Conquer Club

pimpdave wrote:Oh I'm not looking to get Woody removed from the site or anything, I just want him to knock it off with the constant reporting, the constant trying to get people banned, the constant slinging of insults then parading around claiming he was trolled.

You are a troll, pimpdave. That really isn't questioned by anyone paying attention.

And you clearly ARE trying to get me removed from the site, as evidenced by your recent trolling spree against me, trying to goad me into enough insults that you can make it happen. To pretend otherwise is just silly on your part.

pimpdave wrote:I mean, honestly, why is he reporting people constantly? And then bragging about it?

I've bragged about nothing. You made a claim about me regarding the idea that I am trying to get people removed all the time, to which I responded with the statement of fact that you are the only individual I am trying to get put back on a well-deserved 6-month ban. It certainly wasn't bragging, as I wish you wouldn't be such a troll.

pimpdave wrote:As far as the easily offended thing. That's the weirdest part. Because Woodruff is incredibly easily offended. All you have to do is disagree with him or him to take it as a personal affront, but then he comes back with these big huge expletive filled posts.

This isn't even remotely true. Which does make it typical of pimpdave's propoganda.

stahrgazer wrote:For whoever said Woodruff was a schoolteacher... wow, that is illuminating. It sheds light on what's wrong with our educational system. "It's okay because I'm not in class," is hardly an upstanding example. Unless your class is, "How to be vitriolic and abusive in public."

He could be an art teacher.

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I mean, honestly, why is he reporting people constantly? And then bragging about it?

I've bragged about nothing. You made a claim about me regarding the idea that I am trying to get people removed all the time, to which I responded with the statement of fact that you are the only individual I am trying to get put back on a well-deserved 6-month ban. It certainly wasn't bragging, as I wish you wouldn't be such a troll.

Right, so why do you expect anyone to ever be nice to you? And don't make me pull another The Daily Show on you and post a bunch of quotes where you've bragged about reporting people...

You never say nice things about me, you criticize me non-stop, you report me constantly, but somehow I'm the one trolling when I occasionally say that something you've done is garbage? That's my honest opinion. I don't think you did a good job in some instances.

I really think you might need a break from the forums. You're just mean, to a lot of people. And somehow you still think it's unjust that you might reap what you sow.


PS. I updated the OP to include your most recent incidence of name-calling. I'm not a troll. By your definition, you're a troll too. Please get a hold of yourself man. Stiff upper lip.

The really funny thing about this is that the ONLY reason I even came back to the fora was to brag a bit about a few of my cadets, and then leave again.

I was however quickly alerted to a response by pimpdave in that thread in which he couldn't help but attack my cadets. That brought me back into the fora, as I wanted to keep an eye on that thread so I figured I'd hang around for a while to do so. So essentially, pimpdave brought me back into the fora and has kept me here thanks to his own trolling. Rather ironic.

pimpdave wrote:You never say nice things about me, you criticize me non-stop, you report me constantly

All of this is certainly true. I have nothing good to say about your posts at all these days, pimpdave. You used to post meaningfully, but that ship has sailed long ago.

pimpdave wrote:but somehow I'm the one trolling to say that I don't like the fruits of your labor?

If that were all you said, that wouldn't be trolling. But that's not all you said, and you know it.

pimpdave wrote:PS. I updated the OP to include your most recent incidence of name-calling. I'm not a troll.

You are nothing BUT a troll.

Don't you have a class to teach? I think stahrgazer might have been on to something. Shouldn't your attention be on your students? Not that I'm judging....much.

Woodruff wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:For whoever said Woodruff was a schoolteacher... wow, that is illuminating. It sheds light on what's wrong with our educational system. "It's okay because I'm not in class," is hardly an upstanding example. Unless your class is, "How to be vitriolic and abusive in public."

Oh good Lord, give me a break. This is not my class and my students are not on this website. This gives absolutely no indication of my teaching styles, my teaching abilities or how I conduct my classroom.

Actually, it does.

MNDuke wrote:Don't you have a class to teach? I think stahrgazer might have been on to something. Shouldn't your attention be on your students? Not that I'm judging....much.

I don't post from school. The site is disallowed from the network as it is a gaming site.

stahrgazer wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:For whoever said Woodruff was a schoolteacher... wow, that is illuminating. It sheds light on what's wrong with our educational system. "It's okay because I'm not in class," is hardly an upstanding example. Unless your class is, "How to be vitriolic and abusive in public."

Oh good Lord, give me a break. This is not my class and my students are not on this website. This gives absolutely no indication of my teaching styles, my teaching abilities or how I conduct my classroom.

Actually, it does.

That is an outstanding explanation! And no, it does not. This site is my de-stressor from school. This is not school. That may be a difficult distinction for you to make, but it shouldn't be.

Heck, even my posting in this thread is a de-stressor for me.

Woodruff wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:For whoever said Woodruff was a schoolteacher... wow, that is illuminating. It sheds light on what's wrong with our educational system. "It's okay because I'm not in class," is hardly an upstanding example. Unless your class is, "How to be vitriolic and abusive in public."

Oh good Lord, give me a break. This is not my class and my students are not on this website. This gives absolutely no indication of my teaching styles, my teaching abilities or how I conduct my classroom.

Actually, it does.

That is an outstanding explanation! And no, it does not. This site is my de-stressor from school. This is not school. That may be a difficult distinction for you to make, but it shouldn't be.

Heck, even my posting in this thread is a de-stressor for me.

And all of you that are attacking him such as the post by stahrgazer, are doing the exact thing that he is being accused of, FLAMING!

Regardless of who said what, you guys really shouldn't be bringing Woodruff's real life into this, especially in a "srs bsns" forum like C&A.

murphy16 wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:For whoever said Woodruff was a schoolteacher... wow, that is illuminating. It sheds light on what's wrong with our educational system. "It's okay because I'm not in class," is hardly an upstanding example. Unless your class is, "How to be vitriolic and abusive in public."

And all of you that are attacking him such as the post by stahrgazer, are doing the exact thing that he is being accused of, FLAMING!

murphy. That is not FLAMING.

It is very mild BAITING at the most and only if you really reach.

The OP does have a valid complaint vs woodruff. I might even go find a couple f*ck you tirades that he has launched at me in the past.

Dibbun wrote:Regardless of who said what, you guys really shouldn't be bringing Woodruff's real life into this, especially in a "srs bsns" forum like C&A.

Whoever was the first to bring up Woodruff's real life job (was it Jackal?) is likely in trouble. I've seen someone banned before for saying "so and so is a cop".

Just sayin... if CC wants to claim consistency in their punishments.

just for the record.....as a future teacher and after discussing with my wife my comment (who is also a tenured teacher), I have to defend Woody here in the regard that his conduct here (at CC) is a form of destressing. There are teachers who drink at the bar, but dont drink in the classroom. I cannot speak for Woody's character in the class, but I really hope it represents the model character our students need from our teachers. What I have seen here is not representative of the leadership qualities students need today.

Woodruff, as much as you and I have butted heads here, I will support you in that you need a destressor. I dont think lashing out on other posters (regardless of how insanely stupid some are) is a good thing however.

Bones2484 wrote:

Dibbun wrote:Regardless of who said what, you guys really shouldn't be bringing Woodruff's real life into this, especially in a "srs bsns" forum like C&A.

Whoever was the first to bring up Woodruff's real life job (was it Jackal?) is likely in trouble. I've seen someone banned before for saying "so and so is a cop".

Just sayin... if CC wants to claim consistency in their punishments.

Its in his profile people!..Jeez!

Bones2484 wrote:

Dibbun wrote:Regardless of who said what, you guys really shouldn't be bringing Woodruff's real life into this, especially in a "srs bsns" forum like C&A.

Whoever was the first to bring up Woodruff's real life job (was it Jackal?) is likely in trouble. I've seen someone banned before for saying "so and so is a cop".
Just sayin... if CC wants to claim consistency in their punishments.

I understand what you're saying here, and I do appreciate it. I don't really mind people bringing up the fact that I AM a teacher. Hell, I haven't been shy about talking about it. I do however very much mind people insinuating that anything I do or say here in any way reflects on my abilities or attitudes as a teacher because that's just plain ludicrous.

Oh, and consistency? I will yet again be banned and pimpdave will continue on unabated, as he has previously. That's consistency for you. Of a sort, I suppose.

Bones2484 wrote:

Dibbun wrote:Regardless of who said what, you guys really shouldn't be bringing Woodruff's real life into this, especially in a "srs bsns" forum like C&A.

Whoever was the first to bring up Woodruff's real life job (was it Jackal?) is likely in trouble. I've seen someone banned before for saying "so and so is a cop".

Just sayin... if CC wants to claim consistency in their punishments.

It's

on

his

wall.

Occupation: Schoolteacher (Air Force Junior ROTC)

Just sayin...

jefjef wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

Dibbun wrote:Regardless of who said what, you guys really shouldn't be bringing Woodruff's real life into this, especially in a "srs bsns" forum like C&A.

Whoever was the first to bring up Woodruff's real life job (was it Jackal?) is likely in trouble. I've seen someone banned before for saying "so and so is a cop".

Just sayin... if CC wants to claim consistency in their punishments.

It's

on

his

wall.

Occupation: Schoolteacher (Air Force Junior ROTC)

Just sayin...

Agreed. Again though, that does not excuse the insinuations regarding my ability to do my job.

Are ad hominem arguments considered a valid defense on CC? If so, I think Woody will come out of this scot-free.

jefjef wrote:Just sayin...

Wow that's fantastic but once again jefjef gets the award for missing the point.

That hasn't stopped people from being punished for doing it in the past. I've seen people punished for using a RL name that a person has posted in their signature. I've seen an entire clan punished for using someone's avatar in a flash animation that happened to be someone's actual picture. I've seen someone banned for calling out someone's job when said person had been the one to originally post it.

If CC wants to be CONSISTENT, regardless of how fucking stupid the rules are, then there are easy decisions to be made here. CC has been very clear in the past that you can give information ABOUT YOURSELF, but no one else can say it or use it. Just as if Serbia can be banned for one use of "moron", Woodruff is in deep shit for everything he said that's called out in the OP.

You know, it's important to note, that most of us that have been banned for flaming claimed we were "trolled into it", but that wasn't a valid defense. And the mods and admins completely dismissed our appeals to either over turn our bans or deliver "justice" to the "trolls".

Why Woodruff thinks that gives him carte blanche to lose his mind every few days escapes me. If nothing else, maybe this thread will at least serve to make people aware of Woodruff's modus operandi, and will prepare them to not take it personally when he's having yet another meltdown.

LET IT BE KNOWN ARMY OF GOD AND I SUPPORT THIS ACCUSATION

I think a brief review of exactly who I have "gone off on" since I posted regarding my students on the 5th of May might prove enlightening, as well as showing the context of what I was responding to. I selected that point because prior to that, my last post was the 20th of April, as I had left the site. I think that anyone in this thread who is honestly interested in the truth and having justice truly be served should take the time to review the following information. The data sample since the 5th of may comes out to 13 pages (egad!), so that should be a reasonable data sample:

Here's the first one:
Oh, I go off, indeed. I go off on pimpdave (surprise!) following his attack against my students and myself:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144607&p=3155660#p3155660

Here's the next one:
Response to Night Strike making the apparently very surprising point that President Obama does things for political purposes. I responded to Night Strike's use of the word pathetic by stating that it was pathetic that he believed that this was a stunning revelation, knowing the whole time he didn't actually believe that but just wanted to try to score some political points. I don't really think this would be considered inflammatory under normal circumstances:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144353&p=3157294#p3157294

Another response to (gasp) pimpdave, who is attempting to spread lies about me:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144607&p=3157989#p3157989

Another response to pimpdave!
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144607&p=3159699#p3159699

Responding to pimpdave trolling again:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144927&p=3160353#p3160353

Hey, I found another one that isn't a response to the trolling pimpdave. It's a response to Phatscotty, asking why abusers of illegal drugs would have a desire to hide their addiction. I suggested he might be either trolling or stupid.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144779&p=3163706#p3163706

Another for the pimpdave troll:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144607&p=3166834#p3166834

Another for pimpdave's trolling:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144607&p=3168192#p3168192

Another for pimpdave's trolling:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144607&p=3168251#p3168251

That's all, folks...13 pages of posts. Obviously, I have been in a LOT of discussions since that thread was started, some of them fairly heated. But other than my responses to pimpdave's trolling...nothing particularly noteworthy. In fact, I have actually made fun of myself in those very same threads when other individuals have "gotten on me a bit". It is my position that pimpdave is trolling and being intentionally annoying in attacking and harassing me personally. That doesn't necessarily excuse my inflammatory outbursts, but let me ask you this...isn't the whole point of "baiting and trolling" and "being intentionally annoying" being punishable offenses to avoid the inflammatory responses that the baiter/trolling is trying to get out of the individual?

In addition, pimpdave claims I have routinely "gone off on him" when he was posting nothing offensive at all...perhaps he can provide some examples to back up that claim? I can, of course, provide some examples of his responding to completely non-offensive posts of mine with trolling and baiting.

Ok I skimmed through this thread, and I agree that sometimes woodruff can be a bit harsh at times, and is very opinionated

Whether or not he should be punished depends on what the mods think, especially if what he says about already being punished is true


On a side note, why doesn't woodruff know how to respond to more than one person in a single thread? I see this guy double triple quadruple post CONSTANTLY, his post count would be a third of what it is right now if he knew how to quote correctly in one post

Woodruff if you need to be taught how to do it, I can send you a PM.. And I am not being a sarcastic d*ck or anything since I just realized it could come off that way, I didn't know how to quote correctly for quite some time

iamkoolerthanu wrote:On a side note, why doesn't woodruff know how to respond to more than one person in a single thread? I see this guy double triple quadruple post CONSTANTLY, his post count would be a third of what it is right now if he knew how to quote correctly in one post

Woodruff if you need to be taught how to do it, I can send you a PM.. And I am not being a sarcastic d*ck or anything since I just realized it could come off that way, I didn't know how to quote correctly for quite some time

<laughing> Actually, I have been taken to task a number of times for doing exactly as you're suggesting here, regarding "putting it all into one post"...they claim it makes it too long to follow and they don't like the way the quotes are broken up in that way.