Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else really depressed by this followup? I’m a reader and an artist and a DCUM-elite-liberal-arts-educated-person (lol) and even my most jaded, cynical, suspicious self is STILL just sad and let down by these mean grub street writers, by the nyt, by kolker, by his editors, all of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? The NYT is deleting comments unfavorable to Kolker and Larson?

The NYT approves any comments before they go live on the site, so they’re not deleting, just gatekeeping. And honestly at this point I believe random anonymous people’s claims in this thread that their critical comments aren’t going thru over believing the NYT is being fair.

Anonymous wrote:What? The NYT is deleting comments unfavorable to Kolker and Larson?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

I agree you should read more but I’ll explain it: no, she did not. After getting the cold shoulder from Larson at a writing conference AND hearing that Larson had written a short story about kidney donation, Dorland became suspicious that Larson was not a supportive friend and possible mining the private group for lolz and content. Both of which were true! Dorland did not demand likes, she politely asked if Larson would like to be removed from the private support group.

When you read the actual emails, what jumps out is how savvy Dorland is (she sniffs out what Larson is doing, even though Larson is lying and claiming that she cares about her friendship with Dorland) and also how restrained. She’s polite, gives Larson several outs, all while holding her boundary, which is that she doesn’t want people in her private support group who are not supportive.

She is not needy, awkward, intense, or unhinged. But Larson kind of is!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It wasn’t “why didn’t you like this?” It was “I noticed you aren’t engaging, would you like to be removed”

It was also part of a longer correspondence between the two where they were updating each other on their lives. It wasn't like she harangued Sonya out of the blue asking her why she didn't like her stuff. It wasn't like that at all.

Where are you getting all this extra information? Is this published anywhere?

Yes it's in the emails. And the conversation happened a year or so after she noticed this. Wasn't Larsen still contacting Dawn - she needed her fix of hatred.

To be more specific, it is in the emails and texts that were disclosed as part of discovery in the court case. Some good samaritans have done deep dives on the discovery documents (this is also how most people have been able to read Larson's short story) and provided screen grabs of most of these communications. The twitter handle @kidneygate is a good place to get these if you don't want to dive into the court documents. I think a lot of people on Reddit have done the legwork as well. But yes -- the people here commenting about what was said when have read the actual emails between Larson and Dorland, which tell a much different story from the NYT story to the degree that the NYT article feels like a fabrication to me. Either that, or Kolker is just bad a basic reading comprehension, which would be unfortunate since he's an investigative journalist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

I agree you should read more but I’ll explain it: no, she did not. After getting the cold shoulder from Larson at a writing conference AND hearing that Larson had written a short story about kidney donation, Dorland became suspicious that Larson was not a supportive friend and possible mining the private group for lolz and content. Both of which were true! Dorland did not demand likes, she politely asked if Larson would like to be removed from the private support group.

When you read the actual emails, what jumps out is how savvy Dorland is (she sniffs out what Larson is doing, even though Larson is lying and claiming that she cares about her friendship with Dorland) and also how restrained. She’s polite, gives Larson several outs, all while holding her boundary, which is that she doesn’t want people in her private support group who are not supportive.

She is not needy, awkward, intense, or unhinged. But Larson kind of is!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It wasn’t “why didn’t you like this?” It was “I noticed you aren’t engaging, would you like to be removed”

It was also part of a longer correspondence between the two where they were updating each other on their lives. It wasn't like she harangued Sonya out of the blue asking her why she didn't like her stuff. It wasn't like that at all.

Where are you getting all this extra information? Is this published anywhere?

Yes it's in the emails. And the conversation happened a year or so after she noticed this. Wasn't Larsen still contacting Dawn - she needed her fix of hatred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

Comments are open. I hope some of the posters here will critique Kolker's narrative stance.

They won't approve my comments which stated he did a poor job investigating and that he, in effect, joined in the piling on of Dawn. I also mentioned in replies to commenters who buy into Dawn being needy and chasing after this group that the narrative is inaccurate. They won't add any of my comments.

I'm going to cancel my subscription.

Yes, they won't approve any of my comments either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

Comments are open. I hope some of the posters here will critique Kolker's narrative stance.

They won't approve my comments which stated he did a poor job investigating and that he, in effect, joined in the piling on of Dawn. I also mentioned in replies to commenters who buy into Dawn being needy and chasing after this group that the narrative is inaccurate. They won't add any of my comments.

I'm going to cancel my subscription.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

I agree you should read more but I’ll explain it: no, she did not. After getting the cold shoulder from Larson at a writing conference AND hearing that Larson had written a short story about kidney donation, Dorland became suspicious that Larson was not a supportive friend and possible mining the private group for lolz and content. Both of which were true! Dorland did not demand likes, she politely asked if Larson would like to be removed from the private support group.

When you read the actual emails, what jumps out is how savvy Dorland is (she sniffs out what Larson is doing, even though Larson is lying and claiming that she cares about her friendship with Dorland) and also how restrained. She’s polite, gives Larson several outs, all while holding her boundary, which is that she doesn’t want people in her private support group who are not supportive.

She is not needy, awkward, intense, or unhinged. But Larson kind of is!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It wasn’t “why didn’t you like this?” It was “I noticed you aren’t engaging, would you like to be removed”

It was also part of a longer correspondence between the two where they were updating each other on their lives. It wasn't like she harangued Sonya out of the blue asking her why she didn't like her stuff. It wasn't like that at all.

Where are you getting all this extra information? Is this published anywhere?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

Comments are open. I hope some of the posters here will critique Kolker's narrative stance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

I agree you should read more but I’ll explain it: no, she did not. After getting the cold shoulder from Larson at a writing conference AND hearing that Larson had written a short story about kidney donation, Dorland became suspicious that Larson was not a supportive friend and possible mining the private group for lolz and content. Both of which were true! Dorland did not demand likes, she politely asked if Larson would like to be removed from the private support group.

When you read the actual emails, what jumps out is how savvy Dorland is (she sniffs out what Larson is doing, even though Larson is lying and claiming that she cares about her friendship with Dorland) and also how restrained. She’s polite, gives Larson several outs, all while holding her boundary, which is that she doesn’t want people in her private support group who are not supportive.

She is not needy, awkward, intense, or unhinged. But Larson kind of is!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It is true. Dorland explained that as admin, FB gave her engagement metrics and Larson alone was reading every post with no comments.

I’m tired of going over the facts and wish people would read the thread. I do prefer this slightly to the nastily written afactual legal takes from a real lawyer allergic to reading.