Who originally thought about bombing and shooting up Columbine, Eric or Dylan?
We don’t really know. We don’t know how that conversation first began or who initiated the idea. However, we can guess.
In November 1997, Dylan writes “[redacted] will get me a gun, I’ll go on my killing spree against anyone I want”. It’s the first mention we have of murder (and, more importantly, of a killing spree) after he already mentioned suicide more than once in the previous entries. One of those suicide-entries also has him reflecting on [redacted] getting him a gun so Dylan can use that gun on himself. What’s interesting is that this gun provider was not Eric, as Eric’s name remains unredacted throughout the evidence.
Dylan’s first reference to NBK happens in February 1998, but the person he names as wanting to do that with is also redacted.
Eric didn’t start his journal until April 1998. In its third entry (still within that same month), he writes “
when I go NBK”. The choice of words here – when instead of if – shows that the idea had already taken shape prior to the entry and that Eric was already treating it as something definite. There is more murder-related stuff on his website, though no direct references to NBK the way he mentions it in his journal, but none of those entries were dated (though they’re likely to be from the 1997-1998 era).
Note that both of these entries are still individualistic: they talk about a killing spree/NBK as something they’re going to do alone. Dylan first writes of going NBK with Eric in January 1999. He didn’t sound too happy about it and many have speculated that this wasn’t his first choice. Eric, on his part, writes “when we go NBK” in October 1998 and mentions Dylan later on in that same entry in connection with these plans.
Logically speaking, we could say the following:
The idea of a killing spree was born a little before Dylan’s earliest mention of it in November 1997. I’d tentatively put mid-1997 as the initial birth of the idea.
By February 1998, Dylan mentions going NBK with someone else. He’s already moved forward into not wanting to do this alone.
Eric first mentions going NBK as a solitary idea in April 1998 – something for him to do alone.
What’s interesting here is that they both use the same terminology for the idea: both use the codename NBK for this. That would suggest that they spoke about the notion with each other, probably in conjunction with the movie they both liked, some time in early 1998.
By October 1998, Eric is already convinced that he’s going to do this together with Dylan.
November 1998 sees them acquiring the guns.
By January 1999 Dylan acknowledges the plan and says “maybe going “NBK” (gawd) with Eric is the way to break free”. Dylan is still treating it as an option instead of as a definite at this point.
Who originally thought about it? The evidence suggests that it was Dylan who first came up with the idea of going on a killing spree, but we don’t have any dated writing by Eric from that time. That makes it hard to know what was going on in the latter’s head at the time Dylan first wrote about the killing spree. However, it’s very clear that the two really came together on the idea between April and October 1998, though Dylan already knew he wasn’t going to go through with it alone as early as February 1998. I have no doubt that mid-1998 saw the actual birth of NBK as we now know it: Dylan’s notion of a killing spree with guns combined with Eric’s love of explosives in those months and that’s when the idea of bombing the school and shooting the survivors/first responders came into being as a definite sort of plan. It’s likely that they spoke of the idea among themselves earlier on than that, too, but I personally think that it didn’t really come into definite being prior to those months because Eric still mentions lone-wolfing the whole thing as late as April 1998.
Lilly Pulitzer is preppy. It is part of a preppy uniform that announces itself from fifty paces. It is not so much a declaration of wealth as it is a perceived statement about class, lineage and attitude… Lilly Pulitzer suggests an advantage of birth. The clothes stir up scrapbook notions of ancient family trees, summer compounds, boarding school uniforms and large, granite buildings inscribed with great-great-grandfather’s name.
The clothes are, upon close inspection, not so terribly attractive. Actually, they are rather unattractive. And that is part of their charm. They are not meant to be stylish — that’s so nouveau. The clothes are clubby. Country clubby. One-percent-ish.
#332. I do not appreciate it when people tell me I should look past the fact that my beginnings were how they were. It’s easy for them to say the obvious, “It is what it is”, “You can’t change the past”, “You shouldn’t let it hold you back”…Those not adopted will never know what it’s like to be told as a young child you were abandoned at birth, with no clues. And then you’re given the reality of infant abandonment and coercion in your birth country. Try coping with that notion throughout your life, it can be challenging sometimes. I know it’s all relative, but you’d be grieving and mourning in different ways for this indescribable loss too, I think. Everyone’s at a different point in their journey and no two journeys are alike. People need to realize that sometimes.
Many outlanders, even that of Dunmeri birth, seem to not understand our notion of the after life. We do not go to Aetherius like the Divine worshipers, we do not become one with the earth like our Bosmeri-cousins, we do not join with the Hist like the scale-backs of the southern swamps, we do not go to the sugar-palaces of Secunda like the Khajiit, we do not go to a mead palace like Sovngarde or the Far Shores of the Yokudans. Even our way to our resting place is different from the other races, our way to Heaven is guided by Saint Veloth for it is only fitting that the race that descends from pilgrims commit one last pilgrimage to our final rest.
One common misconception is that Necrom, or the City of the Dead, that exists under the City of Above is our heaven, is it not. Think of it like a trade ship from Port Telvannis to Tears, we leave Port Telvannis but we are not obligated to stay in Tears. Saint Veloth is our ship-master to Necrom but from Necrom our spirits can go anywhere and always return. Necrom is the port that connects to multiple destinations, some may be to our ancestral tombs, our descendants or gateways to the realms of our gods, the reclamationists Azura, Boethiah and Mephala.
Why would we return to Tamriel? The ignorant outlander asks and our answer is always simple, family. Family for us is the most important thing, even in death our clan-bounds are strong and even in death we must protect our family from those who try to harm them. Our ancestors are our guides in life and in death, they travel to aid us, they travel to save us, they travel to protect us. The Clan-bound Pilgrims is the best description of our dead for all Dunmer spirits are pilgrims.
How are the Dunmer spirits able to go to the Daedric realms? The outlanders ask, it’s quite simple. Necrom was originally Saint Nerevar’s tomb, his last destination if you will. On that holy site we built our resting places, our eternal homes and our gods, glorious as they are, granted us the ultimate gift. The gift of entrance to move throughout their realms and back home whenever we please. Though the way is blocked for mortals our spirits can see and pass through the gates of Moonshadow, Snake Mount and the webspinner’s numerous realms that rest on her webs.
No matter what death befalls our kin may they always know that the halls and streets of Necrom will always open their doors for them.
Hail the Reclamationists, the Saints that guide us and our honored ancestors.
A Dunmer’s View on Death A understanding of the next life By Curate Sedris Arendu of the Necrom shrine of Saint Veloth Permission given by the council of Indoril and the Patriarchs of the Temple
(Written by our writer Cider over on Dark Creations)
If you know how to look, how to touch deeply, you will become birthless and deathless, because the nature of everything that is, is without birth and without death. You are in everything else, everything else is in you. Birth and death are just notions that scare us, and if you are able to remove the notions, you get the gift of non-fear, and only with non-fear can true happiness be possible.
Did you not read the whole gif set with John Stewart?
Did you not read my whole post? What kind of condescending question is this. Yes of course I saw the entire gifset I don’t know how many times I have to explain this. I get his message! Everybody gets his message! Women, especially celebrity women, are subject to intense scrutiny based on their appearance that men don’t encounter, societally permitted by patriarchal and enforced through misogyny! Jon Stewart doesn’t hide his political messages in layers of sardonic irony that the uneducated or the reactionary don’t “get” like all the liberals who idolize him think he does! He makes surface level run-of-the-mill lowest-common-denominator clickbait slogans that make middle class white libs feel glibly superior and then come out of the woodwork defending him whenever anybody points out that he has no qualms throwing people under the bus if it’s not relevant or profitable to his image to address their issues. Here’s an incomplete list of times he’s openly mocked trans women on his show, and now it’s a hot topic for liberals to prove their open-mindedness he jumps right on the bandwagon.
In this case, Jon Stewart’s attempt to talk about the Caitlyn Jenner media fiasco is deeply misguided and inherently transmisogynistic. He trivializes her transition by essentially suggesting why would you ever want to be a woman? he frames it a warning against womanhood and then says “Welcome to being a woman in America” as if a trans woman wouldn’t have the critical capacity to assess how misogyny would impact her, like she didn’t read the fine print or something. He uses phrases like “when you were a man/now that you’re a woman” to create this identity dichotomy within Jenner’s life, non-consensually gendering her past and suggesting an essentialist notion of gender at birth. How does he know that Jenner was ever a man? How does he know that she hasn’t always been Caitlyn Jenner, and it’s taken her decades to come out publically? He doesn’t - he makes the assumption that Jenner used to be a man and has now made the decision to become a woman, he’s suggesting that trans women are born men and that, by extension, there is always a fundamental component of their socialization and internal subjectivity that never stops being associated with “maleness”.
Tumblr user tsunderrorist also pointed out last night that
“while what jon has said is technically correct in that it highlights the differences in how the media treats men and women, i think that discussion is absolutely for another time. what should be discussed wrt the media’s handling of this photoshoot and ‘call me caitlyn’ thing is the objectification of her as a TRANS woman. discussions of her surgeries in a gross way, contemplating how much of her is “real” now, really clinicalising her and turning her into this object to be speculated about on a level that never happens to cis women … as if the biggest problems she will now encounter will be cis woman problems and not primarily ones deeply rooted in transmisogyny?”
Honestly if your response to “Jon Stewart is being patronizing as hell and his analysis is transphobic in and of itself” is “yeah but he says stuff about misogyny” then I mean… it’s pretty clear which issues you are willing to prioritize and which injustices you’re willing to excuse in the name of the “greater good”.
Weddings are a disguise for the bindings of togetherness .. they that wish to be bound, bind well before - or after in some cases - and are compelled to declare their status at all intervals of life .. but what they declare does often go unchallenged .. the word of the married is sufficient to declare that they are indeed together for life ..
Married couples inform in social mediums, social gatherings and among genera,l that the person that accompanies them is their, or his wife .. no one questions the authenticity of the statement .. no one asks for a certificate of marriage to be produced .. the word of mouth is enough .. belief is permanent .. it guides one to the other in leaps or in bounds .. but guides all the same ..
And so wedding ceremonies that dress up for the occasion, indulge in building for his daughter the very best and the most expensive .. it is a moment of deep pathos seen when that moment arrives .. to the time when all has settled .. if it settles down .. ??
And we return from one the most opulent dressings of marriage from the friend that rules the country almost .. kismet ..
Kismet queries for the son, to let him, let him know the death sequels and closer liaison, the final outputs that is needed .. closer
The art is such that, on birth the ask for these evenings is misled close pre assumes, the notion that I was eagerly awaiting and still waiting by the right doors .. and I felt that these elders will go away, into oblivion, very needless ; still remains ..
More shall follow by the morrow tomorrow .. for I do injustice to the words that come flowing out in the fresh figure of speech ..
It [happiness] does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.
Here we see a prominent founding father rejecting the notion that accidents of birth (some people being born to families that are more well off than others) in any way makes a free market society oppressive or unjust. Equality of opportunity did not have to do with where mean started out.