The Daily Fulton
May 8, 2022
“A Coward and a Dun Maylock? Really, Melandre? And get a spell-checker.”

From the archives. Contributor: Spence Hutchins, Curator of the Fulton Hills Historical Society. Republished with written permission from C.W.H.

By C.W.H.

Ah, Melandre Combs, the reigning queen of tabloid hysteria, strikes again. This time, she’s outdone herself, accusing me—yours truly—of being both a coward and a member of the Dun Maylock. I must admit, the sheer absurdity of her claims would be amusing if it weren’t so embarrassingly unoriginal.

Let’s dissect this nonsense, shall we? At least what we can decipher, as Melandre seems to hail from a time pre 17th century, when the spelling of words (and monikers) was dealer’s choice and laissez faire.

First, Melandre insists that my anonymity is evidence of cowardice. A fair point—if one were incapable of basic reasoning. My anonymity isn’t about fear, Melandre; it’s about focus. The work I do is about shedding light on truth, not turning the spotlight onto myself. Unlike you, who seemingly cannot write a sentence without inserting yourself into the narrative, I prefer my words to stand on their own merit.

Anonymity isn’t cowardice; it’s a shield. In a world where speaking inconvenient truths often comes with consequences, maintaining distance from the public eye allows me to dig deeper, say what others won’t, and push forward without interference. It’s a strategy, Melandre, not a confession.

Now, let’s address your real coup de grâce—your baseless insinuation that I, C.W.H., am somehow aligned with the Dun Maylock. Your “evidence”? That I know too much and write too passionately. Truly, a groundbreaking bit of detective work! If knowing too much about Fulton County’s most infamous group makes me guilty by association, then I shudder to think what that says about your so-called reporting on them.

You claim I romanticize the Dun Maylock? No, Melandre, I contextualize them. There’s a difference—a subtlety you’d appreciate if you ever attempted to engage with the material beyond headline fodder. My criticism of your laughable theories isn’t born of allegiance to the Dun Maylock, but rather an allegiance to intellectual integrity.

Let me ask you this: does a bird sing because it works for the trees? Does a fire burn because it is loyal to the wood? My examination of the Dun Maylock is a natural extension of my work as a seeker of truth. I do not admire them. I study them. Your inability to grasp that distinction only underscores how poorly suited you are for serious inquiry.

And let’s not ignore the irony of your accusations. A woman who trades in sensationalism and conjecture calling someone else a coward? Bold, Melandre, very bold. I may write anonymously, but at least I write with purpose. You, on the other hand, churn out clickbait and thrive on controversy, like a moth forever chasing the faintest flicker of relevance.

You want me to step out of the shadows, Melandre? Fine. I’ll consider it—when you produce a single, coherent argument worth engaging with. Until then, keep spinning your tales and pointing your fingers. I’ll remain exactly where I am: in the shadows, yes, but always watching. Always writing. Always seeking truth.

And here’s a little truth for you: the Dun Maylock need no defenders, no insiders, no cowards. They thrive in chaos, and you, Melandre, are their most willing accomplice.

Yours in clarity,
C.W.H.
Seeker of Truth, Bearer of Light

ARCHIVIST’S NOTE: Melandre Combs never responded nor retracted her statements.