I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.

cakeman wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 

I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

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

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

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

I'm aware of the governor's report. It states they put the main cafeteria bombs at the exits, for how flawed it is. Also of course aware of some people saying they were bullied in the 11k. Many other things are in there. There are witnesses who say they had masks on in the library and many other things we are confident didn't happen.  And I don't put a lot of weight in what's said after the massacre as I do their actions during and what was said before. 

Was there not a rumor mill in a high school? Were they not searching for explanations to cope? Would some lie for attention? Do you think the media didn't affect their testimony? 

Both Eric and Nate considered Brooks a liar. Epling and Morris are probably the most interesting on the bullying aspect for my money, and even them I wonder.  Evan Todd says they were Satan worshiping homosexuals, should we believe him, or was he just angry after the massacre? Shouldn't they have been either angry or sad? Is that when one has a cool head to analyze such things as why their friends were murderers?

Also, to reiterate, I don't dispute that bullying may have played a part in Eric's motive. He does mention it. So, in that respect it would not be inconsistent with the testimony. However, even in his case, he's on about natural selection, and about how he hates freshmen, and how it's human nature to pick on other people.  In other words, if it's about bullying for Eric, it's not about "we need anti bullying campaigns", as what happened and is the usual perspective, but "anti bullying is anti life".  It's his turn to pick on the underclassmen. Perhaps that's what the governor's report wishes it said.

I would dispute that bullying had anything to do with Dylan's motive though. That doesn't seem right. And he was first to mention going on a killing spree.

Also, note, after the bombs were made public is when there was the Time magazine and the media released by police asking "Why", but it was about bullying in the first few days after.

Its on page 9 in the report.

'Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine high school assault, were above average, if not gifted students at Columbine. They were characterized as bullies and had been bullied themselves. Columbine, like most schools, had a problem with bullies preying on the weaker students. There was testimony that athletes were granted favored status'.

As for the 11k report, I agree, as I found some very questionable statements, myself. I think that Peter Langmann placed a q in some of the statements in order to point out that they are questionable..

I found some questionable sources in the final Columbine report, as well(That they were part of the TCM, for example. Which is far from the truth).

I said I was aware of the governor's report. It says they left the cafeteria bombs at the exits, while in the real world they left them inside near the pillars, and gives the whole false narrative about the bombs failing and shooting from the parking lot. It's hardly a reliable source.

Well, if you are going to dismiss a source, because they have a few holes in it, than I would assume you run out of sources to look at. I dont think it's an argument to dismiss entire sources, because some information might be inaccurate. One just have to keep in mind that certain accounts might be inaccurate. Hell, even prominent experts uses the official reports and documents in order to understand Columbine.

You got any other sources we can use ?

I don't dismiss it; it shows how careful the governor's report were with their sources. And yeah, their journals.

Sure, but it doesnt mean everything in that report is inaccurate. It means that a number of accounts are inaccurate

I'm not trying to beat you over the head about it, or to say they're wrong if they say the sky is blue, but I would say for a contentious issue of whether bullying was a motive - even if you wish to defend that they were bullied, I would not use the governor's report. 

It's a secondary source, not a primary source. So, to cite it, one has to trust that the report read and chose their sources accurately. They are so bad on how the shooting began, with the "plan B" narrative and with the bombs placed at the exits (this is a major detail), that I wouldn't trust them on much.  And I'm saying I think at least for Eric, their point of view might be right. But I wouldn't use them to support that, as they can't even get a detail like where the main weapon was. And there are so many sources to choose from.

From p. 26:
"After positioning the duffel bags near the cafeteria exits, Klebold and Harris left the building and waited in their cars, which they had parked strategically so that persons fleeing from the school buiilding would be caught in a crossfire of bullets."

Major detail right? Their plan; their MO? Except for their names and having duffel bags, every word of that is false.

cakeman wrote:

I'm not trying to beat you over the head about it, or to say they're wrong if they say the sky is blue, but I would say for a contentious issue of whether bullying was a motive - even if you wish to defend that they were bullied, I would not use the governor's report. 

It's a secondary source, not a primary source. So, to cite it, one has to trust that the report read and chose their sources accurately. They are so bad on how the shooting began, with the "plan B" narrative and with the bombs placed at the exits (this is a major detail), that I wouldn't trust them on much.  And I'm saying I think at least for Eric, their point of view might be right. But I wouldn't use them to support that, as they can't even get a detail like where the main weapon was. And there are so many sources to choose from.

From p. 26:
"After positioning the duffel bags near the cafeteria exits, Klebold and Harris left the building and waited in their cars, which they had parked strategically so that persons fleeing from the school buiilding would be caught in a crossfire of bullets."

Major detail right? Their plan; their MO? Except for their names and having duffel bags, every word of that is false.

Much of what you said here makes perfect sense. And no, I didnt take any offense at what you said. Yet, how many sources are there on Columbine? Im only aware of the 11 k documents, their journals, interviews with Sue Klebold, other people that knew them, Brooks Brown, and the official documents and so on

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

I'm not trying to beat you over the head about it, or to say they're wrong if they say the sky is blue, but I would say for a contentious issue of whether bullying was a motive - even if you wish to defend that they were bullied, I would not use the governor's report. 

It's a secondary source, not a primary source. So, to cite it, one has to trust that the report read and chose their sources accurately. They are so bad on how the shooting began, with the "plan B" narrative and with the bombs placed at the exits (this is a major detail), that I wouldn't trust them on much.  And I'm saying I think at least for Eric, their point of view might be right. But I wouldn't use them to support that, as they can't even get a detail like where the main weapon was. And there are so many sources to choose from.

From p. 26:
"After positioning the duffel bags near the cafeteria exits, Klebold and Harris left the building and waited in their cars, which they had parked strategically so that persons fleeing from the school buiilding would be caught in a crossfire of bullets."

Major detail right? Their plan; their MO? Except for their names and having duffel bags, every word of that is false.

Much of what you said here makes perfect sense. And no, I didnt take any offense at what you said. Yet, how many sources are there on Columbine? Im only aware of the 11 k documents, their journals, interviews with Sue Klebold, other people that knew them, Brooks Brown, and the official documents and so on

The 11k is a lot of course, really 26k, with their journals, planners, web pages, school work,  etc, not to mention the witnesses during the massacre, to give insight. That's the primary sources. There is also the music, movies, and video games they liked. That's something of a primary source.  I would put more stock into those than peoples interpretation after the massacre given the tragedy and the media circus and school rumor mill and childhood attention seeking and etc

The massacre itself seems to say they were not their true selves around friends and family.  As above Brooks had the reputation of a liar. For one example, Brooks says bullies lay into Eric while Dylan is filming in the video of Eric in the school. But one can see that doesn't happen, it's much more light-hearted, and Dylan wasn't the cameraman, in fact later appears on screen. Laughlin and Dykeman are interesting for sure. And Epling and Morris. But not a lot more than that, and I have the same reluctance as above.  For books, Brooks's book is the definitely the one saying bullying did it. For the reasons above, there is some  But I don't think it's awful. On top of what was already mentioned, I think it probably suffers from being the first book. It does have a chapter on video games, as I think a book on Columbine probably should.

And it's hard to imagine Dylan and Sue were all that close. How many teenagers would want their mother to write their biography? Now add one sad and angry enough to murder. Now add your mother coping from that. So, while they knew them and that counts for something, I would not prefer their books to Kass or Krabbé. And there are so many others, white papers, pamphlets, reports. The wikipedia is a decent guide. For one example, Wanton Violence At Columbine High is an official report to see if paramedic response and so forth was up to snuff and if not what to change. It contains a lot more interesting information than the governor's report.

cakeman wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

cakeman wrote:

I'm not trying to beat you over the head about it, or to say they're wrong if they say the sky is blue, but I would say for a contentious issue of whether bullying was a motive - even if you wish to defend that they were bullied, I would not use the governor's report. 

It's a secondary source, not a primary source. So, to cite it, one has to trust that the report read and chose their sources accurately. They are so bad on how the shooting began, with the "plan B" narrative and with the bombs placed at the exits (this is a major detail), that I wouldn't trust them on much.  And I'm saying I think at least for Eric, their point of view might be right. But I wouldn't use them to support that, as they can't even get a detail like where the main weapon was. And there are so many sources to choose from.

From p. 26:
"After positioning the duffel bags near the cafeteria exits, Klebold and Harris left the building and waited in their cars, which they had parked strategically so that persons fleeing from the school buiilding would be caught in a crossfire of bullets."

Major detail right? Their plan; their MO? Except for their names and having duffel bags, every word of that is false.

Much of what you said here makes perfect sense. And no, I didnt take any offense at what you said. Yet, how many sources are there on Columbine? Im only aware of the 11 k documents, their journals, interviews with Sue Klebold, other people that knew them, Brooks Brown, and the official documents and so on

The 11k is a lot of course, really 26k, with their journals, planners, web pages, school work,  etc, not to mention the witnesses during the massacre, to give insight. That's the primary sources. There is also the music, movies, and video games they liked. That's something of a primary source.  I would put more stock into those than peoples interpretation after the massacre given the tragedy and the media circus and school rumor mill and childhood attention seeking and etc

The massacre itself seems to say they were not their true selves around friends and family.  As above Brooks had the reputation of a liar. For one example, Brooks says bullies lay into Eric while Dylan is filming in the video of Eric in the school. But one can see that doesn't happen, it's much more light-hearted, and Dylan wasn't the cameraman, in fact later appears on screen. Laughlin and Dykeman are interesting for sure. And Epling and Morris. But not a lot more than that, and I have the same reluctance as above.  For books, Brooks's book is the definitely the one saying bullying did it. For the reasons above, there is some  But I don't think it's awful. On top of what was already mentioned, I think it probably suffers from being the first book. It does have a chapter on video games, as I think a book on Columbine probably should.

And it's hard to imagine Dylan and Sue were all that close. How many teenagers would want their mother to write their biography? Now add one sad and angry enough to murder. Now add your mother coping from that. So, while they knew them and that counts for something, I would not prefer their books to Kass or Krabbé. And there are so many others, white papers, pamphlets, reports. The wikipedia is a decent guide. For one example, Wanton Violence At Columbine High is an official report to see if paramedic response and so forth was up to snuff and if not what to change. It contains a lot more interesting information than the governor's report.

OK, I get your point. Im highly critical of the Wikipedia article, as they source Brooks Browns book and even use blanket statements to support the idea that they were bullied. But Ill make sure to give it a trie

Not to spam this post further, but I think a lot of this boils down to the idea that Cullen made some eggrerious claims when he first published the book in 2009. Which was later corrected.

Second, he denies that they were bullied or outcasts. I think I elaborated that it's possible to find support for both points of views and why they probably werent the type of outcasts they initially were made out to be.

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

Quote :

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

What's not cool is that, after ten years of listening to every fucking mainstream newspaper and magazine and TV show talk about how Dave Cullen is the only guy who really knows what happened at Columbine and the world's foremost authority on spree shootings, there are people who go around trying to censor differing viewpoints. That's what's not cool.

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

What's not cool is that, after ten years of listening to every fucking mainstream newspaper and magazine and TV show talk about how Dave Cullen is the only guy who really knows what happened at Columbine and the world's foremost authority on spree shootings, there are people who go around trying to censor differing viewpoints. That's what's not cool.

And none of that gives you the right to come with such horrible accusations like you do

Norwegian wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

What's not cool is that, after ten years of listening to every fucking mainstream newspaper and magazine and TV show talk about how Dave Cullen is the only guy who really knows what happened at Columbine and the world's foremost authority on spree shootings, there are people who go around trying to censor differing viewpoints. That's what's not cool.

And none of that gives you the right to come with such horrible accusations like you do

Horrible accusations? What horrible accusations have I made?

I have accused Dave Cullen of writing a book to make money. He did a) write a book and b) make money on it. So you can't accuse me of lying.

LPorter101 wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

What's not cool is that, after ten years of listening to every fucking mainstream newspaper and magazine and TV show talk about how Dave Cullen is the only guy who really knows what happened at Columbine and the world's foremost authority on spree shootings, there are people who go around trying to censor differing viewpoints. That's what's not cool.

And none of that gives you the right to come with such horrible accusations like you do

Horrible accusations? What horrible accusations have I made?

I have accused Dave Cullen of writing a book to make money. He did a) write a book and b) make money on it. So you can't accuse me of lying.

You know what Im talking about. Anyone can write a book to make money. You know that this isnt what Im talking about.

And frankly, your not the only one Im adressing, here

anonacc489 wrote:

I've spent alot of time lurking this board, and almost 90% of the things I see mentioning Cullen's book act as if he has reached the most heinous and unfounded conclusion possible, and the book is nothing more than Cullen shouting declarative statements at the reader and pushing "Eric is a psychopath and Dylan depressive" as a complete 100% fact, when in reality none of that happened in the book.

I've had Columbine sitting on my shelf for the past month, and after reading a post which once again threw a jab at Cullen's book, I decided to read it for myself and see what it said that everyone here found so heinous.

As it turns out - Cullen himself didn't actually say that they anyone was a psychopath or a depressive. He merely was documenting the conclusions that the detectives and psychologists working on the case came to, specifically Dwayne Fusilier.

That's it.

He never ever said "Eric was a psychopath. That's why it all happened. Dylan was innocent."
EVER.
And the bits that he focused on Dwayne's research, he went into detail as to how Dwayne reached that conclusion, and presented it in a compelling and thoughtful manner. Cullen does not offer the psychopathy conclusion as fact, or the be all end all reason behind Columbine, he merely offers it as a single possible reason for it to happen.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is everyone here has with the book. If anything, I think it would be appreciated here, because Cullen pretty much took Columbine and made it into something more than "two bullied kids kill people". He instead shows how it's a much deeper issue than that, something the community was doing for a long time before the book. Cullen just took it to mainstream.

He was appealing to authority to prove his point. That is an argument that doesn't sit right with me coupled with his mistakes and misinformation.

To be frank, Cullen took hes ideas from Dwayne Fuselier. Fuselier was the one to argue that they had opposite personality traits. I dont hold too many views on the psychological profile of mass murders as I think its a bit too complicated. But I understand it that Langman made similar claims in hes own books.

Norwegian wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

What's not cool is that, after ten years of listening to every where's my jelly mainstream newspaper and magazine and TV show talk about how Dave Cullen is the only guy who really knows what happened at Columbine and the world's foremost authority on spree shootings, there are people who go around trying to censor differing viewpoints. That's what's not cool.

And none of that gives you the right to come with such horrible accusations like you do

Actually it does, because we have freedom of speech in the United States.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Quote :

Yet, that aside, Ive seen some rather mean spirited posts about Cullen here, and thats not cool.

What's not cool is that, after ten years of listening to every where's my jelly mainstream newspaper and magazine and TV show talk about how Dave Cullen is the only guy who really knows what happened at Columbine and the world's foremost authority on spree shootings, there are people who go around trying to censor differing viewpoints. That's what's not cool.

And none of that gives you the right to come with such horrible accusations like you do

Actually it does, because we have freedom of speech in the United States.

It also gives people the right to say what they think in return.