Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 4

message: What exactly is the "hui" part in Cho Seung-hui? In the news reports, where they show the graphic play scripts, on the front is "Cho Seung" with no Hui. Can someone explain this to me? Wikipedian64 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hui 

message: I'm curious what permissions (if any) would be needed to include the various materials in the packet Cho sent to NBC before the final stage of his murder/suicide. Some might be suitable for inclusion on Wikisource or Commons, even if not here. They weren't works-for-hire (obviously), so it is unlikely that NBC itself owns the copyright. Since Cho made the videos/wrote the text/took the pictures himself, presumably he would be the copyright holder, but he's dead. Who owns the copyrights on the material now? His family? Or if he dies intestate, does it revert to the public domain?  00:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cho owns it. Well, owned it, given he's dead. His family owns the copyrights on them, in theory, assuming he has any family. If not, then whoever he willed it to owns it. And if not that... then I think it defaults to the public domain. All of this, of course, assumes he didn't release it to the public domain which he may well have. In any event, it seems that NBC feels free to air them, and they certainly -don't- own the copyrights on them, so I think it may have been public domain'd. Titanium Dragon 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading something about a written work becomes pubilc domain 50 years after the person is deceased and no one else (estate or otherwise) is claiming that right. Something along those lines. --Kvasir 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if no one claims the rights, it reverts to public domain 75 years (in the US) after the copyright creator dies. It is very stupid (I personally think it should be more like 5-10 years post death) but whatever. I have the feeling his family won't claim the rights to these videos though, but we don't know that yet. It is also possible he released them to the public domain. Titanium Dragon 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: {Crosspost). It's more like 75 years after the author's death; in the meantime, copyright goes to his estate, which would probably be his parents and/or sister. However, isolated quotes amounts to fair use.  I'm not sure if that's the case for publication of whole writings, such as the two plays that are out there on the net. That would seem to be copyright violation to me, but whether his family will go after violators or not is another question. --Yksin 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His parents and sister may claim the rights to prevent them from being published (or sell them if they happen to be really twisted). --Kvasir 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think they have to actively release the material into the public domain - i.e. the estate holding copyright is the default position. Natalie 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten to this part of law yet, but I also think when laws have been violated like this, Cho and his family lose their rights to copyrighted material (at least that material relevant to the crime committed).  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as this material was directly related to a criminal act, there's part of the "you-can't-profit-from-a-crime" precedent to be invoked here... 67.166.42.205 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression laws limiting people's ability to profit indirectly from a crime were virtually non existant in the US because they were usually rejected on freedom of speech grounds Nil Einne 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What actually often happens is that the crime victims or families sue and then gain that copyright (or any money from any endeavor related to the crime).  That could likely happen here.--Gloriamarie 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "you can't profit from your crime" laws don't cover copyright, since there's no inherent profit involved in owning copyright. Those are meant to keep a famous criminal from writing a book or selling their story to a filmmaker (ala Paul Bernadino and Kathleen Homolka) and actually making cash money from it. Copyright law involves many things other than financial profit or loss, so it isn't a part of those laws. Natalie 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This was discussed a few hours ago, but now it's gone. His estate (probably his parents) holds copyright. Natalie 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I don't understand a thing about copyright, but from what I thought I understood, no one would own the copyright because the stuff wasn't copyrighted! In order for the stuff to be under any protection under US law, doesn't it have to be registered with the copyright bureau or something? Thus, my reasoning would suggest that no one would own the copyright, and it's all free stuff. Could someone explain my incorrect logic?! └Jared┘┌talk┐  18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When someone creates a creative work (eg. artwork, suicide note) they don't need to register it to receive copyright. They automatically recieve copyright to the work when they create it.--Apartmento 04:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words, I could take a picture of a hippopotamus and, without doing anything else, that picture is protected under copyright law with me as the holder of that copyright? └Jared┘┌talk┐  11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that copyright applies here.  This was a manifesto clearly intended for public dissemination.  I would say that there was an implicit waiver of copyrights.  Bueller 007 17:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Jared you are correct -- copyright law protects your creative work the instant it is created.  Everything else is a process of building your legal defense of your rights.  Cho's estate owns the copyright to his creations, but because Cho's crimes caused his fame, fair use would probably make republication and dissemination of his work legal.  Under Son of Sam laws, the families of Cho's victims would be entitled to any profits that Cho's estate earned from commerce associated with the copyrights.  All this is important because eventually someone will seek to perform or film Cho's work for shock value, and the families will likely want to prevent that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.0.91 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who owns the copyright on the materials Cho sent to NBC? 

message: Shouldn't this be  (or is it )? Are we going for the actual Korean pronunciation or the American media pronunciation? cab 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IPA]] 

message: From the Quotes section: "railed against people of wealth, as well as Christianity and Hedonism"
This is uninformed/biased as far as the released text is concerned.
Citing the version of the text posted here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/?GT1=9246
Under the "A Killer Speaks" sidebar.
The part about "people of wealth" is correct.
However, the inclusion of rallying against Christianity and Hedonism is incorrect.
The only mentions of Christianity in the provided text are:
- "Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
- "Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement?"
Neither of these rally against Christianity. They are both using the figure of Jesus as an example of a martyr.
The only mention of Hedonism in the provided text is:
- "Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs."
- "Those" refers to "everything you wanted" and "your Mercedes, golden necklaces, trust fund, vodka, Cognac, and debaucheries" -- as listed in the containing paragraph.
- Assuming the "you" refers to "rich kids."
This statement does not appear to rally against Hedonism. It appears to merely use it as an adjective, and seems well placed. The text alludes to Hedonism, but is not against it, but against certain people Cho perceives as hedonistic.
Any change to this should also be reflected in other articles that have directly quoted this or the MSNBC anchor (name forgotten, video on MSNBC's website) who originally said the line.
Jokeyxero 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of Course Conservapedia cites his hatred of Christianity, and they don't even have the Jesus quote to back it up. Their reasoning: What else would an evil man rail against?70.21.231.66 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point being that we should be careful. The last thing we want to do is jump to wild conclusions and certain other wikis have done.—70.21.231.66 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well that was constructive. Jokeyxero 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm not going to quote him verbatim. But I think the reason there was this mention about him railing against Christianity was from him saying something along the lines of "Jesus induced cancer in my head" or something. Still yeah, I don't see it as something against Christianity. Secondgen 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have access to the NBC page material (my browser for some reason won't read it) but if the "88" reference from Cho is true, than it may be interesting to note that if we take the numerical equivalent of the letters used in "Ismail Ax" then we found 9 + 19 + 13 + 1 + 9 + 12 + 1 + 24 = 88.  Of course it is speculation. Xuxunette 11:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Quotes pertaining to Christianity and Hedonism 

message: NBA players are paid a heck of a lot of money. According to Cho's neighbor, Abdul Shash, Cho spent much of his time playing the game of basketball.  Since he spend so much time with the sport, he could have very well thought about those NBA players and gotten a jealous hatred over their high net worth.
:WP:NOR. hbdragon88 04:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt it. I don't think it occured to him at all - his jealousy was aimed at the middle class students at his university and extended from that, rich people just seems to be a term for anyone he didn't like. In any case this qould be speculative. --JamesTheNumberless 08:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His love for basketball linked to his hate for the Rich (Conspiracy  Theory) 

message: This section seems out of place in a biography. There has been no notable backlash against Koreans or  Asians. This section should be removed until it is a noteworthy component of his biography or the VT Massacre. —Ocatecir Talk 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section isn't about reaction against Koreans; it's about the public reaction to the subject of the article in his country of origin (hundreds of news stories), which seems relevant. cab 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Reaction 

message: For example, there was a lengthy & pertinent discussion on copyright in Cho's writings & the package he sent to NBC which is now missing (except in page history).  It's not in the 1 page of archives either.  Is there some reason someone deleted a big chunk of this talk page? --Yksin 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is now restored. For some reason it had gone lost when multiple users were editing simultaneously. I couldn't find out at which point between the 3 hours from its last edit to the first time someone notice the section had gone missing. Phewwww. --Kvasir 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Yksin 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good. I was wondering about that, too, but I couldn't figure out how it had disappeared. Natalie 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did some of this talk page go missing? 

message: I'm wondering if they caught him on Post Office security mailing the package...this could possibly show what state of mind he was in. Anyone heard anything about a video? 71.71.254.71 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Office Video? 

message: After reading Cho's play it is pretty clear that he is referencing Hamlet and the Gertrude/Claudius situation rather than Macbeth.--131.123.229.172 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the connections are "obvious" - I'm going to remove that qualification from the article. Would Richard be a reference to Richard III (play)? Is "McBeef" a reference to McDonald's? I agree with Etafly that this "McBeef" hardly suggests any literary references. --HappyCamper 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Richard" is probably more of a way for him to get away with calling him "Dick" through the entire play than a reference to Richard III (play). "McBeef" is probably more of a shot at McDonalds and another phallic reference. I'm not sure the plays have anything to do with this story. Though they are interesting to psychologists. Jokeyxero 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The connection with MacBeth is clear to me, but just speculation. MacBeth kills the King of Scotland to gain the throne; "McBeef" allegedly kills the child's father to get inside the mother's "pant".--Rypoll 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While you're correct, I think the parallel to be a coincidence. Due to the quality of the disclosed writings and video (and my limited layman psychoanalysis), I doubt he tried to parallel MacBeth, unless of course it was part of the assignment. But we're also running dangerously close to making a nonconstructive speculative thread. Jokeyxero 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no obvious connections to Hamlet or Macbeth, just coincidence and speculation.67.11.138.50 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McBeef/Macbeth 

message: People have repeatedly written "he was the evil perpetrator" or the "disturbed perpetrator".
These are points of view. Some people might think he's evil, other might think he was mentally insane, other might think he was on drugs totally unconscious of his actions, some might think he was possessed. 
POV have no room here and if anyone wants to comment on his mental state, they should do it in the appropriate section.
Moreover, if you see other Wikipedia pages on murderers (eg. Columbiane)etc. you'll see that no adjective is written next to perpetrators. Adrux 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: calling Cho 'disturbed' is not POV.  It is an objective truth, and self admitted. Marteau
Evil is arbitrary. http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html Upon reading this, all is clear.
Validation of the use of the word "Disturbed" or "Mentally Questionable" performed by WIKICHECK. April 19 2007 18:39pm. WikiCheck 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What the hell does that even mean? Natalie 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Disturbed', I think would be allowable; from his 'manifesto' it's clear he wasn't really sane at the time. HalfShadow 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjetives "evil" or "disturbed"  in the intro. 

message: So he mentions Karr and Lafave in his manifesto.  
I believe he has a comma splice -- as he means to write:
"You wanna rape us, John Mark Karrs?  You wanna rape us, Debra Lafaves?"
This is evidenced by his "Fuck you" immediately following.  
Cho was also obsessed with abusive teachers in his play "Mr. Brownstone."
I put the "fuck you" in to make sure that people understood Cho was not identifiying with Kerr and Lafave (which was unclear in the article because it comes after the Kliebold section).  If there's a better way to make that connection, I'd be glad to entertain it.
I'm certainly interested in seeing what comes out/if something comes out of why he seems to think teachers = rapists.  
Ninodeluz 15:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Speculation] I think people may be putting too much emphasis on the plays. Remember they were released by a classmate and were class assignments, they were not part of the documents he wanted made public. In Mr. Brownstone, I'm not sure he means physical rape. I thought of it more as a metaphor, as in, "We got raped in baseball last night." Keep in mind he seems to have had the mentality of a teenager (closer to 17 than 23) and he was possibly active in online gaming, combining those two to produce a grammar for him would leave me to believe he meant rape/sodomy as literally as most people in this demographic mean gay/ghey/gei/fag to actually mean homosexual, i.e., not at all, more of an obscenity expressing disgust with something. And it's usage and meaning definitely not heavily considered. Jokeyxero 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teachers & Rape 

message: Cho shows several signs of being a christian and comparing himself to Jesus. I've heard NBC and ABC both claim that he's "railing against Christianity" and this is a load of bullshit. I saw a category of media misinformation yesterday, but the discussion seems to be missing on it. If the media misinformation is gone I vote that we put it back up and include this religious propaganda made intentionally by NBC and ABC. -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to have another source saying that it would be misinformation.  Otherwise, it's original research.  Some may look at it and say that he was against Christianity and some may say that means he's a Christian-- what the media reports is what Wikipedia has to go by.--Gloriamarie 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone could use the videos themselves that are posted on NBCnews.com and quote him from it. You do use evidence like that for what you might call valid "orgional research" right? It isn't really necessary for it to be written in print by another source for it to go on wikipedia right? -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't rule out the "railing against Christianity". We haven't seen it, but then NBC hasn't released the full tape. And a rant agains Christianity is probably just the type of thing they'd cut out. It would be seriously inflammatory at such a sensitive time. I think the railing against Christianity should be reincluded, but with the disclaimer that this is a claim by NBC, and that they have not released the supporting video clip.--58.104.66.1 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would refuse to release the video, but they would speak on it? That still sounds like they are twisting the information. If Cho was ranting against christianity in another video, then either he's contradicting himself or he's ranting against most Christians in that typical christian tone of accusing the "others" of not being "true" christians. Plus, look at the markings of pedophillia in his writtings... I bet he's Catholic :O -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  While I am the one who started the discussion about the "rallying against Christianity (and Hedonism)" statement being false, I would like to point that Cho can very well make arguments against Christianity (though no evidence supports this yet) and still liken himself to Jesus. Much like Martin Luther and John Calvin protested the church but were still a part of it. Given the apparent state of Cho's mental state he could very well make many contradictory statements in his package. And I believe Bertrand Russell set the stage for allowing individuals the right of changing stances over time due to gained knowledge without being labeled a hypocrite. So I'd suggest not jumping down that road when the topic comes up (as it surely will). Jokeyxero 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, my bad I guess, I could have sworn both times that they said 'Railing' and just took it as media aesthetics. I fixed the category here, and now realise that I'm posting the discussion on the Cho page rather than the massacre page. It's still relevant here but I'll go there to continue with my opinon. Though,  I'm not sure which road you are implying. I really am sick of the media twisting things at their leisure and ignoring that people need and deserve the complete truth. I think that every one of the wikipedia pages on current events need to blacklist the bastard media sources that intentionally twist things for their own propaganda and ratings. But that's just me. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all of the media is covering things up or spinning information. There is a mad dash to be the first to report on a topic so a lot of source skimming and quick writing occurs. The facts get spun and misinterpreted on accident generally. Though that's not to say that bad intentions don't exist. There's also a lot of decision making and research that goes into things that could cause a panic, which accounts for some of the slow reporting on obvious conclusions. Jokeyxero 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  You were right, it is "railing", see my first quote on the subject above, I quoted via copy and paste but apparently didn't pay attention and kept typing "rally". Luckily "rally against" and "rail against" are basically the same when talking about one person. We should probably fix this. Also look up the original source again to verify. Jokeyxero 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go figure, these idiots would forget about grammar completely in all that quick writting panic and such, wouldn't they? The fact that the person who is speaking these things to the public doesn't know any better only pisses me off more. I think today i would respect a reporter and source that would stop reading the que cards and say, "wait, that's not correct" and explain it to the audience and then manage to keep his or her job just fine for it. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to me it would be incorrect to assume a coherent argument, political or moral, in his ravings.  They are, in essence, a series of non-sequiturs rather than an attempt at any coherent statement, pro- or anti- anything. pookster11 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree with pookster11, let the professionals with access to the tapes sort it out.  Quote psychological professionals, not NBC's white washing or fear mongering (or whatever it is).  JeffBurdges 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railing Against Christianity? 

message: "Violent writings was the most typical attribute of school shooters. According to the US Secret Service, "The largest group of [school shooters] exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent), compared to only 12 percent who showed an interest in violent video games."
Can someone please make this first sentence gramatically correct? "Violent writings are the most typical attribute of school shooters." (And is there a better term than "school shooters?"--- It actually is grammatically correct. "Violent writings" is actually singular- a single attribute. If you wanted to reword it- "Violent writings were most typically attributed to school shooters."  
66.6.71.222 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an FYI: the proper spelling is "grammatic" not "gramatic." And within the phrase, "grammatical errors" not "gramatic errors." --Yksin 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the heads up. There's no telling how bad that would have looked if a spelling nazi had seen it first. It'd be a another catastropphy all together. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatic Errors 

message: Our section on Cho over at Virginia Tech massacre is getting excessivly long, so I'm going to be integrating some of the information here. Hopefully it will not be too difficult. Natalie 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  integrating stuff from main article 

message: Cho has on several occasions shown a deep hatred for the "rich kids". I'm just wondering if he grew up in poverty as a child? The article briefly said that Cho's family "lived a poor life" before coming to America, but it also said Centreville is largely affluent. So did he actually grow up poor, middle class, or relatively well-off? 198.103.221.51 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The townhouse he grew up in was purchased new in 1997 for $145,000 and according to public record it is now assessed at $416,100.  141.156.166.127 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The place Cho lived in South Korea, Dobong district has, or used to have a slum. So his youth definitely wasn't as rich, if not in poverty. Also, Koreans in general try to buy the best house they could even if that means they had to forgo other luxuries. Living in the house of his own is an aspiring goal for them, so it's bit deceptive to judge from house alone. --Revth 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rich kids 

message: I am not hearing or reading anything about his parents' reaction to the matter. Please keep on the lookout for that.66.76.60.154 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The family has since released a statement through Cho's sister. This can be read here: CNN Article Adam 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho's parents' reaction? 

message: It is now being reported that Cho was teased in HS, possibly because of the way he spoke English. Students said "Go back to China" when he read a passage in English class. More information here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_284;_ylt=Al4VIYR6FutuUxUSZruEF39H2ocA
75.89.75.106 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unknown if those statements made are actually true. It's just the media getting a quote from an unverifiable person. We shouldn't add speculation to the article until the facts are concrete. 64.236.245.243 14:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just came here to post that. Here's a bit longer article, including a quote from the postal worker: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/virginiatechshooting/main2703671.shtml Dirtysocks 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teasing in HS 

message: I'm trying to merge from Virginia Tech massacre, yet they keep getting removed. Some of it might need cleaning up, but it certainly expands on what's currently available. Why is it being removed? -Halo 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you try to remove some of the stuff about Cho in the massacre article? His section is far too long, while the victims only get a sentence (in addition to the timeline above). --GunnarRene 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done by User:Natalie earlier, and I've put it back as that ver. See User:Halo/Virginia Tech Perpetrator for the old version available suitable for anyone interested in merging. -Halo 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff I added that was removed 

message: Cho did not "supposedly" kill the two in WAJ, he did kill them.
Also, he did not commit suicide "as police closed in on him". According to his own video and writings, he planned on killing himself initially. According to NBC nightly news (April 18, 2007) one victim who was shot three times but survived heard the gunshots that ended Cho's life and this was before Police entered the room.
69.252.188.137 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter that the suicide was planned.  He committed suicide when he knew the police were going to get him and his rampage was over. "as police closed in on him" is a perfectly accurate phrase. Bueller 007 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs editing 

message: I'm kind of uncomfortable with this section. We don't include reactions from any other groups. Why is the South Korean reaction pertinent? --Elliskev 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If anywhere, it belongs in the article about the incident itself. Bueller 007 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korean reaction section 

message: I can't edit, 'cos this article's locked. There's a sentence which reads "Professor Nikki Giovanni, who taught Cho in a poetry class and had him removed from her class because his behavior was so menacing." Please could someone correct the grammar so that it reads properly. Thanks! 86.152.203.212 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sense sentence 

message: I've thrown up the quotefarm tag.  The "Media package sent to NBC" contains far too many quotes for Wikipedia.  I understand they are important because they came from the actual perpetrator, but we just can't have 4 block quotes in that section.  Can we convert to prose? Chupper 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are too many. I'd rather see them off to Wikiquote, but I know that I won't get support for that. --Elliskev 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Convert to prose. Bueller 007 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we supposed to limit this to qualify for fair use anyway? Not violating copyright law is a pretty good reason to trim a quotation. Natalie 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a manifesto clearly intended for public dissemination.  There's no copyright here. Bueller 007 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: That he graduated from Westfield High School is mentioned three, count 'em three, times in one paragraph. I'd try and fix but I can't get my head around the jumble that paragraph has become. Moncrief 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westfield High, Westfield High, Westfield High 

message: there is a wikipedia for him so there should be a link to him also.
 
:Would you mind linking his Wiki article? All I can find is a disambiguation page. autocratique ✩ 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no article on Ryan C. Clark - it was merged into the main massacre article or possibly the victims article. This is also the likely outcome of the article about Emily Hilscher. The only victims that are possibly notable enough for separate articles are some of the faculty, because they were quite prominent in their fields. Natalie 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to ryan stack clark 

message: (incorrect title! I ment: Spree killer chapter)
I certainly think we need a small chapter about the fact, that Cho Seung-hui was a spree killer per definition (this is not original research as someone has stated in the version-history). It is, for sure, no knew fact, but needs to be lined out for people who don't know about the fact that there ARE differences between serial killers, spree killers and mass murders. It is simply no original research since it is just a summarizing of facts and the fact that he was a spree killer is ALSO mentioned all over the place in both articles (that one about him and that about the shooting). I realy think it is just a good idea to outline to all normal readers, who simply are not aware of this differences, that Cho Seung-hui was IN FACT a spree killer per definition and it is certainly a good idea to just quick and simply mention what that means. So, if you have problems with that section, please discuss it here and don't simply delete the whole section. thx. ColdCase 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, anyone who wants to know what a spree killer is can click on the spree killer link... -Halo 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there's no indication that he went back "to reload", you're repeating information in that paragraph and you're comparing to another killer (which is totally inappropriate). -Halo 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spree killer capture 

message: Personally I don't have any involvement with this article but I will mention that the search warrant lists the contents of his dorm room . This may be useful in the article.. in the link it is used to disprove that he plays videogames. Chopper Dave 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents of his room 

message: Just curious. How long is this article going to stay semiprotected? It's been so for a while now. --Elliskev 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: Since it has now been confirmed that the 2 plays were in fact written by him (see "Reactions to writings" section) is it still appropriate to use the sub-heading "Attributed Writings"? W.C. 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest? By the way, I reverted your edit to that section - the one adding the fake ID language.  I think stating that the three kids are 17 is enough. --Elliskev 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Attributed" does not necessarily mean "people say that this person was responsible but it hasn't been confirmed". Bueller 007 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributed writings? 

message: Here is what I find strange about the manifesto.  People assume that he planned these killings well in advance, but I have doubts about this.  If he went to West AJ hall with the intention of killing (as the fact that he took a gun indicates),  why would he not have sent out his manifesto first?  Surely he didn’t expect that he could shoot some people and then come back to his dorm, get his manifesto, and take it to the post office.  It seems that it was an afterthought. When he had come back from shooting 2 people at the neighboring dorm, he realized it was all over, and before committing suicide, he was going to go out in a blaze.  He downloaded his ‘manifesto’ and perhaps some videos he had previously made, then quickly headed out to get away from the scene of the crime.  It seems that some of the videos he made that morning, as he mentions ‘today’ in them, so I assume that he made these in the interim after leaving his dorm, then burned a DVD somewhere, bought chains(?), then went to post office (did it open at 9 am?  Was he waiting for it to open before going on his killing spree?).  It is likely that he had written his manifesto previously.  But the videos mostly show him wearing the same garb he wore that day, and he mentions “today I die”.  But then I don’t understand why he took a gun with him to AJ Hall if he had no intentions of shooting anyone.  Did he always carry it around with him?  Any comments?
Ellett62 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not engage in original research. I don't see the need for speculation, given it isn't a testable hypothesis; we should simply wait and see if it is revealed in all his junk. Titanium Dragon 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory:  Initial shootings were NOT pre-planned 

message: This guy was a serial killer and should be noted as such.  Just as the wiki pages of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jon Wayne Gacy identify them as serial killers, Cho's page should do the same. He killed just as many as any of those guys, after all Stanley011 04:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you two fail to consider is that the American Heritage Dictionary offers the following as one of the definitions of a serial killer: "someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval." . The sexual motivatoins, concealing of crimes, identifying certain characteristics of victims (which Cho DID to, by the way), etc. are all characteristics of serial killers, but that does not mean that ALL serial killers have those characteristics. Stanley011 04:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cho of course did kill his victims one at a time, there were more than three (there were 32 to be exact), and it was a relatively short interval (3-4 hours). Therefore, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, Cho is a serial killer. Please discuss. Stanley011 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it matter, when everyone can agree on "mass murderer" yet not all can a agree on "serial killer" when you're arguing they mean the same thing? Is it worth the semantic effort required? -Halo 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  American Heritage says no such thing.  Stop making crap up.  Their definition of serial killer is "A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents." Bueller 007 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source stating what Stanley011 is asserting is "WordNet" . The definition that project gives, especially considering the three or more in a short time requirement, sounds very odd to me. I've been trying to look up information on WordNet, and as far as I can tell it's an algorithm-driven system more concerned with providing general or best-effort definitions for groupings of words based on the meanings of the member words -- WordNet#Limitations doesn't help my faith in this definition either. -- 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Encyclopaedic articles shouldn't be here to pioneer the use of modern terminology, like the appalling phrase "spree killer". Let's just leave it as "mass murderer". LeBofSportif 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He was NOT a spree killer.  A spree killer is an indiscriminate serial killer who kills his victims  in a quick succession of individual events.  The characters from "Natural Born Killers" are "spree killers".  Cho was a "mass murderer". Bueller 007 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial killer 

message: The following sentence is very misleading, because there are no "federal prescription databases," because of HIPAA medical privacy laws. A(s far as I can tell, the only news agency to claim that he wasn't on medication for depression was ABC, without attribution.) 
";Some reports state that Cho is believed to have been taking psychiatric medications for depression,[55] but there is no record of this in federal prescription databases.[56]"
Here's a discussion of the medication issue: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4210_what_was_cho_se.html
REQUEST FOR EDIT:  I noticed that this quote still exists in the article and the original poster is correct --- there are no "Federal Prescription Databases" per se ... the closest one can get is a few select states (such as Texas) which have implemented a STATE Prescription Monitoring System/Database.  Last I heard/knew, VIRGINIA was NOT one of them.  Cho could have obtained a Rx from any Doctor, legally, and filled it at a NON-Chain Pharmacy and it would be nearly impossible to find/track, unless every single pharmacy - independent and non-linked chains (such as grocery stores) - searched their individual computer systems for his name/combination of possible names.  Additionally, with the advent of online pharmacies as well as online prescription services, Cho could have obtained his meds either from a doctor (legally) and then sent it to be filled at an online pharmacy, OR he could have used an Online Physician Service (which would then send him the meds after issuing a legal Rx) ... and if you want to go "gray market", Cho could have obtained them from Canada, Mexico, or even overseas.  It depends on how he viewed his meds, his need for them, any stigma he may or may not have attached to them, etc.  The only other issue relative to this is the very, very unlikely possibility that Legal Aliens with Residency Cards must register any Prescriptions/Ongoing Medical Treatments with the Federal Gov't.  That - I doubt very much ... but it is within the realm of possibility.  Notwithstanding --- this issue needs to be VETTED and then EDITED appropriately --- and in all likelihood it needs to be either notated with a sentence that says "erroneously reported as having Federal Rx Databases" ... or something similar -- OR Removed altogether.  I do not have edit capabilities so I need someone else to do this.  Seeing it here grates on my nerves as it serves to be a piece of FALSE information contained in a Reference Source.  Thanx   172.144.14.200 02:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho's Medication: There are no "federal prescription databases" 

message: "You wanna rape us John Mark Karrs? You wanna rape us Debra Lafaves? Fuck you."  The source cited has the entire word before "you" blotted out.  Is there an uncensored source, or are we just assuming it is "fuck"?  Although it would make the most sense from context, to be sure, we cannot make such an assumption in an encyclopedia.  Either the word should be blotted out or a reliable, first-hand, uncensored source must be added.
:That's a good point, and I made the change to read "[Redacted]".  Hopefully, someone will find an unexpurgated source. Raggaga 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Mark Karr quote 

message: I can't edit, 'cos this article's locked. Please could someone correct "NBCs decision" to "NBC's decision"? Thanks! 86.152.203.212 08:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBCs to NBC's 

message: * http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266860,00.html
Is this worth mentioning in the article?  
Amanojyaku 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly not true, so no. Bueller 007 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you trying to add something about Cho, or something about Fox News? By the way, if you read the article you'd know that the article doesn't blame the devil. It's an article written by Fox's religion correspondent looking at the story from a religious good/evil angle.  --Elliskev 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News Blames the Devil! 

message: Shouldn't his name be Seung-hui cho? His family gave his name like that in their written statement and now much of the media are referring him to as such. many Asian-Americans (or Asians living in America) have their names written in the American style.
:His name is in Korean so it would make more sense if the last name is first, before the (Korean) first name. Amos Han Talk 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The family's statement calls him Seung-Hui Cho.  While I agreed with the Korean naming convention in the absence of other evidence, they appear to have Americanized his name.  We generally make article names of biographies the name by which the subject is known--Anna Nicole Smith isn't under Vickie Marshall, for example, even though the latter is "correct." THF 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was raised in America, and known by his classmates and everyone else as Seung-Hui Cho.  Just going by his initial immigrant documentation is foolish and incompetent.  His surname WAS Cho, and hi used it as his last name, as do virtually ALL korean americans/korean immigrants. Fermat1999 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been reading the papers today - have they switched the name order? We need to use whatever name the person is most commonly known as, which isn't necessarily their legal name (see Prince (musician)). Natalie 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it already is - check this MSNBC article for instance, the article refers to him as Seung-Hui Cho and states "The gunman’s name was given as Cho Seung-Hui by police earlier this week, with the surname first, as is common among many Korean families, but the Cho family statement rendered his name as Seung-Hui Cho, with the surname last in the American fashion. NBC News and MSNBC.com are adopting that rendering."  It is quite apparent that he was known by that name - and even the media now agrees.  I suggest we move this article to Seung-Hui Cho or Seung-hui Cho - as that seems to be the consensus now.  --Ali 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a new topic/poll to the bottom of the page.  I'm new to these talk page polls so I don't know if majority generally rules or what.  Anyhow, vote away.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His family has the americanized name 

message: Some schmuck finds it important to change "great-aunt" to the unnatural "grand aunt."
http://www.jdlasica.com/family/relationshipchart.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/great-aunt
http://www.reference.com/search?q=grand%20aunt&r=d&db=web
http://www.reference.com/search?q=great-aunt&db=web
That is officially the worst study break I have ever taken. Jimshlif 22:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your resort to personal attacks reveals the bankrupcy of your thinking, and your argument. Please see cousin for an explanation as to why you are wrong. Stanley011 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if math isn't your thing, which I suspect it isn't, please see  for a friendlier explanation that even you can understand. Stanley011 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Astonishing the things people get excited about.  You're wrong -- together your websites offer a single source that prefers "grandaunt" over the semantically equivalent term "great-aunt", whereas I've offered three sources that prefer "great-aunt" -- but I'm not going to waste time reverting this. 75.3.91.25 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stanley011, please do 'not change it again. Even the sourced reference link page has "great aunt." It is to be great-aunt or great aunt as that is what's reported, referenced and the consenses says. No "grandaunt" as it is your POV and the wikilink you use to argue in defence of your POV is irrelevant to this article. Also, ironically you are personally attacking someone for a personal attack? One that is less of an "attack" as you're doing here. Please stop. Jeeny 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources demonstrate that grandaunt is accurate while great-aunt it not.  We at wikipedia strive to be accurate, not inaccurate. Stanley011 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The sources do not demonstrate your POV. It has been shown to you. See the ref link beside that sentence. You ignore the disscussions, and continue to change it. Please stop! Jeeny 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WTM, no it's not. I understand it looks that way. Please see the sources. This is not a biology or math class. The sources all say "great aunt". This is accurate. Anyway, the American dictionary say both are correct, insofar as grammar is concerned. This issue, relating to the article should match the sources. As, it is, with "great aunt" it is accurate per sources and correct grammar. This is a POV, not a he says she says. <sarcasm> How about adding that image tree to the relative section, that should clear it up for the readers, right? Oh, and add a wiki link to cousin that should help too.<sarcasm off> Seriously, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a biology/geneology lesson. The grammar is correct. Cheers. Jeeny 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sheesh, I just looked at the tree image. It even furthers the argument. LOL. Great aunt, is correct in geneology, at least according to that image. More importantly to all the references in the article and it matches the American Heritage Dictionary too. Now, is that enough to leave "great aunt" in the article? :) Thanks WTM. Jeeny 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No because mother's aunt is more precise. Stanley011 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great-Aunt vs. Grand Aunt 

message: Wouldn't it be more correct to say Murder-suicide instead of just suicide--71.123.191.125 00:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confused. Murder-suicide is an act. Suicide is how he lost his life.--Svetovid 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder-suicide? 

message: Why is it now allowed to mention the profession of the parents? Isn't that a fairly standard biography item? Certainly a biography of Ted Kennedy or GW Bush would include what their parents did. It is also well-documented ethnic niche for Korean Americans (and yes, the term as used by most Asian and Korean Americans who, afterall, coined the term, does not exclude non-citizens as much as many editors here would like to eliminate that usage). Cho's background is remarkably typical for a korean youth, 1.5 generation, parents work in or own a dry cleaners, both children go to 4 year university, live in predominantly white suburb, friends of family remark kids study a lot. Seems people are being overly sensitive to facts that would be quite routinely mentioned in any Asian American history course, but being dismissed here as prejudically stereotyped?? --Bachcell 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry Cleaners 

message: While I am in complete support of this article being semi-protected for the time being, must we have that hideous tag at the top of the page? Shouldn't the lock on the upper right corner be sufficient? That is, {sprotected2}. My apologies if this has already been raised. -Etafly 01:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that its better to have a tag up there to inform anons and new users that the page is protected. Most anons and new users don't know that it is protected because the lock icon is way too subtle to be noticed. -- Hdt83  Chat 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection tag 

message: Can we please get rid of this section? There are no citations from any legitimate news services. (No, prisonplanet.com is not real journalism.) No one really believes it. The linked picture is of some random Asian guy in military garb. The section hardly deserves a place. I'll delete it soon after some people weigh in here. ~ Rollo44 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that Alex Jones is given enough awareness in the public mind, evidenced by the fact that a Wikipedia article has been devoted to him for some time, that his theories are relevant enough to warrant the inclusion of an objective account of the existence of his information. Surely many readers will find this information relevant to their inquiry, regardless of the conclusions each person may or may not draw from it. - equiprimordial
I, for one, am offended by the inclusion of the Conspiracy Theory. It's as if someone thinks it's politically correct that we must include a "counter" argument which flies in the face of all truth and rationality. With 11 sections and one on the conspiracy, the Wikipedia article is now 1/11 about a laughable conspiracy theory that couldn't garner support from .00001% of the population. Let's call it what it is: Complete garbage that somebody dredged out of the sewer of the internet and posted here in order to be "counter" and cause a reaction. The so-called "author" of the theory is already mentioning the Wikipedia article on his website because all he hopes to do is to use this tragedy in order to draw attention to himself, and Wikipedia is a convenient lever. It's an affront to every affected family and an embarrassment to the Wikipedia article. 71.121.135.67 11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the conspiracy theory has no place here. It might warrant inclusion on Alex Jones (radio), but not here. And really, it says much more about Alex Jones than it does about Seung-hui Cho. autocratique ✩ 11:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Autocratique, I agree with you 100% it should be on the Alex Jones page and not here. (For instance, and this is not a perfect example, but Louis Farrakhan's personal theory that, during Hurricane Katrina, the failure of the levee was "a deliberate attempt to wipe out the population of largely black sections within the city" is not detailed on the Hurricane Katrina page, but is instead outlined on the Louis Farrakhan page where it belongs.) The Alex Jones theory is all about the self-promoter Alex Jones, has no support in the media, and doesn't belong on the Cho page. If it were a more widespread topic, that would be one thing, but it's just AJ at this point. 71.121.135.67 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Conspiracy Theories section for the time being, both for the sake of consistency and because I don't really see the relevance in including this material in more than one article. Jones's theories are already described on Alex Jones (radio) and his theories pertaining to other topics are not included on these other topics' individual articles. autocratique ✩ 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good man. 71.121.135.67 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. It's not that I have anything against Alex Jones, but it would be ridiculous to include his theories in this article. I'm sure there are even wilder theories out there, but that doesn't mean they deserve inclusion in this encyclopedia article. ~ Rollo44 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove conspiracy theory section 

message: What was the exact content of the package? It should be added in the 'Media Package' 'Content' subsection. As far as I can find it contained: 23 short video and a 1,800-word manuscript accompanied by 80 photos.
It is important to add this information because as it is indicated further down the article NBC has not released the totality of the package.Xuxunette 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact Content of the Package 

message: http://www.finnchan.fi/b/files/1176999718/1_lul.jpg --88.193.241.224 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to consider.  Revealed as a phony long ago on the talk page here and elsewhere. Bueller 007 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here for the archived discussion on the talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider this 

message: - Based upon how these categories are defined, you cannot allege that Cho is a murderer without alleging he was a criminal. Also, unless you live in la-la land (no offense intended), it is indisputable that Cho is both a murderer and a criminal. If someone alleges one, but not the other, I will place a contradiction tag at the top of this article. It is reasonable, though I would disagree with it, to remove all tags relating to criminality if you doubt his guilt. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "allegedly" from the paragraph about the first two victims. I'm not sure if this clears things up for you. This happens when a story is first breaking and people rush to post things and no one thinks to ammend those items properly later on once crimes have been confirmed to have been committed by a specific individual. Similarly, some wikipedians showed some hesitation at removing "attributed" from "attributed writings" once authorship of the plays had been established with certainty. W.C. 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:American criminals and South Korean murderers 

message: Now you've shortened it to 20 hours? I realize this is a hot topic but you shouldn't be so worried about getting lost in over 100 sections here. Some people are even bumping their crap to the top. We should find an order of importance and gerality if you want it organized, but 20 hours is just crap to not get people's important points noticed. The whole page will under go complete metamorphasis in a day at that rate. -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the page is 245K ... that's long enough to make it painful for people on dialup/slow computers. --BigDT (416) 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Does something else need to be done to get the bot to look at this page?  I archived some threads manually and I'm going to do another group of them.  There are some 2-day old threads that haven't been edited in 2 days that have not been archived. --BigDT (416) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure, but I think the period of time was changed in the last day. That is, I think yesterday the bot was set to archive anything that hadn't been edited in 2 days, and today it's 20 hours. I don't know when that change was made, but it might be affecting what's being archived when. Natalie 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mizabot: Archiving 

message: purchased 2 clips on ebay
used email Blazers5505@hotmail.com
sold and bought books on half.com
http://www.yahoo.com/s/135782/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
:The Fox article says: This guy wanted to leave a trail. He wasn't trying to conceal what he did," Rasch said. Isn't that first part is a bit of an exageration? If one has already decided in ending the killings with suicide what is the purpose of concealing things? And if this refers to the "trail" before Cho actually put his plans into action, isn't that "trail" rather meaningless--in the sense that you can't lock someone away just for selling books about horror or buying amunition over the internet?
:The following comments about the article are regarding this part of the article, "Books by those three authors were taught in his Contemporary Horror class, meaning he could have been merely selling the used books at the end of the semester." With the hourly news spot on the radio it was mentioned that the books were for "a horror scriptwriting class" offered by the university. One begins wondering whether the faculty (teachers who decry the horror of his writings) and university (who only describe his "writing" classes in very generic terms, never giving, for example, course titles) have been up to now reluctant to divulge certain details under the pretenese of not wanting to violate Cho's privacy rights that might show the English program and the content of their courses in an potentially unfavorable light. Isn't it one thing for the wikipedia article simply to quote people saying his plays were "morbid" and "like something out of a nightmare" with no context or only an impartial context (an assumption that these were assignments for some generic or typical "writing" class) and quite antoher thing to relate those comments in the context of an academic program that offers specific courses such as horror writing? Doesn't the former show in a somewhat POV light how abberant the subject matter of the plays are but the latter, for all their idiocyncrasies and indeed peculiarities, show in a less POV manner how the fact that the plays were horrorific was in some sense a requirement of the assignments or influenced by what the university was offering?
:Wouldn't the latter come to something like his professor meaning "I'm appalled about how horrific the plays were[--but incidentally I just happen to be an expert at writing horrific things, this course is all about writing horrific things and the the market place pays big money to the likes of Stephen King (who seems now in the wikipedia article to be anxious to disassociate himself from the kind of horror writing Cho does--since it lacks "story") for being horrific, so naturally the university would have a course in horror writing] and those writings were done in this context"?
:Until more details are disclosed, we shall have to accept what seems to be the wikipedia article's incomplete account of horrific writing done where horror it appears was not the expectation, rather than horrorific writing done for or in proximity of classes bearing course titles similar to "Horror screenplay writing"
:I've now gone back and looked at the course descriptions for the courses offered at Virginai Tech. It appears that the story on the radio might have been confusing a course description mentioning horror films to watched and and where students would write journals as being one explicitly about the writing of horror film scripts. Elsewhere in the other semesters there might be such a scriptwriting class as I have not checked them all yet. Only Fall 2007, and Fall 2006 where I found this description.
:Media accounts have quick to characterize the chainsaw that appears in "Richard McBeef" as strange. But the course description for the class reads: "...we’ll watch films such as Saw and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" And says they will read "Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover".
:Professor Stevens ends the course description with this: WARNING: Not for the faint of heart.
:Some might find some of the violent events depicted in Cho's writings as absolutely bizzare. However, had they read the likes of Clive Barker and others covered in this course wouldn't they later have found what happens in Cho's work a lot less horrific and even mudane?
:Just in the event the discriptioin becomes unavailable to us in the future, I've copied the full text of it below for those interested:
:Fall 2006 
:UNDERGRADUATE COURSE DESCRIPTIONS 
:ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 
:English 3984: Special Studies: Contemporary Horror 
 
:Stevens 
:English 3984: Special Studies: Contemporary Horror  Stevens  It used to be that horror films came out at a prescribed time: October.  But now it seems as if every week a new film invades the multiplex.  We are consuming horror on an unprecedented scale.  But the rules have changed.  Until recent years, lead characters could be counted on to survive the invasion of zombies/ homicidal maniacs/ vampires.   But this margin of safety no longer exists; horror has become a masochistic pleasure.  How do these texts construct us as spectators?  How does identity affect our readings of  these works?  What do they say about our current societal fears?  In order to answer these questions, we’ll watch films such as Saw and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and we'll read The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole, considered the first gothic horror novel; William Beckford’s Vathel, a forgotten gem that tells the Faustian myth from an Eastern perspective; some tales by Poe, Lovecraft, King, Ramsey Campbell, Clive Barker, Joyce Carol Oates, and Dean Koontz.  We will also read Patricia Cornwell’s semi-nonfiction book on Jack the Ripper, Case Closed, and one book of criticism: Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover.  And finally, we will read one graphic novel, From Hell by Alan Moore, one of the most popular and accomplished writers in the medium.  There will be two papers, a midterm and a final as well as a fear journal in which students will write narratives about their personal fears and catalogue their interactions with the texts we encounter.  WARNING: Not for the faint of heart.  
:http://www.english.vt.edu/ug/Fall%202006.pd W.C. 12:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info - Ebay Purchases - Computer Activity 

message: His parents operated a used book store in Korea.  here
:Interesting fact. If true, then his family was really poor. South Korea's used book market is very small and many stores barely make the end meet by selling things like vegetables. --Revth 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents' Profession in Korea 

message: As taken from an article written by the folks over at CNN. I quote:
Cho's name was given as "Cho Seung-Hui" by police earlier this week. But the Cho family statement rendered his name as "Seung-Hui Cho." Source: 
It's too early to say for definite what his real name is, but let's please keep an eye on this. Perhaps the initial name is incorrect. However, it may simply be a case of the family referring to him as:
Seung-Hui, Cho
And therefore perhaps the CNN article failed to recognise the comma. I am not sure, but it was worth mentioning. Adam 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho Seung-Hui or Seung-Hui Cho 

message: It's just come out that Cho bought some of the bullets on ebay, using the handle "blazers5505"
Story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267682,00.html
It's interesting to note some of his other purchases and sales; the book "Hell House" for one. 132.170.54.248 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you might be familiar with "Hell House" and Barker, but apparently many wikipedians here as well as media pundits are not or they would find Cho's writings to be rather tame or mundane. Other authors and titles mentioned in the artilce match the course description I have included below so it is interesting that while the university may not be at liberty to disclose what courses Cho took, that investigators having his computer and the online records such as eBay can in some sense circumvent the schools non-disclosure. Ever newer versions of this eBay story keep evolving with more and more detail added so we many have a clear picture over time on this.It is probably only a matter of time before journalists begin assessing what is known with the course descriptions at the English department at the school. W.C. 12:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ebay transactions 

message: warranted by achievements.Proudlyhumble07 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to Category:American mass murders