Horrorcow Tommy Tooter / Thomas Wasserberg - Dog-Abusing, Trash-Eating Pedo, Neo-Nazi, Fake Tranny, "1st-Wave Incel", Hounded YouTuber to Suicide

yawning sneasel said:
Here is tom banging on a metal drum. Compelling shit.


Ever wonder why its only you who has problems like this? Most people don't have to deal with the local police filing petitions on their mental health. You're lying about them being "falsified", btw, the cops are officials filing official documents, regardless of if a doctor signs off or not.


lmao. Jen isn't afraid of you


Something tells me she doesn't know that you molested a 15 year old, that you molested a dog, that you abused dogs, etc. if anything, you have probably said "IGNORE ALL GOOGLE SEARCHES" and she doesn't give a shit enough about you to do due diligence.


Don't care, fat fuck.


No, you aren't, fat fuck.


No, you don't, fat fuck.
Click to expand...
Careful, Sneas, he'll post more memes!

hood LOLCOW said:
he's not wrong

I mean, KF is international too
Click to expand...
hood, he said friends. Though I guess we're the closest people he has to friends.
 
Thomas Jay Wasserberg said:
t would be in your best interests to just stop talking about me if that's the case. they could shut down all your internet use if i pitch a bitch.
Click to expand...
Tom, Tom, Tom... you're not going to do anything. You keep reeeeeeeeing empty threats and you never make good on them because you know damn well how empty they are. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things Miss Jen doesn't give a shit about your chimpy little threats and neither do the rest of us.
yawning sneasel said:
Ever wonder why its only you who has problems like this? Most people don't have to deal with the local police filing petitions on their mental health. You're lying about them being "falsified", btw, the cops are officials filing official documents, regardless of if a doctor signs off or not.
Click to expand...
Does he still have a tard wrangler? I thought Officer Jason (don't remember the last name) gave up on him. Those guys don't get paid enough to deal with his shit anyway.
 
you're simply delusional, sonny. your image of me and my social life is so far from reality it's pitiful.

https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/25/cb/6b/25cb6bfdd085861c5bb88bf20591b025.jpg
let's address this, shall we, since you still haven't shown any validation for using autogynephilia as a diagnosis of transgender women?

The Case Against Autogynephilia
Julia M. Serano
Pages 176-187 | Published online: 09 Oct 2010

ABSTRACT
Autogynephilia is a paraphilic model that states that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals who are not exclusively attracted toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as a woman. The assertion that transsexual women are sexually motivated in their transitions challenges the standard model of transsexualism—that is, that transsexuals have a gender identity that is distinct from their sexual orientation and incongruent with their physical sex. This article provides a review of the evidence against autogynephilia and makes the case that the taxonomy and terminology associated with this theory are both misleading and unnecessarily stigmatizing.









The four factors of fair use
In the United States, fair use is determined by a judge, who analyzes how each of the four factors of fair use applies to a specific case.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still take advantage of the fair use defense.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work
Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
copying the whole fucking video and putting captions in it is way out of bounds, children.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.
you are attempting to incite violence against me and sully my good name. that's not going to be fair use.

We received the attached counter notification in response to a complaint you filed with us.

We're providing you with the counter notification and await evidence (in not more than 10 business days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order against the counter notifier to restrain the allegedly infringing activity. In most cases, such evidence would include a lawsuit against the uploader who filed the counter notification, which names the specific YouTube URL(s) at issue.

If we don't receive notice from you, we may reinstate the material to YouTube.

If you have any questions, please contact copyright@youtube.com.





Counter-Notification as follows:

Videos included in counter-notification:

Display name of uploader: Go Wake Your Mother Up, Don't Bother Me

Andrew Stephen Silverstein
baconstreet@yandex.com
Buiten Wieringerstraat 3
Amsterdam, 1013 GH
Netherlands
206-415-1189

LERNIN 2 INTERNET! Episode 1: Tom

The material in this fan video is protected by U.S. fair use for use in the instances of parody and critique.

"I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant."
"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

Andrew Stephen Silverstein
Click to expand...

guess i need to go actually file something. anybody want to match this person to a user name or perhaps andrew himself is a mensch and will reveal himself?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Every Crook and Nanny, Dynamite Ninja, Chongo and 5 others
Thomas Jay Wasserberg said:
The four factors of fair use
In the United States, fair use is determined by a judge, who analyzes how each of the four factors of fair use applies to a specific case.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still take advantage of the fair use defense.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work
Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
copying the whole fucking video and putting captions in it is way out of bounds, children.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.
you are attempting to incite violence against me and sully my good name. that's not going to be fair use.
Click to expand...
A) That's not a violation of constitutional rights, that would fall under copyright law, and B) That's not discrimination.

Show us where we've discriminated against you. Come on, I dare you.

Oh, and the "paper" you put up that "debunks" autogynephilia is on a site where anyone is allowed to submit and it hasn't been peer reviewed. Just because the author is a doctor (of cell biology, I might add) doesn't lend credence to it unless it's been peer reviewed.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Chongo and Scribbler
AnOminous said:
Even as dumpster divers go, Tom is a moron. Ground beef is about the worst shit you could get from a dumpster. It's far more likely to have been contaminated and, outside at Arizona temperatures, shit like E. coli can double in population every 20 MINUTES. Never mind even nastier stuff where, even if you kill it off by cooking it, still leaves toxins in the food.

Only with a person as vile as Tom would eating shit like this be maybe the fifth or sixth most disgusting thing about him.
Click to expand...
what...you are eating meat that been out in sun for long time uncooked where you live....in a dumpster too
i dont do that are you try to kill your self with hot bad food that is a big no no in my dumpster divers book of rules

Curt Sibling said:
I have to say Jenffer is a saint compared to Tommy Tootles.
Click to expand...
thanks you and is why eveyone here like me
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, Scribbler, Hanamura and 2 others
Thomas Jay Wasserberg said:
guess i need to go actually file something. anybody want to match this person to a user name or perhaps andrew himself is a mensch and will reveal himself?
Click to expand...
That's not how the game is played, faggot. You know this. Nobody will help you, you don't have the cash to pursue action, and we're under no obligation to assist you with anything.
Have fun!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, José Mourinho and (deleted member)
Thomas Jay Wasserberg said:
you're simply delusional, sonny. your image of me and my social life is so far from reality it's pitiful.

https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/25/cb/6b/25cb6bfdd085861c5bb88bf20591b025.jpg
let's address this, shall we, since you still haven't shown any validation for using autogynephilia as a diagnosis of transgender women?

The Case Against Autogynephilia
Julia M. Serano
Pages 176-187 | Published online: 09 Oct 2010

ABSTRACT
Autogynephilia is a paraphilic model that states that all male-to-female (MtF) transsexuals who are not exclusively attracted toward men are instead sexually oriented toward the thought or image of themselves as a woman. The assertion that transsexual women are sexually motivated in their transitions challenges the standard model of transsexualism—that is, that transsexuals have a gender identity that is distinct from their sexual orientation and incongruent with their physical sex. This article provides a review of the evidence against autogynephilia and makes the case that the taxonomy and terminology associated with this theory are both misleading and unnecessarily stigmatizing.









The four factors of fair use
In the United States, fair use is determined by a judge, who analyzes how each of the four factors of fair use applies to a specific case.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still take advantage of the fair use defense.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work
Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
copying the whole fucking video and putting captions in it is way out of bounds, children.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.
you are attempting to incite violence against me and sully my good name. that's not going to be fair use.



guess i need to go actually file something. anybody want to match this person to a user name or perhaps andrew himself is a mensch and will reveal himself?
Click to expand...
I don't read copypastes of things found elsewhere. its a waste of my time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja and The Kebab and Calculator
Thomas Jay Wasserberg said:
guess i need to go actually file something. anybody want to match this person to a user name or perhaps andrew himself is a mensch and will reveal himself?
Click to expand...

This pleases me greatly. Tom is really going to rage out when he gets a fat dose of reality. Andrew is a saint for being the first person to counterclaim one of Tom's bullshit takedowns.

Tom, I'll spell it out for you so that you can prepare yourself for what is to come.

1. You won't file a lawsuit in 10 days.
2. Youtube will restore the video you requested to be taken down.
3. You'll have no recourse and will cry about how your rights have been violated in 1983 or some other bullshit.
4. You'll be laughed at mercilessly for being a feckless cuck.
5. You'll try to find a lawyer to take it pro-bono, and you'll fail.

Now, I'll explain why this is going to happen. You probably won't read it because you're mentally ill and reality threatens the constructs your mind puts in place for coping with your illness, but I'll try anyway. I'm not giving legal advice, though my avatar is a supreme court jurist.
1. You're poor & can't afford a lawyer.
2. The DMCA is a framework that protects hosts and service providers by giving them safe harbor for following simple rules.
2a. Someone makes a copyright claim.
2b. The provider takes down the content, assuming the claim is properly formatted.
2c. The provider sends a notice to the person who uploaded the allegedly infringing content.
2d. The uploader has the opportunity to counterclaim
2e. Upon counterclaim, the provider notifies the complainant and the complainant has 10 days to initiate legal action
2f. If the complainant provides proof of this action in the time allotted, the provider leaves the takedown in place, otherwise the takedown is lifted
2g. The provider has followed the law and has safe harbor from any secondary liability for the alleged infringement. The alleged infringer may have liability, and the complainant could have liability if the claim isn't valid.
2h. I know you like to seek validation in successful takedown notices, but in reality, the provider doesn't evaluate your claim for validity, they just follow the rules and verify that you structure the claim properly.
3. The DMCA framework seemed easy for you in the past because nobody bothered to counterclaim and provide you with their contact info (2e above). In reality, your legal burden is far too high for you personally to achieve. In either case, your only option is to bring a lawsuit against Andrew in federal court within 10 days.
4. For the reasons above, you're a laughing stock
5. No lawyer will take it because literally everything except exact duplication of your videos constitutes fair use. Libel & defamation may apply, but not under the DMCA framework. Further, there is precious little chance that you'd get attorneys fees if you were victorious, thusly you'd have to pay up front. $10k retainer minimum, I'd expect. Oh, and good luck on the Northern District of California jurisdiction if you're going pro-se. And lastly nobody does pro-bono work for internet butthurt, especially for someone like you with your history.

In sum, Tom is poor, mentally ill, and a legal failure. Bravo Andrew!
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Agree
Reactions: Degeneration Me, Shadow Fox, cuddle striker and 6 others
BigTodd said:
This pleases me greatly. Tom is really going to rage out when he gets a fat dose of reality. Andrew is a saint for being the first person to counterclaim one of Tom's bullshit takedowns.

Tom, I'll spell it out for you so that you can prepare yourself for what is to come.

1. You won't file a lawsuit in 10 days.
2. Youtube will restore the video you requested to be taken down.
3. You'll have no recourse and will cry about how your rights have been violated in 1983 or some other bullshit.
4. You'll be laughed at mercilessly for being a feckless cuck.
5. You'll try to find a lawyer to take it pro-bono, and you'll fail.

Now, I'll explain why this is going to happen. You probably won't read it because you're mentally ill and reality threatens the constructs your mind puts in place for coping with your illness, but I'll try anyway. I'm not giving legal advice, though my avatar is a supreme court jurist.
1. You're poor & can't afford a lawyer.
2. The DMCA is a framework that protects hosts and service providers by giving them safe harbor for following simple rules.
2a. Someone makes a copyright claim.
2b. The provider takes down the content, assuming the claim is properly formatted.
2c. The provider sends a notice to the person who uploaded the allegedly infringing content.
2d. The uploader has the opportunity to counterclaim
2e. Upon counterclaim, the provider notifies the complainant and the complainant has 10 days to initiate legal action
2f. If the complainant provides proof of this action in the time allotted, the provider leaves the takedown in place, otherwise the takedown is lifted
2g. The provider has followed the law and has safe harbor from any secondary liability for the alleged infringement. The alleged infringer may have liability, and the complainant could have liability if the claim isn't valid.
2h. I know you like to seek validation in successful takedown notices, but in reality, the provider doesn't evaluate your claim for validity, they just follow the rules and verify that you structure the claim properly.
3. The DMCA framework seemed easy for you in the past because nobody bothered to counterclaim and provide you with their contact info (2e above). In reality, your legal burden is far too high for you personally to achieve. In either case, your only option is to bring a lawsuit against Andrew in federal court within 10 days.
4. For the reasons above, you're a laughing stock
5. No lawyer will take it because literally everything except exact duplication of your videos constitutes fair use. Libel & defamation may apply, but not under the DMCA framework. Further, there is precious little chance that you'd get attorneys fees if you were victorious, thusly you'd have to pay up front. $10k retainer minimum, I'd expect. Oh, and good luck on the Washington DC jurisdiction if you're going pro-se. And lastly nobody does pro-bono work for internet butthurt, especially for someone like you with your history.

In sum, Tom is poor, mentally ill, and a legal failure. Bravo Andrew!
Click to expand...
plus you have a tiny penis
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jaded Optimist
The best part of the counterclaim is this:

I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant.
Click to expand...

Since Andrew is in the Netherlands, that means that Tom has to file in California where Google/Youtube is located. The feckless cuck can't get a ride to Oregon with 6 months to plan. Think he'll get to CA with his lawsuit to file by the end of the month?

flossman said:
plus you have a tiny penis
Click to expand...

Who told you that?! I demand a retraction of this libelous statement, unless I'm misunderstanding and that statement was aimed at Tom, in which case, carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back