Dave Cullen disses Columbiners

I did get your point, but you were responding to something I never said.

The only claim I made was that Dave Cullen is a jerk to people.
And I provided the evidence in his Tweets.
I fulfilled that claim.

If you want to see the full conversation look for yourself.

I never claimed that Dave wasn't reacting to people who were harassing him. I'm saying that Dave acts like a jerk to people who both do and do not instigate with him. And that makes him an immature jerk who can't stand being criticized.

There is nothing about that claim that needs further "proof" - his words to people, whether instigated or not, are inappropriate, immature, uncalled for, and show that he doesn't care about anyone but himself.

I posted Dave's behavior and words to show people what he does to people when they question him and disagree with him. It doesn't matter what people said to him first - my point is that Dave's standard way of interacting with people in the face of conflict is to be an absolute jerk. It doesn't matter if people provoke him, he should not be acting this way as someone in an influential position. And, at the same time, he does this to people who don't even provoke him.

You keep repeating yourself when it's not relevant to what I've said. So that tells me you're not understanding the point of posting the screen shots. You missed the whole point dude. The whole point is to show Dave's attitude toward people who disagree with him. And I stated many times that he does this to people both provoked and unprovoked. Doesn't matter what anyone said to him first.

We're not having a conversation about what led Dave to act like a jerk. We're simply talking about his caged animal behavior when he is confronted by people who both provoke him and question him.

If you want to psychoanalyze why Dave is a jerk, and read the posts yourself, have at it.

EthanEmerson wrote:

I'm not trying to prove a point here, I simply provided fast screen shots for people to see what I was talking about.

You weren't part of that conversation, and you can look for yourself because I'm not posting them to try to make anyone believe anything.

Well, isnt that actually what you are doing, in the first place, by making a claim? Isnt it also relevant that once we know that a claim is made to provide evidence that those statements are correct? So we know that its not Just a baseless claim, but an accurate one.

How is it convincing when we are not allowed to see what he is responding to and why he respond the way that he does?

Good lord.

EthanEmerson wrote:

I did get your point, but you were responding to something I never did.

The only claim I made was that Dave Cullen is a jerk to people.
And I provided the evidence in his Tweets.
I fulfilled that claim.

If you want to see the full conversation look for yourself.

I never claimed that Dave wasn't reacting to people who were harassing him. I'm saying that Dave acts like a jerk to people who both do and do not instigate with him.

You keep repeating yourself when it's not relevant to what I've said.

That is what I am responding to. You offer Tweets to back up the claim that he is a jerk. But those Tweets are only showing one side to the story. Because we only see Cullens Tweets. We dont see the Tweets from the person he is responding to. Than how do we know he didnt have a good reason to be a jerk? How can we know that whoever he is responding to isnt a genuine troll? And therefore we never get the entire context. A claim should always be backed up imo.

My claim is that Dave acts like a jerk.
I provided the evidence of Dave being a jerk to people in his own words.
What others said is irrelevant to the subject I was talking about.

If it's important to you, go look, otherwise, you really missed the boat here dude.

BUT CULLEN'S TWEETS DIRECTLY SHOW THAT HE IS BEING A JERK TO PEOPLE.

If you can't see that then maybe you also think Eric and Dylan weren't jerks when they shot and killed people?

There is no "other side of the story" that is what you are missing.

Regardless of what anyone said or did to him, he is a jerk to people in response and it's inappropriate for someone in his position to act that way. It's really that simple.

You're looking for a reason to justify or exonerate his atrocious behavior.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what anyone said to him - his responses are inappropriate for a person in his position of influence.

If you want to discuss whether or not you think Dave Cullen is justified for insulting people and bragging about blocking them, then that is a separate conversation.

My point is that he acts like a jerk in the face of confrontation. He is a public figure of influence and has a responsibility to conduct himself professionally, which he doesn't.

Here's some more for the people who wanted to see more of his insults.

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

Like.. mature adults and professional journalists don't act this way. Not even when their ideas are challenged. Not even when they're attacked with insults and threats.

(I just uploaded all the screen shots, not all are insults, I didn't want to read through all of them before uploading it was too much)

I'm not denying that Cullen gets attacked all the time. He does. There are people who instigate. And that's my point - this is his behavior when confronted with people who disagree with him and in the face of conflict, he throws out insults and demeans people. That is my point.

Disagree all you want and hold the position that Dave is justified - that's fine. But I don't think he is justified and his responses are not warranted for someone in his position of influence. And you don't need to see what other people said in order to see through Dave's own words that he is throwing out insults.

The point is that he throws out insults, not that he isn't being provoked.
I gave you screen shots of all the insults.
That's all that's relevant to my point. My point being that he throws out insults.

EthanEmerson wrote:

If you want to discuss whether or not you think Dave Cullen is justified for insulting people and bragging about blocking them, then that is a separate conversation.

My point is that he acts like a jerk in the face of confrontation. He is a public figure of influence and has a responsibility to conduct himself professionally, which he doesn't.

Here's some more for the people who wanted to see more of his insults.

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

Again, not reliable, as long as you only post single handedly from Cullens Tweets. Also, I had to log in to enter, so thats not going to work

EthanEmerson wrote:

My claim is that Dave acts like a jerk.
I provided the evidence of Dave being a jerk to people in his own words.
What others said is irrelevant to the subject I was talking about.

If it's important to you, go look, otherwise, you really missed the boat here dude.

Its important to have the full evidence and not take the conversation out of context. To cherry pick evidence doesnt cut it.

I didnt. You should have provided the whole conversation and not just picked out what Cullens said. Its important that we understand what hes responding to in order for them to make sense, of course. People can portray anyone as an asshole by only picking out details of a conversation. Even if theres a reason why they do it.

EthanEmerson wrote:

If you want to discuss whether or not you think Dave Cullen is justified for insulting people and bragging about blocking them, then that is a separate conversation.

My point is that he acts like a jerk in the face of confrontation. He is a public figure of influence and has a responsibility to conduct himself professionally, which he doesn't.

Here's some more for the people who wanted to see more of his insults.

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

Dude, you litterary brought up this conversastion in here that hes being an asshole. So, yeah, the insults are pretty much part of the conversation. Either proove that you are right or drop it

EthanEmerson wrote:

I'm not denying that Cullen gets attacked all the time. He does. There are people who instigate. And that's my point - this is his behavior when confronted with people who disagree with him and in the face of conflict, he throws out insults and demeans people. That is my point.

Disagree all you want and hold the position that Dave is justified - that's fine. But I don't think he is justified and his responses are not warranted for someone in his position of influence. And you don't need to see what other people said in order to see through Dave's own words that he is throwing out insults.

The point is that he throws out insults, not that he isn't being provoked.
I gave you screen shots of all the insults.
That's all that's relevant to my point. My point being that he throws out insults.

Like I said: If you are going to argue that hes an instigator or whatnot it is vital that you provide clear evidence. Which you havent done so far.

Bro we ain't even having the same conversation here...
I am agreeing with you that people instigate with Cullen.
But that's not my point.
My point is how he responds across the board when he is attacked. And when he isn't attacked.

Do you not read my posts, or what?

EthanEmerson wrote:

Bro we ain't even having the same conversation here...
I am agreeing with you that people instigate with Cullen.
But that's not my point.
My point is how he responds across the board when he is attacked. And when he isn't attacked.

Do you not read my posts, or what?

I did, and if thats true what you say, thats unnecessary. But I think you missed the point here, sorry

Ok you still aren't understanding.

I posted the tweets Dave made in response to everyone - instigators, and sincere questioners.
Whatever was said to him first doesn't matter *IN THIS CONTEXT* because all I'm doing is saying, "Dave responds immaturely and gets nasty with people in the face of conflict"

That is evidenced by all of the screen shots of his tweets.

The conversation I'm having is purely about Dave's way of responding to people. What people said is irrelevant *IN THIS CONTEXT* because I'm pointing out how he interacts with people, which is seen in his tweets.

If you want to start a DIFFERENT conversation and address what people are saying to instigate with Dave, that is a DIFFERENT conversation. And in that case, pulling up the other tweets would be relevant for THAT conversation.

I fully get your point, it's just not relevant to the conversation I was having.

Feel free to have the other conversation, of course, but it's unrelated to my point.

EthanEmerson wrote:

Ok you still aren't understanding.

I posted the tweets Dave made in response to everyone - instigators, and sincere questioners.
Whatever was said to him first doesn't matter *IN THIS CONTEXT* because all I'm doing is saying, "Dave responds immaturely and gets nasty with people in the face of conflict"

That is evidenced by all of the screen shots of his tweets.

The conversation I'm having is purely about Dave's way of responding to people. What people said is irrelevant *IN THIS CONTEXT* because I'm pointing out how he interacts with people, which is seen in his tweets.

If you want to start a DIFFERENT conversation and address what people are saying to instigate with Dave, that is a DIFFERENT conversation. And in that case, pulling up the other tweets would be relevant for THAT conversation.

It does, though

No.. not for the point I'm making. Which is why I say you aren't comprehending the point, and I'm out of ways to reword it.

I havent read the whole book. I also have it in audio. It is a good book. As far as Columbine, I have sort of layed off a bit and its not so interesting as it used to. Mainly because I feel like theres a problem with consuming crime as entertainment, IDK. I do occasionally like to read the Jeffco documents, though.