If I understand your question, my answer here is that I'm not making a point, merely analyzing the issue Gleason raised. Or if I'm making a point it's a very minor one -- a response to a quibble which erects a simplistic strawman. No, I say, A did not cause B, but A was used by B as the trigger for C. It is interesting to discuss whether C would have occurred without A. Maybe it would have and maybe it wouldn't. Perhaps we can never know. But perhaps you are asking if I want to draw some conclusions about what ought to be done in the future. Other than the comments I made about disagreeing with the philosophy that results in preferring "relevant" literature over literature with more merit, I don't think anything can be done. We value our liberty in the U.S. and Cho, if Stevens' class provided him a necessary trigger, is part of the breakage we accept for our freedom. Lawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, Apr-24-2007 11:01 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: {Disarmed} Making of a mass murderer in EnglishClass LH: >>How many does it take? Most of us could probably watch the Texas Chain Saw >>Massacre without harm, but we are seeing evidence that Cho was powerfully >>affected by the materials he encountered in this class. There may have been >>a connection between the class materials and Cho's subsequent actions. We >>know he wasn't normal and in this class he was confronted by the depiction, >>even the glorification to use one of Obama's expression, of aberrant >>behavior. He may have been encouraged by it. Either he was encouraged by it >>or it is a coincidence that he just happened to be studying this material >>when he decided for utterly unrelated reasons to engage in similar actions.<< So what's your point? Mike Geary