Reply to Bad Art Friend

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bad Art Friend"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Ok, so some key details from the court filings that provide a lot more context around why Dawn originally reached out to Sonya. The NYT article makes it sound like she literally emailed to ask why Sonya hadn't been liking her Facebook posts. Which I agree would be deranged. That's not what happened. Here it is:

- Dawn starts FB group, posts stuff there
- Dawn donates kidney
- Sonya and several other Grubstreet "friends" look at every post in the group (which Dawn can see she is doing as admin of the private group) but does not interact with them. But Dawn says nothing.
- Dawn attends a writing conference with Sonya and several other people from Grubstreet (Sonya was actually running the conference). Dawn has known these folks for years, and several of them are in that private FB group, and she knows they have been looking at the posts because she has seen it. Including Sonya, who has looked at all of them. Keep in mind, Dawn donated the kidney not that long before the conference (less than a year). But as Dawn interacts with people at the conference, no one says anything about the kidney donation even though she knows they've read her posts about it. She gets a weird vibe from this.
- A mutual friend posts on Facebook that Sonya read a short story at a reading that was about kidney donation and tags both Dawn and Sonya in it. Dawn is surprised.
- Dawn emails Sonya to follow up on seeing her at the Muse conference and includes one sentence where she says that she heard Sonya had written a story about kidney donation, thinks that's cool, and asks if she could read it. She says nothing about the FB group in this email.
- Sonya replies (lies) that the story isn't ready yet (the story has already been recorded for release on Audible at this point) and that it was merely inspired by Dawn's donation but not based on it (also a lie -- at this point the story includes Dawn's letter verbatim and Sonya has only recently changed the characters name from "Dawn" to "Rose)
- THEN Dawn replies with an email noting that she was surprised to hear about Sonya's story because she had noticed that Sonya had been reading but not interacting with Dawn's posts about her own kidney donation, and that Dawn had wondered if maybe Sonya didn't approve of the donation. At no point does Dawn say Sonya should have been liking or commenting on the posts -- she simply notes that since Sonya had not interacted with the posts, it was surprising to Dawn that Sonya was interested enough in the topic of organ donation to write a story about it.

Sorry for the detail but this is all right there in the court filing, including texts of these emails. When you read it, Dawn's actions come off as incredibly reasonable! She does not seem needy at all. If anything, it seems like she's just trying to figure out if she should remove Sonya from the private FB group (which is the opposite of needy -- she is trying to observe someone else's boundaries). She does seem a bit miffed that Sonya has not acknowledged her kidney donation in any way, but... this seems reasonable when you read Sonya's emails, which are very friendly and familiar.

The description of these events in the NYT is frankly bizarre, and fully buys into Sonya's (false) version of events that Dawn emailed her out of the blue to ask why she wasn't liking her kidney posts. But if you read the emails, this never happened. The fact that Kolker describes it that way in the article is just plain false.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics