What if a small child happened to be there? How would Eric and Dylan...

... have responded? Let's imagine any number of scenarios: A teacher or librarian has a relative with them, a little boy or girl too small to be in any grade other than 1st or 2nd. So, a 5, 6 or 7 year old child. Eric and Dylan continue their rampage and make it to the library. The child(ren) is with a parent, discovered by the killers?

How do you personally think Eric and Dylan would have responded? Would they have let them go, safely?

Very excellent question.

I'd say they wouldn't hurt a small child.

Now, people may argue cause Steven was fairly young...was he the youngest? I'm not sure, and he was also petite I would say, and they still killed him. Perhaps even they wouldn't care what sort of people were there cause they wanted to eradicate EVERYONE. Also, they wanted to blow the place up so literally anybody would be taken out.

I guess what I mean if maybe they had conversation with the child or made any connection long enough till they don't have it in them to kill the child, then they prob wouldn't.

That's my view. And good point on the bombing. If it had worked, it would have taken out everyone in the cafeteria and brought the library down with it.

But that's different from directly encountering someone.

The bombing would have killed Savage, for example. He was in the library. But when they actually came face to face with him, they let him go. I think it would have been the same with a small boy or girl. Seeing it, they probably would have let it and its parent leave.

Even in the library, Eric and Dylan were not shooting at everybody. They could kill everyone who was there, but they didn't. This is to say that they chose their victims at random. So I don't think they will shoot at the child who obviously has not related to school. Most likely they would have just passed by, not wasting time on this baby.

You know everyone wants to live, regardless of whether they are children or adults.

Love wrote:

This is to say that they chose their victims at random. So I don't think they will shoot at the child who obviously has not related to school.

This is quite a contradiction though. At random meaning even if they did see a child related to the school or not they would still shoot them, if that child was unlucky. They execution in the library is complicated, it's almost random yet not cause they didn't shoot an acquaintance, and they didn't shoot people they had long enough conversation with.

I said that they most likely wouldn't shoot the kid because, they might see a flashback/reflection of themselves in an instance and wouldn't have the heart to do it. Most likely Eric wouldn't.

shades wrote:

Very excellent question.

I'd say they wouldn't hurt a small child.

Now, people may argue cause Steven was fairly young...was he the youngest? I'm not sure, and he was also petite I would say, and they still killed him. Perhaps even they wouldn't care what sort of people were there cause they wanted to eradicate EVERYONE. Also, they wanted to blow the place up so literally anybody would be taken out.

I guess what I mean if maybe they had conversation with the child or made any connection long enough till they don't have it in them to kill the child, then they prob wouldn't.

I thought Harris shot Curnow without even looking at him.

myshame wrote:

I thought Harris shot Curnow without even looking at him.

Oh, he did didn't he? Like he just put the shotgun under the desk and didn't look?
Or was it like multiple shots under desk at whoever who would get hit and Steven was one of them?

If the child and parent were seen together in the library or wherever in the school I do not believe Eric/Dylan would have shot the parent/child.

Their goal that day was to blow up the high school and to kill as many high school faculty/students as possible.

They were not targeting elementary school grade 1 little kids like Adam did.

sororityalpha wrote:

If the child and parent were seen together in the library or wherever in the school I do not believe Eric/Dylan would have shot the parent/child.

Their goal that day was to blow up the high school and to kill as many high school faculty/students as possible.

Right, but if the bomb was successful, everyone would get killed. It literally wouldn't matter if they didn't shoot the parent and the child.

This is more to whether Eric or Dylan would individually shoot one

I don't see why they wouldn't. They laughed and joked while killing kids anyway - what difference does it make if you shoot kids five or six years younger than the ones you've already shot?

Draw_It_White wrote:

I don't see why they wouldn't. They laughed and joked while killing kids anyway - what difference does it make if you shoot kids five or six years younger than the ones you've already shot?

because maybe - just assuming, I obviously could be wrong - that seeing a child might trigger something inside them and they wouldn't be able to do it.

I just don't see them killing little kids that young (5-7 years old).

They wanted to blow up/kill high school students/faculty.

sororityalpha wrote:

I just don't see them killing little kids that young (5-7 years old).

They wanted to blow up/kill high school students.

so safe to say they would pick and choose who they shot individually and it's not actually at random. On that day itself and I had said above, they didn't shoot certain people they knew or talked to.

Yes, I agree with you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

I never understood why Adam wanted to kill little kids except to theorize that maybe to him he wanted to 'save' them from a 'miserable future life' in our civilized world.

Jeanna Park's younger sister (Kathy) was also in the library during the massacre, and I've often wondered if they had seen her would they have harmed her? I believe she was only 14 or 15 at the time.

Kathy Park stated she was under Table 15 with Makai Hall, Patrick Ireland, and Dan Steepleton.

I am sure Eric/Dylan saw her.

Everybody under Table 15 was injured except her. She was lucky she did not get hit by the shotgun pellets or bullets or by the CO2 cartridge that was thrown at them (Makai Hall threw it away).

I want to grab some weak little freshman and just tear them apart like a wolf, show
them who is god. Strangle them, squish their head, bite their temples in the skull, rip off
their jaw, rip off their collar bones, break their arms in half and twist them around, the lovely
sounds of bones cracking and flesh ripping, ahhh ... so much to do and so little chances.

-Eric Harris

James411 wrote:

I want to grab some weak little freshman and just tear them apart like a wolf, show
them who is god. Strangle them, squish their head, bite their temples in the skull, rip off
their jaw, rip off their collar bones, break their arms in half and twist them around, the lovely
sounds of bones cracking and flesh ripping, ahhh ... so much to do and so little chances.

-Eric Harris

I wonder if this is in reference to the freshman who were giving Dylan a hard time and supposedly even dented his car. According to Sue Klebold's book Dylan and others arranged to meet up with the freshman to settle things, but the freshman never turned up.

Does it really make any difference? I mean, really? Isn't murder still murder no matter what age the kids were? They were kids. Young kids with their entire lives left to live. Eric looked Daniel Mauser straight in the face before he shot him in the head and you guys think they would have "felt some sort of way" if a younger child were there? Really? If there were little kids there and ended up collateral damage, they wouldn't have cared. Just like all those people out there who think they could have changed Dylan and Eric and that they wouldn't have killed them - yes, they would have. They would have looked at you in the face and then shot you in the head.

There is no big mystery, rhyme or reason as to who they killed and who they passed up. It had nothing to do with age or some kids looking younger than others. Eric didn't pass some girl up because she was 15. That was their plan the whole time - to decide who lives and who dies. You know, because they were "so fucking Godlike"? And keep in mind, they weren't letting people live because they didn't want them to die. They let them live so that they'd have "flashbacks" and probably agonize over what happened for the rest of their lives.

James411 wrote:

I want to grab some weak little freshman and just tear them apart like a wolf, show
them who is god. Strangle them, squish their head, bite their temples in the skull, rip off
their jaw, rip off their collar bones, break their arms in half and twist them around, the lovely
sounds of bones cracking and flesh ripping, ahhh ... so much to do and so little chances.

-Eric Harris

    It's like he wants to psychologically compensate for the pain and humiliation that he has experienced being physically weak and pathetic in his own eyes. Thus, he projects his imagination not on those who offend him, but on those who could not answer him. His imaginary victim is very similar to Erik. Hating himself, he projects his anger on those who reminds him of himself. As a person with low self-esteem, he is very painfully aware of when he is not getting the desired respect from the younger kids.

    His sexual fantasies are also quite specific. He does not dream of "true love" as Dylan. In his fantasies he wants to get by force something that he can not get in real life. Eric does not need illusions about the relationship, rather, he even doubts that he will ever have a girlfriend. And this is all also because of extremely low self-esteem.
     
    I think that to some extent he really hated all these children in school. But I don't think that a small child would cause him the same associations as the high school students.

Jenn wrote:

Does it really make any difference? I mean, really? Isn't murder still murder no matter what age the kids were? They were kids. Young kids with their entire lives left to live. Eric looked Daniel Mauser straight in the face before he shot him in the head and you guys think they would have "felt some sort of way" if a younger child were there? Really? If there were little kids there and ended up collateral damage, they wouldn't have cared. Just like all those people out there who think they could have changed Dylan and Eric and that they wouldn't have killed them - yes, they would have. They would have looked at you in the face and then shot you in the head.

There is no big mystery, rhyme or reason as to who they killed and who they passed up. It had nothing to do with age or some kids looking younger than others. Eric didn't pass some girl up because she was 15. That was their plan the whole time - to decide who lives and who dies. You know, because they were "so fucking Godlike"? And keep in mind, they weren't letting people live because they didn't want them to die. They let them live so that they'd have "flashbacks" and probably agonize over what happened for the rest of their lives.

This. All this.

Lmao at the fantasies some people have on this forum. Oh yeah! Eric and Dylan will definitely point a gun at a 6 year old, and immediately think of their childhood. Yeah, not even close. They would've killed them too. And I say that with strong confidence because of the way they acted that entire day, and what they did. It makes no difference. In the end they would've just been another target.

This is kind of a useless question. They didn't plan on seeing any little kids there, and there weren't any little kids there.

Even if they wouldn't kill a toddler, I don't think they'd stop killing people just because one was there.

lol wrote:

mao at the fantasies some people have on this forum. Oh yeah! Eric and Dylan will definitely point a gun at a 6 year old, and immediately think of their childhood. Yeah, not even close. They would've killed them too. And I say that with strong confidence because of the way they acted that entire day, and what they did. It makes no difference. In the end they would've just been another target.

Calm down please. That wasn't a fantasy, and you don't even know if it's possible for them at all to have a flashback like that because this is a hypothetical question and there wasn't a smaller child there to know what would happen. You say the way they acted that day, it wouldn't matter who they killed. Well take in consideration that they still let some people go.

None of you guys know how it would be cause there wasn't a toddler there. I think it's a good question cause it brings to light whether they were complete monsters or were still conscious enough to have executed a child in front of them. It reflects if they only targeted their peers/teenagers- if they were in front of them (not if bombing was successful).

lol wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Does it really make any difference? I mean, really? Isn't murder still murder no matter what age the kids were? They were kids. Young kids with their entire lives left to live. Eric looked Daniel Mauser straight in the face before he shot him in the head and you guys think they would have "felt some sort of way" if a younger child were there? Really? If there were little kids there and ended up collateral damage, they wouldn't have cared. Just like all those people out there who think they could have changed Dylan and Eric and that they wouldn't have killed them - yes, they would have. They would have looked at you in the face and then shot you in the head.

There is no big mystery, rhyme or reason as to who they killed and who they passed up. It had nothing to do with age or some kids looking younger than others. Eric didn't pass some girl up because she was 15. That was their plan the whole time - to decide who lives and who dies. You know, because they were "so fucking Godlike"? And keep in mind, they weren't letting people live because they didn't want them to die. They let them live so that they'd have "flashbacks" and probably agonize over what happened for the rest of their lives.

This. All this.

Lmao at the fantasies some people have on this forum. Oh yeah! Eric and Dylan will definitely point a gun at a 6 year old, and immediately think of their childhood. Yeah, not even close. They would've killed them too. And I say that with strong confidence because of the way they acted that entire day, and what they did. It makes no difference. In the end they would've just been another target.

You might be surprised. Anders Breivik spared at least one ten year old boy he came across though otherwise, he was absolutely ruthless with his killing, and his youngest victim was just 14 years old.

He also spared a teen boy. Breivik said: 'Certain people look more leftist than others. This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That's the reason I didn't fire any shots at him. When I looked at him I saw myself.'

You are forgetting that it would not necessarily have to be compassion that would lead Eric or Dylan to spare a child that reminded them of themselves. Narcissism would suffice.

Personally, I do think there is a chance that Eric and Dylan would have skipped killing a young child if any had been present that day. While I don't believe that there is really any ethical difference between taking the life of an adult, teenager or child, I think there would have been a different visceral reaction to the image of a child in front of one of their guns, regardless of how far gone either of them seemed to be. It would not have been something they expected to encounter and that might have jolted them back to reality and forced them to think about what they were doing in a different way. Of course, they could have been completely indifferent to this occurrence since they obviously took 13 lives with no problem, but I still think there's a reasonable chance that it would have been something that they hesitated to do, if only because the unexpected presence of a child would have shocked them and thrown them off guard.

sscc wrote:

You might be surprised. Anders Breivik spared at least one ten year old boy he came across though otherwise, he was absolutely ruthless with his killing, and his youngest victim was just 14 years old.

He also spared a teen boy. Breivik said: 'Certain people look more leftist than others. This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That's the reason I didn't fire any shots at him. When I looked at him I saw myself.'

You are forgetting that it would not necessarily have to be compassion that would lead Eric or Dylan to spare a child that reminded them of themselves. Narcissism would suffice.

Personally, I do think there is a chance that Eric and Dylan would have skipped killing a young child if any had been present that day. While I don't believe that there is really any ethical difference between taking the life of an adult, teenager or child, I think there would have been a different visceral reaction to the image of a child in front of one of their guns, regardless of how far gone either of them seemed to be. It would not have been something they expected to encounter and that might have jolted them back to reality and forced them to think about what they were doing in a different way. Of course, they could have been completely indifferent to this occurrence since they obviously took 13 lives with no problem, but I still think there's a reasonable chance that it would have been something that they hesitated to do, if only because the unexpected presence of a child would have shocked them and thrown them off guard.

Excellent [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. And thank you for referencing Anders. I can't believe It slipped my mind that he did that.

shades wrote:

None of you guys know how it would be cause there wasn't a toddler there. I think it's a good question cause it brings to light whether they were complete monsters or were still conscious enough to have executed a child in front of them. It reflects if they only targeted their peers/teenagers- if they were in front of them (not if bombing was successful).

Are you being serious or are you being sarcastic because I honestly cannot tell? They weren't monster for killing the kids they did kill but they would have been monsters if they killed a 5 year old? If you actually are being serious, how the heck did you come to that conclusion? And I'm also wondering why you always try to make Dylan and Eric, particularly Eric, not sound as bad as he really was? You literally stick up for Eric every single time he's mentioned in a bad light. Is there a reason for that? When that movie about Rachel came out your biggest concern was how they portrayed Eric and how disgusted you were that God for bid, Rachel was getting attention.

And it goes both ways. You too don't know what they would have done if a toddler was there but you were quick to say they probably wouldn't have killed a child that young and jump all over the people who said that he would and telling people to "calm down". You know cuz he's a murderer and all it isn't that far fetched that he'd kill a child if a child just so happened to be lurking around a high school. How do you know who he would and wouldn't have killed? You don't. And you do know WHY they let people go, right? That was their intention the whole time to pick who lives and who doesn't. I mean how many times did they say that? And Eric talked about blowing up "towns" and flying planes into buildings and all other kinds of messed up shit. You think that wouldn't have killed some children?

They were there for carnage. Definitely not for compassion, if they let some of their targets flee from the scene it was because they wanted to experiment psychological manipulation and feel superior to everybody. With a child, that wouldn't have even happened. I think that they would have had even the youngest on target, if they had a chance to find them on their way.

Jenn wrote:

And it goes both ways. You too don't know what they would have done if a toddler was there but you were quick to say they probably wouldn't have killed a child that young and jump all over the people who said that he would and telling people to "calm down". You know cuz he's a murderer and all it isn't that far fetched that he'd kill a child if a child just so happened to be lurking around a high school. How do you know who he would and wouldn't have killed? You don't. And you do know WHY they let people go, right? That was their intention the whole time to pick who lives and who doesn't. I mean how many times did they say that? And Eric talked about blowing up "towns" and flying planes into buildings and all other kinds of messed up shit. You think that wouldn't have killed some children?

First of all I know you like to disagree with me. I've been around here long enough and I do make it clear that at some points I'm Eric biased or relate to the boys somehow. That whole Rachel movie thing? nothing to do with this.

Secondly I told the poster to calm down because they were referencing my post as a fantasy when I said they might get flashbacks seeing a child. I'm just replying that they do not know that that could have happened either.

And of course I don't know what they would have really done if a child was there. But I still have the right to state my opinion right? Isn't that what this forum is for and not who is right and how many people back that up? I even said that they wanted to bomb the school initially so ANYONE would have gotten killed.

I, NEVER, completely said Eric or Dylan wouldn't kill a child. I just think as a strong opinion they may have not, and the opinion is still mine. Doesn't mean anyone else is correct either.

Lastly the way I phrased this "I think it's a good question cause it brings to light whether they were complete monsters or were still conscious enough to have executed a child in front of them." is a tad bit insane, I realised. They are monsters for what they did nevertheless.

shades wrote:

Jenn wrote:

And it goes both ways. You too don't know what they would have done if a toddler was there but you were quick to say they probably wouldn't have killed a child that young and jump all over the people who said that he would and telling people to "calm down". You know cuz he's a murderer and all it isn't that far fetched that he'd kill a child if a child just so happened to be lurking around a high school. How do you know who he would and wouldn't have killed? You don't. And you do know WHY they let people go, right? That was their intention the whole time to pick who lives and who doesn't. I mean how many times did they say that? And Eric talked about blowing up "towns" and flying planes into buildings and all other kinds of messed up shit. You think that wouldn't have killed some children?

First of all I know you like to disagree with me. I've been around here long enough and I do make it clear that at some points I'm Eric biased or relate to the boys somehow. That whole Rachel movie thing? nothing to do with this.

Secondly I told the poster to calm down because they were referencing my post as a fantasy when I said they might get flashbacks seeing a child. I'm just replying that they do not know that that could have happened either.

And of course I don't know what they would have really done if a child was there. But I still have the right to state my opinion right? Isn't that what this forum is for and not who is right and how many people back that up? I even said that they wanted to bomb the school initially so ANYONE would have gotten killed.

I, NEVER, completely said Eric or Dylan wouldn't kill a child. I just think as a strong opinion they may have not, and the opinion is still mine. Doesn't mean anyone else is correct either.

Lastly the way I phrased this "I think it's a good question cause it brings to light whether they were complete monsters or were still conscious enough to have executed a child in front of them." is a tad bit insane, I realised. They are monsters for what they did nevertheless.

Well obviously you don't "know" me that well. I don't "like" to disagree with you. I disagree with you a lot of the time because a lot of the things you say I just don't agree with and I find it hard to believe you actually believe these things you are saying. Hence why I asked you if you were being serious or not. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone, not just you, can claim Dylan and Eric weren't monsters because their victims were not young enough. It has nothing to do with me just disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing - which is what you just implied.

And yea, the film about Rachel I brought up as yet another example where you jumped all over people (just like you did in the thread) for the things they were saying about the film. Constantly butting in to tell people there would be no reviews on the film and it wouldn't have a box office rating and how you were disgusted with the way the boys were portrayed. They were portrayed as what they really were - teenagers who planned an attack on their school and murdered people. And according to you, people were wasting their time even talking about it or watching it. Let people watch it and decide for themselves.

You're always telling people what to do and what to say and then turn around and complain about how you're allowed to state your opinion but when someone else does, they need to "calm down". I'm just wondering what's up with the double standards? I asked you because I want to know not just to disagree with you for the fun of it.

Why are you allowed your opinion but you argue any time someone brings up an opinion about Eric that makes him out to be what he really was? A murderer. You're Eric biased? What does that even mean? "Eric biased"? What, that since you can "relate" to some teenager who was a murderer who killed himself nearly 20 years ago he can do no wrong and you feel it's necessary to always make him out to sound not as bad as he really was? And what exactly is it you can "relate" to?

And [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] made a really good point and I agree with them. Dylan and Eric were going to be dying in less than an hour, I seriously SERIOUSLY doubt that they would sit there and reminisce about their childhood in the middle of mowing down a bunch of kids. Once a murderer gets to the point that Dylan and Eric were at, they aren't gonna take a stroll down memory lane and remember that one time when they were 5 years old and picked sunflowers with their Mother and think "I shouldn't kill this little kid. I have such good memories from that age". No, what Eric was probably thinking was "why didn't my damn bombs go off" or "fuck I broke my nose" or "damn, I couldn't even get this right. I was a failure all the way up to my death". And I'd be willing to bet he was disappointed as hell, in pain and probably felt the whole thing wasn't even worth it.

I guess I understand that some people like to theorize about what could or couldn't have happened under different circumstances, but I honestly do not see how anyone, not just you, can think it really would have mattered to the killers who ended up dead and what age they were.

This is an interesting question. Seeing as the school was supposed to be a bombing, I don't think it would have mattered. In the Basement Tapes, Eric says that IF his friends survived, they could have his things and then Dylan agrees. This always sticks out to me in that, at the end of the day, their friends dying was just something that couldn't be helped. Collateral damage kind of thing.

But had they come face to face with a kid... that's where the intrigue comes in. In my opinion, I'd like to believe that they wouldn't. They'd probably joke like "Why the fuck is there a little kid here?" kind of thing. But it could go either way. They would have killed the child just to make whoever the child was with feel worse or something.

I don't understand why this question causes so much emotion. All want to live regardless of age.
No one except Eric and Dylan doesn't know what they were guided in choosing their victims. All we can do is use our imagination, passing through a prism of our perception (moral values, faith, life experience, etc.). I want to say that the correct answer to this question is that they each had their own motivations that no one will ever know. Moreover impulsive actions are often perpetrated by people rapidly and unconsciously (call it subliminal), without long deliberation. If they don't kill the baby, then they don't get better from this. After all, they still kill others.
Again, I don't think that  they would remember their childhood or somehow have to associate themselves with kid. I don't think they ever felt remorse during the shooting, which again does not make them better. This is not what I wanted to say in my previous comments. And the reason I personally believe that they most likely would not shoot in a small child is that I think he would not have caused their aggression. The point is not to somehow humanize their actions, or to present they in the best possible way, but to understand their motives, to try to understand what led them to this moment.

Not gonna try to stand my ground, won't even be worth the argument. I've been here long enough.
Besides everyone else's thoughts would do its job anyway.

Jenn wrote:

And yea, the film about Rachel I brought up as yet another example where you jumped all over people (just like you did in the thread) for the things they were saying about the film. Constantly butting in to tell people there would be no reviews on the film and it wouldn't have a box office rating and how you were disgusted with the way the boys were portrayed. They were portrayed as what they really were - teenagers who planned an attack on their school and murdered people. And according to you, people were wasting their time even talking about it or watching it. Let people watch it and decide for themselves.

You're always telling people what to do and what to say and then turn around and complain about how you're allowed to state your opinion but when someone else does, they need to "calm down". I'm just wondering what's up with the double standards? I asked you because I want to know not just to disagree with you for the fun of it.

You don't know me either, at all.

I think you just didn't like that I disagreed with someone that backed you up. And, how come you're still thinking about thread so long ago that I barely even remember it? I don't tell people what to do. When I say "calm down", it's suppose to be lighthearted but also to let [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] know that I wouldn't spout some nonsense to the extent that it's a fantasy, cause it offends me that my opinion on a possible flashback or touch of heart that the boys might have in this hypothetical scenario might be impossible. Again, nobody really knows what would happen.

I feel like you're trying to argue something out of nothing. You don't seem to like that I have my opinions or thoughts at all. There are literally others on this thread that think they wouldn't hurt a child either, how come you're not battling with them?

Quote :

What, that since you can "relate" to some teenager who was a murderer who killed himself nearly 20 years ago he can do no wrong and you feel it's necessary to always make him out to sound not as bad as he really was? And what exactly is it you can "relate" to?

Oh wow. a personal attack huh? Apparently no one here is allowed to express that they understood why two suicidal-homicidal teenagers did what they did?

I'm done. I think everyone else here can see what's up.

And if there's a problem with me relating to Eric, this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] should be an issue by now.

I actually believe that they would have shot a child because one of the reasons they wanted to commit this act was to be remembered. I think that had they shot a child, as sick as it may be, they would have, in their eyes, been even more re-memorable. Pointing back to the fact that I believe Jenn made, Eric made prior posts about wanting to bomb neighborhoods and fly into buildings. Each of these places would have children in or around them.

As humans, we need to be loved and we need constant human interaction. Lanza had a falling out with his one and only friend months prior and his father didn't honor him taking a full load of classes at the college he wanted to go to because he thought he couldn't handle it so he cut off communication. He never had a strong relationship with his mother as well. There was a change that took place for Adam at Sandy Hook when he was there so that along with the isolation is the reason he chose that school. Shit went down that altered Eric and Dylan's mindset at Columbine along with other issues each had. Same shit with Cho and Virginia Tech.

It's the same shit over and over with these guys. Isolation, anxiety, revenge goals are the main reasons these events happen.

You simply can't cut off human interaction or isolate yourself from the world and expect to lead a healthy lifestyle.

shades wrote:

Jenn wrote:

And yea, the film about Rachel I brought up as yet another example where you jumped all over people (just like you did in the thread) for the things they were saying about the film. Constantly butting in to tell people there would be no reviews on the film and it wouldn't have a box office rating and how you were disgusted with the way the boys were portrayed. They were portrayed as what they really were - teenagers who planned an attack on their school and murdered people. And according to you, people were wasting their time even talking about it or watching it. Let people watch it and decide for themselves.

You're always telling people what to do and what to say and then turn around and complain about how you're allowed to state your opinion but when someone else does, they need to "calm down". I'm just wondering what's up with the double standards? I asked you because I want to know not just to disagree with you for the fun of it.

You don't know me either, at all.

I think you just didn't like that I disagreed with someone that backed you up. And, how come you're still thinking about thread so long ago that I barely even remember it? I don't tell people what to do. When I say "calm down", it's suppose to be lighthearted but also to let [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] know that I wouldn't spout some nonsense to the extent that it's a fantasy, cause it offends me that my opinion on a possible flashback or touch of heart that the boys might have in this hypothetical scenario might be impossible. Again, nobody really knows what would happen.

I feel like you're trying to argue something out of nothing. You don't seem to like that I have my opinions or thoughts at all. There are literally others on this thread that think they wouldn't hurt a child either, how come you're not battling with them?

Quote :

What, that since you can "relate" to some teenager who was a murderer who killed himself nearly 20 years ago he can do no wrong and you feel it's necessary to always make him out to sound not as bad as he really was? And what exactly is it you can "relate" to?

Oh wow. a personal attack huh? Apparently no one here is allowed to express that they understood why two suicidal-homicidal teenagers did what they did?

I'm done. I think everyone else here can see what's up.

A personal attack? Really? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Me saying that you try to make Eric out to be not as bad as he really was is not a personal attack. Me asking you exactly what it is about a murderer that you can relate to on such a level that you feel the need to constantly defend him and act like he can do no wrong is not a personal attack either. In your own words, I think everyone can see what's going on with that. If you're an Eric fan own it. Don't sit here defending him all the way to next Sunday and back and then say it's a personal attack and get offended when people call you out for it.

For the second time, I've already explained why I brought up the other thread. Because it was just one of the many times you felt the need to butt in and tell people what to do. Again to defend Eric and how he was portrayed. And that's not a personal attack. You did do that. You still do that on a regular basis. It's been pointed out to you many times and not just by me either.

The reason I only said something to you is because you were the only one in this thread who was going to great lengths to try and defend a killer. My entire existence on this forum doesn't revolve around you and what you post. There are a ton of people on this forum I've disagreed with over the last 4 years."Lol" and I have butted heads many times. You've made what? 2,700 posts on this forum. I've openly disagreed with you like 4 times and it's always the same thing - you defending Eric and getting all hot headed when other people state opinions about him that you don't like. Oh and the time you told someone dying of cancer "I'd switch places with you if I could" while you were most likely not dying of some terminal illness that made it hard for you to even breathe. Those are the only times I've publicly disagreed with you.

And in this situation, you are absolutely right, no I do not like nor agree with your opinion that Eric would have only been a monster if he killed a 5 year old. You go ahead and tell that to the families of the 13 innocent people that Eric ruthlessly and viciously bullied and then murdered.

Jenn wrote:

The reason I only said something to you is because you were the only one in this thread who was going to great lengths to try and defend a killer. My entire existence on this forum doesn't revolve around you and what you post. There are a ton of people on this forum I've disagreed with over the last 4 years."Lol" and I have butted heads many times. You've made what? 2,700 posts on this forum. I've openly disagreed with you like 4 times and it's always the same thing - you defending Eric and getting all hot headed when other people state opinions about him that you don't like. Oh and the time you told someone dying of cancer "I'd switch places with you if I could" while you were most likely not dying of some terminal illness that made it hard for you to even breathe. Those are the only times I've publicly disagreed with you.

Again, you know nothing about me, and still aggressive and personally attacking me and arguing with me.
"My entire existence on this forum doesn't revolve around you and what you post." Funny cause you're doing it right now? You even remember every word I say to other posters.

Hey If it makes you happy getting the last word then go ahead and do you.

It can't be less than obvious that using Columbine or certain defense of Eric to try to argue with me is at play here. It's almost an empty argument. And trying to undermine any personal issues I have, which I thought I could feel safe enough to open up on this forum. Well I know firstly I won't be doing it on here anymore.

Jenn wrote:

I think everyone can see what's going on with that. If you're an Eric fan own it. Don't sit here defending him all the way to next Sunday and back and then say it's a personal attack and get offended when people call you out for it.

When I say everyone can see, I meant how everyone can see how you pick and choose what to argue with me with. And when I said personal attack, honey I meant with how you are at everything I have done here.

Again, your forum and your last words! xoxoxo

this response was perfect damn

Well obviously you don't "know" me that well. I don't "like" to disagree with you. I disagree with you a lot of the time because a lot of the things you say I just don't agree with and I find it hard to believe you actually believe these things you are saying. Hence why I asked you if you were being serious or not. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone, not just you, can claim Dylan and Eric weren't monsters because their victims were not young enough. It has nothing to do with me just disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing - which is what you just implied.

And yea, the film about Rachel I brought up as yet another example where you jumped all over people (just like you did in the thread) for the things they were saying about the film. Constantly butting in to tell people there would be no reviews on the film and it wouldn't have a box office rating and how you were disgusted with the way the boys were portrayed. They were portrayed as what they really were - teenagers who planned an attack on their school and murdered people. And according to you, people were wasting their time even talking about it or watching it. Let people watch it and decide for themselves.

You're always telling people what to do and what to say and then turn around and complain about how you're allowed to state your opinion but when someone else does, they need to "calm down". I'm just wondering what's up with the double standards? I asked you because I want to know not just to disagree with you for the fun of it.

Why are you allowed your opinion but you argue any time someone brings up an opinion about Eric that makes him out to be what he really was? A murderer. You're Eric biased? What does that even mean? "Eric biased"? What, that since you can "relate" to some teenager who was a murderer who killed himself nearly 20 years ago he can do no wrong and you feel it's necessary to always make him out to sound not as bad as he really was? And what exactly is it you can "relate" to?

And [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] made a really good point and I agree with them. Dylan and Eric were going to be dying in less than an hour, I seriously SERIOUSLY doubt that they would sit there and reminisce about their childhood in the middle of mowing down a bunch of kids. Once a murderer gets to the point that Dylan and Eric were at, they aren't gonna take a stroll down memory lane and remember that one time when they were 5 years old and picked sunflowers with their Mother and think "I shouldn't kill this little kid. I have such good memories from that age". No, what Eric was probably thinking was "why didn't my damn bombs go off" or "fuck I broke my nose" or "damn, I couldn't even  get this right. I was a failure all the way up to my death". And I'd be willing to bet he was disappointed as hell, in pain and probably felt the whole thing wasn't even worth it.

I guess I understand that some people like to theorize about what could or couldn't have happened under different circumstances, but I honestly do not see how anyone, not just you, can think it really would have mattered to the killers who ended up dead and what age they were.[/quote]