I Challenge Chuck Hardin AKA Cy Q Faunce

**sambosteve** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:24pm

Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz

A proper investigation thread started in MABS would have captured the SAME audience.

An investigation thread without the obvious personal attributes at the end of the first post would have created a much more credible platform on which to base the continued thread.

An investigation thread which contained links, direct quotes etc in a chronological order would have presented the information those concerned wished to aire, in a much more professional and less vindictive way.

See my point ?

No, and you know why I don't. But, I am not here to debate that with you. I just wanted to let people know that Matt does not deserve all the wrath (I don't think he deserves much at all).

**Rock Ape** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:26pm

Also..

ignoring the issues being discussed "in public" for a moment and let's look at the perspective of outsider's looking in.

Chuck has personally conducted close to 15 investigations and, his posible conduct aside, those investigations stand in public view as part of this site's content. What image do you think is currently being protrayed of this site's ability to not only conduct credible accurate investigations but, to deal with one of our supposed "own" when there's a problem?

The simple one word answer to this is "UNPROFESSIONALISM"

I understand why you feel there needed to be a public outing to this whole matter but, whilst some might suggest this will be good for the site, I personally don't.

Every one of the subjects Chuck investigated can now openly laugh his fucking socks off at us and, if they so desired claim a lack of credibility in their article. Indeed going one further, the whole wiki could now be subject to a much wider ridicule.

**Rock Ape** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:29pm

Originally Posted by sambosteve

No, and you know why I don't. But, I am not here to debate that with you. I just wanted to let people know that Matt does not deserve all the wrath (I don't think he deserves much at all).

Steve, I care less if you wish to debate the matter or not. You are entitled to your opinion as am I and every other poster on this site.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:37pm

Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz

Steve, I care less if you wish to debate the matter or not. You are entitled to your opinion as am I and every other poster on this site.

Dave you stupid blind ****. Go back to the first page of this thread and look at how chuck has changed his avatar, style and phrase.

@Hardin If I were you I would spend less time concocting revenge and more time worrying about the fact that clan Tripp regards you as public enemy #1. And that clan includes very serious people frpm military, LE and martial arts. Of course I expect that to play out in a completely legal manner, but dude, you should have thpught it through before you looked at Derek's dad's info, saw how it would hurt his family, AND SHOWED IT TO HIM ANYWAY. AND AFTER EVERYONE YOU ASKED TOLD YOU FLAT OUT TO LET IT ALONE.

Enjoy what's left of your game. The wheel of Karma is turning...

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:38pm

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

New thread started.

Cy Q Faunce threatening other members??? - No BS MMA and Martial Arts

how come I can't see this thread? is it in a provate area.

**sambosteve** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:38pm

Fixed:

Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz

Also..

ignoring the issues being discussed "in public" for a moment and let's look at the perspective of outsider's looking in.

Chuck has personally concluded close to 15 investigations and, his posible conduct aside, those investigations stand in public view as part of this site's content. What image do you think is currently being protrayed of this site's ability to not only conduct credible accurate investigations but, to deal with one of our supposed "own" when there's a problem?

The simple one word answer to this is "UNPROFESSIONALISM"

I understand why you feel there needed to be a public outing to this whole matter but, whilst some might suggest this will be good for the site, I personally don't.

Every one of the subjects Chuck investigated can now openly laugh his fucking socks off at us and, if they so desired claim a lack of credibility in their article. Indeed going one further, the whole wiki could now be subject to a much wider ridicule.

I likewise understand your points. I will simply say that I believe it can be good for people to see that we do look at our own if need be, no matter how embarassing it may be. So, In the long run, I believe it can give the site credibility and effect some change, even if it becomes problematic for some individual investigation articles.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:41pm

Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz

Chuck has personally conducted close to 15 investigations

So utterly disrespectful to the actual people who conducted most of those investigations. Stolen valor dude.

**sambosteve** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:41pm

Regarding Chuck, does anyone not find it disturbing that his style field now says: "finding you", that his avatar is Tigger pushing a detenator button, and his quote is "Fucking with your ****"? And that he still has supporting member status, still has his tags, and is not banned?

People have been banned for MUCH less than what he has done here on the site...

The message in his member bio is not comforting....

**TheRuss** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:49pm

I can't remember the last time I've seen a group people fight so vigorously and directly against their own best interests. It's like watching someone doing extreme body modifications, chopping off their own small joints, entirely of their own accord: equal parts disgusting and confounding.

**ciscodog** · Posted On: 6/23/2010 10:49pm

Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz

Also..

ignoring the issues being discussed "in public" for a moment and let's look at the perspective of outsider's looking in.

Chuck has personally conducted close to 15 investigations and, his posible conduct aside, those investigations stand in public view as part of this site's content. What image do you think is currently being protrayed of this site's ability to not only conduct credible accurate investigations but, to deal with one of our supposed "own" when there's a problem?

The simple one word answer to this is "UNPROFESSIONALISM"

I understand why you feel there needed to be a public outing to this whole matter but, whilst some might suggest this will be good for the site, I personally don't.

Every one of the subjects Chuck investigated can now openly laugh his fucking socks off at us and, if they so desired claim a lack of credibility in their article. Indeed going one further, the whole wiki could now be subject to a much wider ridicule.

Well they may or may not enjoy him being scrutinized, but i thought it had been established that others conducted most of the investigating and Cy wrote the articles.
Also Cy being looked at for perhaps some unethical behavior, doesnt change the findings of those that did the leg work or the facts discovered. Much like a D.A. that is caught being unethical, not every case he has prosecuted and won will be overturned or given a new trial.