"His schoolmates baited him for his race, his shyness, his nerdy interests, his awful, tenebrous poetry, and more or less everything that made him different from themselves. So they had it coming."

Stop right there, Michael. Did Ames write "they had it coming" - please, find the quote. What Ames provides is an explanation for the dozens of shootings that are so particular to America, not a justification. You appear incapable of noticing the difference. But then again, you're not interested in an explanation for school shootings, as you openly admit in the Comments section.

You go on:

"That Cho finally "snapped" (a quaint characterization of a very deliberate process) and demanded the lives of as many people in his immediate vicinity as possible—and that he tried to maximize that number by chaining the exits and studying his terrain to ensure the greatest carnage—should surprise you in only one respect: that it took him so long.

This is the view that has been taken up by Mark Ames, the editor of the eXile magazine and the author Going Postal.."

Is it? Ames hasn't even written anything about the Cho shooting, and yet you're already presuming to tell us what he thinks of it? Furthermore, if you had read the book you'd know that Ames rejects the all to convenient "people who just snap" line of thinking. So not only do you irresponsibly pass off your guess of his view as fact, but you mischaracterize the view while doing so. Good work.

Unfortunately, I have to get going. Play time is over for the nonce. But I intend to resume my letter tomorrow. Chew on this for now...

Mark G