Given that scientists have tried to pierce this together for ages, possibly even before the Columbine shooting, and Come up with different answers to why, it seems to me like theres no clear cut answer to this, and that the factors are usually plenty.

Jack Levin, for example, argues that many of them blame the whole institution for whatever setbacks they might experience. Some have, on top of it, suggested that entitlement is part of it, a search for fame etc.

If it can be successfully argued that bullying was part of why Dylan did what he did, its far from the only factor. Regardless, none of that takes away any accountability.

cakeman wrote:

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him. And it's just as possible it was something else, say the equivalent of wearing "GOD" on his shirt. Wrath usually refers to His wrath (I know it's also a song).

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.  I think the lie that both bombs failed prior to shooting, and people trying to make sense of it all, are easily led by those who buy the anti hero worship narrative. It's the only game in town.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

And I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a camcorder back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then, and it wasn't going to be broadcast everywhere. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver. He doesn't give them an eyeroll. It's Brooks fan fic.

The amount of excuse making in this post is enough to make my own eyes roll into the back of my head and never retreat.

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him. And it's just as possible it was something else, say the equivalent of wearing "GOD" on his shirt. Wrath usually refers to His wrath (I know it's also a song).

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.  I think the lie that both bombs failed prior to shooting, and people trying to make sense of it all, are easily led by those who buy the anti hero worship narrative. It's the only game in town.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

And I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a camcorder back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then, and it wasn't going to be broadcast everywhere. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver. He doesn't give them an eyeroll. It's Brooks fan fic.

The amount of excuse making in this post is enough to make my own eyes roll into the back of my head and never retreat.

Cakeman has quite a few valid points. I think people on both sides have. What matters is to fact check them more properly

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Very possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him.

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

Also I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a video camera back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver.

Oh, I absolutely agree with a lot here. To built upon what you said, they not only said 'this is for all the shit you have been given us'. They also told everyone to stand up.

Yeah,  I certainly know they said a lot more than that.  They said fine I'll just start shooting. They said the library was going to explode several times. They said they had been waiting for this. Several things. But I'm talking about the bullying narrative. The biggest pillar of support for it is that alleged library quote about four years. Dan Steepleton is the source. But mind you he was shot. Bree recalls last year. She's considered the best witness most often, and that makes more sense. She says it was saying Eric saying he was picked on last year, by the way. Still, I would say that they don't accept even that revision because they realize then that it coincides with them planning the massacre and so isnt some pre-massacre, perpetually bullied state.

In fact I find them telling everybody to get up to be another thing the usual story doesn't explain at all. I suspect before the main cafeteria bombs went off, the fire they produced would make the library evacuate out of the emergency exit, and they would be there waiting with their guns at the top of the stairs.

There's also the quotes from the Basement Tapes, but that's not in private, and we don't have them to see of course. There's Hitmen for Hire, but that's in jest, and they exploit their clients. One cay say it supports the narrative, or say it was them aware the media would spin one.

Quote :

I think many experts Ive researched have basically said that bullying can be a factor in regards to school shootings, yet not a cause. I sort of can see why that is, given that theres a link between bullying and mental health issues. On top of it, the Secret Service clarified that a lot of school shooters had left traces of being badly bullied.

I'm almost inclined to do what defense lawyers do and say so what about other cases; but worse than that, that this is considered a school shooting seems to me the error in the first place. This was not planned as a school shooting. If you think that, then you think of it as targeting. A reasonable inference given what we are told. But I don't buy what we are told.

When it comes to pre massacre, private evidence like the journal, it seems easier to paint Dylan as incelrage or as some kind of Zodiac killer, have his girlfriend in the afterlife, then it is that he was the bully slayer.

It's also true Evan might be speaking of other people - say the trench coat mafia in general. While perhaps true I think the greater point is at that time he isn't just "hell yeah we bullied them - those freaks", he's saying "hell yeah we bullied them - those murderers". Before and after is entirely different. Anger and displaying virtue by condemning murderers seem at play more than his faculty of memory. Just as one might doubt they were ever labeled psychopaths had they never murdered somebody; the same can be said for victims of bullying.

As for the other response maybe it would be helpful to cite a single instance of excuse making. It seems to me if I were uncharitable the other side would be those of victim blaming and excuse making. That very response is exactly what I'm saying is the "look with your eyes" red flag. People responding with bloody nothing but "wow just wow"? Bad sign. Probably media narrative and people acting as they think they are expected to act.

cakeman wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Very possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him.

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

Also I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a video camera back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver.

Oh, I absolutely agree with a lot here. To built upon what you said, they not only said 'this is for all the shit you have been given us'. They also told everyone to stand up.

Yeah,  I certainly know they said a lot more than that.  They said fine I'll just start shooting. They said the library was going to explode several times. They said they had been waiting for this. Several things. But I'm talking about the bullying narrative. The biggest pillar of support for it is that alleged library quote about four years. Dan Steepleton is the source. But mind you he was shot. Bree recalls last year. She's considered the best witness most often, and that makes more sense. She says it was saying Eric saying he was picked on last year, by the way. Still, I would say that they don't accept even that revision because they realize then that it coincides with them planning the massacre and so isnt some pre-massacre, perpetually bullied state.

In fact I find them telling everybody to get up to be another thing the usual story doesn't explain at all. I suspect before the main cafeteria bombs went off, the fire they produced would make the library evacuate out of the emergency exit, and they would be there waiting with their guns at the top of the stairs.

There's also the quotes from the Basement Tapes, but that's not in private, and we don't have them to see of course. There's Hitmen for Hire, but that's in jest, and they exploit their clients. One cay say it supports the narrative, or say it was them aware the media would spin one.

Quote :

I think many experts Ive researched have basically said that bullying can be a factor in regards to school shootings, yet not a cause. I sort of can see why that is, given that theres a link between bullying and mental health issues. On top of it, the Secret Service clarified that a lot of school shooters had left traces of being badly bullied.

I'm almost inclined to do what defense lawyers do and say so what about other cases; but worse than that, that this is considered a school shooting seems to me the error in the first place. This was not planned as a school shooting. If you think that, then you think of it as targeting. A reasonable inference given what we are told. But I don't buy what we are told.

When it comes to pre massacre, private evidence like the journal, it seems easier to paint Dylan as incelrage or as some kind of Zodiac killer, have his girlfriend in the afterlife, then it is that he was the bully slayer.

It's also true Evan might be speaking of other people - say the trench coat mafia in general. While perhaps true I think the greater point is at that time he isn't just "hell yeah we bullied them - those freaks", he's saying "hell yeah we bullied them - those murderers". Before and after is entirely different. Anger and displaying virtue by condemning murderers seem at play more than his faculty of memory. Just as one might doubt they were ever labeled psychopaths had they never murdered somebody; the same can be said for victims of bullying.

As for the other response maybe it would be helpful to cite a single instance of excuse making. It seems to me if I were uncharitable the other side would be those of victim blaming and excuse making. That very response is exactly what I'm saying is the "look with your eyes" red flag. People responding with bloody nothing but "wow just wow"? Bad sign. Probably media narrative and people acting as they think they are expected to act.

To my knowledge, Evan Todd didnt refer to Eric and Dylan at all. Atleast thats what Langmann is saying in hes paper. Todd seems to lump Eric and Dylan with other members of the TCM. As for the rest- Hitmen for Hire - I feel to see this as evidence for much of anything that they were bullied. But thats Just my. opinionm

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

We rarely even get a definition of bullying from those who defend it. It seems to me that something they disliked ever happened to them, and I agree that it did.

However, spend any time around Columbine for a while and it's obvious the bullying narrative is a security blanket and an intricate part of the anti hero worship narrative. Look no further than Randy for somebody who will get facts wrong and is allowed a smoke screen of "but the tragedy of it all, but the bullying".  

Both of the main motives in this case are for the purposes of diverting blame from the perpetrators, either in the form of their victims deserved it (bullying) or they were mentally ill and couldn't help it (psychopathy). That animals can kill for reasons is off the table.

Obviously, not every individual who buys those worships the perps. But where did they get it from? Somebody who did.

That's before even getting into the facts of the case. That's just using your eyes.

The evidence is also rather thin. Most of it comes after the massacre which is silly to take at face value - those people were obviously traumatized and part of the media circus and in the school rumor mill and etc etc.  

I can't even begin a conversation with somebody who takes what Evan Todd said at face value, as if Eric and Dylan were devil worshipers, and as if he was speaking in anger because of their fashion choices and not because they nearly murdered him.

The only real evidence, is a false quote: "This is for all the shit you've given us for the last four years."  Randy quotes it himself. It's by far the most popular reason for the narrative.

The real quote is more likely "for last year", not "last four years." They planned the attack for a year, not four years. Could that still reference bullying? Sure could, as one can't read minds and it's possible, and it makes more sense for seniors to bully underclassmen than for everybody to bully everybody.

But it takes away the whole "they hated every single day in that school because they were relentlessly bullied, even when they were young", and a perp simply saying "This is what you deserve" isn't exactly a revelation. It makes it a lot easier to believe it was a perceived slight rather than an actual one - and I suspect that's the reason nobody wants to have such a basic revision.

Dylan never, once ever, in his private journal mentions bullying. He can't shut up about unrequited love. He was 6'2". Nate was also a giant, and he says Dylan was never bullied.  And he had the idea first from what we can tell. Wanting to die and others to feel his pain seem much more relevant than being pushed into a locker one day.

Eric mentions it I think twice, and both times excuses it as something people deserve. Possibly what "natural selection" meant. That it was good they were bullied as underclassmen, and now it was their turn as seniors. That's the exact opposite of the usual bullying narrative, and it's the only one I see as even plausible. Only for Eric, and as a good thing to him. And it's just as possible it was something else, say the equivalent of wearing "GOD" on his shirt. Wrath usually refers to His wrath (I know it's also a song).

Also, in brief, I don't think both bombs failed before they started shooting. Pretending they did leaves you thinking of it as just a shooting, and therefore as targeting specific bullies.  For the first two days there weren't even bombs supposedly failing before they started (as if that's any different). As a result, targeting bullies or jocks, blacks, and Christians was the day one narrative.  Bullies is the only one that didn't die when they discovered the big, indiscriminate bombs.  I think the lie that both bombs failed prior to shooting, and people trying to make sense of it all, are easily led by those who buy the anti hero worship narrative. It's the only game in town.

Another problem is that bullying and outcasts seem to me separate things often fused in peoples mind. I've had people quote Eric saying he wishes people didn't leave him out of fun things as evidence of bullying.

Also for just one example the Governor's Report says the bombs were placed in the cafeteria exit doorways, rather than with the tables in the commons. It's riddled with errors.

And I see absolutely nothing in that Eric in Columbine video.  Watch the videos of people in 7-11 in the 80s or anywhere with a camcorder back then. People act goofy because it was rare for a camera to be around then, and it wasn't going to be broadcast everywhere. Eric laughs at them. They don't give him an elbow shiver. He doesn't give them an eyeroll. It's Brooks fan fic.

The amount of excuse making in this post is enough to make my own eyes roll into the back of my head and never retreat.

Cakeman has quite a few valid points. I think people on both sides have. What matters is to fact check them more properly

Like what? That Dylan said something in the library that makes no sense?

Coping hard that I said he was speaking gibberish, and that you stopped reading after making up that I said it made no sense.  Couldn't be doing a better job to prove my point about security blanket.  

cakeman wrote:

Coping hard that I said he said something that makes no sense, and that you stopped reading after making up that I said it made no sense.  Couldn't be doing a better job to prove my point about security blanket.  

So I made up that you said Dylan meant that "they've been giving us shit for a year" instead of "four years" as some cognizant point to your argument? It just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice. Security blanket. That's the problem.

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

[quote="cakeman"]Coping hard that I said he was speaking gibberish, and that you stopped reading after making up that I said it made no sense.  Couldn't be doing a better job to prove my point about security blanket.  
[/quote

They said a lot of things in the library back and forh

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

With all due respect, but just check the transcript. He did say 'you have been given us shit for years'. Only difference is that he says much more between that and 'you are fucking gonna pay for all the shit'. Zero Hour just represented a few statements from their journals and the transcript.

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

No, you didn't, which is why you can't address anything said, you can just characterize the post and make up comments about traumatic events in general. You have nothing but social shaming in support, because you have nothing but conditioning for what you believe. This is a paradigm case of what C. S. Lewis called "Bulverism". You're assuming I'm wrong and trying to explain my error; you aren't trying to first show how it's wrong.

"Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. " You're just not smart enough not to beg the question then. Whether that's true is what is being called into question in the first place ffs.

Bree says Eric made the comment. as if I needed any more proof I'm arguing with BUT ZERO HOUR SAYS. I'm experienced enough with the case to know when that's happening..

There is no bloody recording of them to go "But Dylan said". There's a movie playing in your head. With the real case, you have to pick what a witness said. In this instance, it's Dan Steepleton vs. Bree Pasquale. Bree is considered to have better recall in general, she wasn't shot, and she had Eric staring her in the face. Note he hasn't once mentioned a witness.

Bree also says it's because people were mean to him last year. That's a fact. It's also a fact they planned for a year, not four. Given that fact too, that makes more sense.  That you're on autopilot sputtering trying to say how those aren't facts is a  better argument than any I can muster for this being a comforting lie

cakeman wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

No, you didn't, which is why you can't address anything said, you can just characterize the post. You have nothing but social shaming in support, because you have nothing but conditioning for what you believe. This is a paradigm case of what C. S. Lewis called "Bulverism". You're assuming I'm wrong and trying to explain my error; you aren't trying to first show how it's wrong.

"Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. " You're just not smart enough to not beg the question. Whether that's true is what is being called into question in the first place ffs.

Bree says Eric made the comment. I'm literally arguing with BUT ZERO HOUR SAYS. I'm experienced enough with the case to know when that's happening.

She also says it's because people were mean to him last year. That's a fact. It's also a fact they planned for a year, not four. Given that fact too, that makes more sense.  That you're on autopilot sputtering trying to say how those aren't facts is a  better argument than any I can muster for this being a comforting lie.

You are deluded if you believe I haven't "addressed anything you've said". Either that or your reading comprehension is below par or missing entirely from your "experience". I've addressed a glaring mistake with just my last post, hilarious how you're trying to hand wave my point away by insinuating my knowledge of Columbine comes down to watching Zero Hour when I've been studying the case and others much like it for 10 years or more at this point.

Bringing my intelligence into question (when it's obvious to anybody without schizophrenia I outrank you in that department) is your last ditch attempt at having a crutch to defend your point and it showcases your character quite well here.

It doesn't make sense if he talked about it only happening for a year when it's in reference to what happened to them as students, not their plan to murder their classmates. Not to mention most if not all the library witnesses can verify what was said whereas you're going off your own assumptions.

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

If Dylan was psychotic he wouldn't have been able to help plan and execute the massacre. Perhaps he had a form of schizophrenia that affected his ability to discern thoughts from feelings but even that seems a little farfetched.

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

If Dylan was psychotic he wouldn't have been able to help plan and execute the massacre. Perhaps he had a form of schizophrenia that affected his ability to discern thoughts from feelings but even that seems a little farfetched.

Only thing I know is that Langman suggested that he was psychotic but not to the point that he wasnt completely out of touch with reality. He draws on this in regards to Dylans perspective on humans as zombies.

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

If Dylan was psychotic he wouldn't have been able to help plan and execute the massacre. Perhaps he had a form of schizophrenia that affected his ability to discern thoughts from feelings but even that seems a little farfetched.

Only thing I know is that Langman suggested that he was psychotic but not to the point that he wasnt completely out of touch with reality. He draws on this in regards to Dylans perspective on humans as zombies.

It seems like Dylan was using the zombie narrative as a metaphor for something else. I don't think he had lost touch with reality. I also don't think he was "depressed" in the true sense of the word. I think both he and Eric suffered from antisocial personality disorder to some degree.

For what its worth, can we atleast aknowledge that bullying is not just Kids being mean to each other?

Bullies are much more cynical when they target someone. That is not to say that bullying isnt relevant in regards to school shootings. But its to say that one case of meanness isnt bullying.

The definition of bullying as layed out by the CDC:
. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Also, Im posting these articles, while we are at it:
"Secret Service study: Most school shooters were badly bullied, showed warning signs – The Colorado Sun" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"How We Talk about Bullying After School Shootings Can Be Dangerous: Experts" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Preventing Bullying |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC" [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

If Dylan was psychotic he wouldn't have been able to help plan and execute the massacre. Perhaps he had a form of schizophrenia that affected his ability to discern thoughts from feelings but even that seems a little farfetched.

Only thing I know is that Langman suggested that he was psychotic but not to the point that he wasnt completely out of touch with reality. He draws on this in regards to Dylans perspective on humans as zombies.

It seems like Dylan was using the zombie narrative as a metaphor for something else. I don't think he had lost touch with reality. I also don't think he was "depressed" in the true sense of the word. I think both he and Eric suffered from antisocial personality disorder to some degree.

OK. Dylans depression is a fact, though.

Not sure why Harris was deemed a psychopath or narssist, but I assume there are people that can answer this better than I do

Not really sure why the CDC would exclude siblings or lovers in this article. I thought bullying was a family issue aswell. I'll make sure to post another one

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

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

If Dylan was psychotic he wouldn't have been able to help plan and execute the massacre. Perhaps he had a form of schizophrenia that affected his ability to discern thoughts from feelings but even that seems a little farfetched.

Only thing I know is that Langman suggested that he was psychotic but not to the point that he wasnt completely out of touch with reality. He draws on this in regards to Dylans perspective on humans as zombies.

It seems like Dylan was using the zombie narrative as a metaphor for something else. I don't think he had lost touch with reality. I also don't think he was "depressed" in the true sense of the word. I think both he and Eric suffered from antisocial personality disorder to some degree.

OK. Dylans depression is a fact, though.

Not sure why Harris was deemed a psychopath or narssist, but I assume there are people that can answer this better than I do

It's based on the writings in his diary which can be construed multiple different ways. I'm of the opinion he didn't even know what real depression was.

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Ivan wrote:

cakeman wrote:

It is, and you point and sputter at it precisely because it is. What's the bloody problem? Spell it out instead of operating Schelling points of what you think a smart person acts like after not reading.

There is no recording. There is no "what Dylan said in the library, official version". You are angrily citing a movie. There were some 50 witnesses going through various traumas and problems in remembering and hearing everything. There are going to be some ten different versions of anything they said in the library.  You have to use your brain. When you do that, it seems more likely that it was something different than what we are told for this one - and yes that thing we are told is the key piece of the bullying narrative.   Randy is the face of the bullying narrative and cited it himself for that.

It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years.

Also, Bree is a more trusted witness than Dan.

"So what he said makes no sense" is just the worst uncharitable question begging. What he said is what is at issue. - and anything on Earth would make sense. But when there's 10 different versions you might have to wonder which makes the most sense instead of just "movie said."

Is it wrong to question? No. Is it wrong that it's a huge part of the bullying narrative? No. So what's the problem? Something more than smug snark would be nice.  Security blanket. That's the problem.

I read your entire post. It's just your version of a conspiracy theory and one that isn't even retold in coherency.

In your own terms; every traumatic event without a recording to back it up cannot be trusted and must be swept up and dusted under the rug, therefore treated like an unreliable source even if fifty people (including adults and teenagers) repeat the same thing word for word.

Also this gem cannot be ignored; "It makes more sense to say one year rather than four years given that they planned the massacre for one year rather than four years."

Dylan made that reference to them getting bullied for four years. It had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the shooting. This is what I'm talking about. How can you perpetuate your point while mixing up an easily discernible tidbit like that?

That makes your post unceremoniously unreliable.

.


'Given us shit for years' is not the same as saying 'youve been bullying us'.

Of course, it could. But school shooters are usually very complicated to understand.



Some have argued that Dylan was psychotic, some have argued that he was not. Mary Ellen O'Toole suggests that Dylan was very likely not just depressed and must have had a lot of other problems.

Is it possible that Dylan Could have said the stuff that he said in order to play along with Eric? Is it possible that Dylan was psychotic and that this had impact in participating in the planning and going along with Eric in doing it? Of course, now Im just speculating, because I cant see the experts agree on this.,



Is it possible that Dylan blamed other people for hes problems?


Is it possible that bullying, peer influence, depression, the fact that they both ran in with the law, and on top of this, Dylans lack of intimate relationships and also how they constantly ran into trouble might all serve as triggers?

If Dylan was psychotic he wouldn't have been able to help plan and execute the massacre. Perhaps he had a form of schizophrenia that affected his ability to discern thoughts from feelings but even that seems a little farfetched.

Only thing I know is that Langman suggested that he was psychotic but not to the point that he wasnt completely out of touch with reality. He draws on this in regards to Dylans perspective on humans as zombies.

It seems like Dylan was using the zombie narrative as a metaphor for something else. I don't think he had lost touch with reality. I also don't think he was "depressed" in the true sense of the word. I think both he and Eric suffered from antisocial personality disorder to some degree.

OK. Dylans depression is a fact, though.

Not sure why Harris was deemed a psychopath or narssist, but I assume there are people that can answer this better than I do

It's based on the writings in his diary which can be construed multiple different ways. I'm of the opinion he didn't even know what real depression was.

Doesnt matter. It is what it is. If someone is constantly sad, they are depressed.

Anyway, someone needs to look into this thread.