- Joined
- Feb 10, 2022
He's not smart enough to realize that eventually, someone will fuck back.you’d think Acer would manage to rub his two brain cells together and realise there’s a limit to how much you can push a man.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He's not smart enough to realize that eventually, someone will fuck back.you’d think Acer would manage to rub his two brain cells together and realise there’s a limit to how much you can push a man.
No actually, I wouldn't think thatyou’d think Acer would manage to rub his two brain cells together and realise
That is one angry turkey. Someone should get that turkey some hot dogs
Those kids are lucky they only had to hear Acertard.
You're talking about a man child so up his own ass he thinks he can do as he pleases to others and if they dare lift a finger to block a blow then they are in the wrong. I was like this as a child but grew out of it and I recall a deeply autistic class mate who was like this, (Punched another student in the leg and blamed his hurt hand on that students leg being too tough) so it's not that crazy for me. This is what comes from a generation of men raised with a soft handed approach. They don't have any respect for how thin the veneer of civility can be in today's world.Right? What stops Cree from just swatting him until he dies/gets scared off? Acer is already trying to ruin Cree’s life, and it’s not like the feds have the swatting situation under control. I mean, Cree would never do it, he’s actually a good person, but you’d think Acer would manage to rub his two brain cells together and realise there’s a limit to how much you can push a man.
Stupid question, but could the act of lodging a copyright claim with Youtube against another user/channel be viewed as violating the filing injunction? Technically it is a sworn legal copyright act. And it involves Google/Youtube/Alphabet. A case could possibly be made that he needs court pre-approval to even lodge a copyright strike.Acerthorn filed two copyright claims against Creetosis, a defendant in Stebbins v. Rebolo.
View attachment 5326742
Creetosis deleted every video talking about Acerthorn to prevent another strike. Last month another critic's Youtube channel was terminated after Acerthorn submitted three strikes.
The two struck videos
COPE -- SEETHE -- MALD (Acerthorn Crying About Elden Ring)
STAG #34: Arrival? -- Covering Acerthorn's Absurdly Terrible Dark Souls "Retrospective"
This is something that has occurred to me to. I think Youtube is allowed to ignore these claims/DMCA requests (using the injunction as a reasoning), but I think that this interpretation is far broader than what the judge had intended.Stupid question, but could the act of lodging a copyright claim with Youtube against another user/channel be viewed as violating the filing injunction? Technically it is a sworn legal copyright act
No, it was a ploy to make all youtube people he added in amended complaint here cover him so he can gain more views and have a way to obtain their adress for dmca purposes.Interesting thing I noticed when pulling up his YouTube to monitor for the (hopeful) reeeeeee-sponse, his YouTube "About" page opens with this sentence:
"Hilarious let's plays, informative exploit demonstrations, and in-depth story analysis!"
But apparently Brave search (not Google though) has a cached version that is slightly different... (emphasis in original)
"I'm a fatass who lives like a slob, and I'm not ashamed to admit it! Hilarious let's plays, informative exploit demonstrations, and in-depth story analysis!"
I don't know if Brave's blurbs or summaries are weenable, but that opener feels like it rides the line real hard between something a troll would work in somehow thinking it's funny and something Acerthorn would add thinking he's being relatably self-deprecating before realizing that he's just pointing out his own flaws and removing it.
Here's remainder (comments) of his response (archive) to that community post:Acerthorn filed two copyright claims against Creetosis, a defendant in Stebbins v. Rebolo.
If you are reading this, David: you are a worthless, vindictive, parasitic fat fucking cunt. You should be arrested for stealing oxygen, scarce resources, and space.Acerthorn emailed Creetosis, a defendant in Stebbins v. Rebolo, a legal threat stating "deleting your videos about me isn't going to save you. You're getting sued and there's no two ways about it."
View attachment 5328245
"Put your money where your mouth is."
I'm pretty sure the injunction would only be triggered upon the actual filing of a lawsuit after denial of the pseudo-DMCA process YouTube uses. Or for that matter, upon filing a total lolsuit even AFTER YouTube actually upheld the strike.This is something that has occurred to me to. I think Youtube is allowed to ignore these claims/DMCA requests (using the injunction as a reasoning), but I think that this interpretation is far broader than what the judge had intended.
He should be arrested, imprisoned and executed for felony autistic turkey gobbling.If you are reading this, David: you are a worthless, vindictive, parasitic fat fucking cunt. You should be arrested for stealing oxygen, scarce resources, and space.
The lawsuit was filed before this decision, so while he can notify the court that this should be considered, he can’t use it as an outright dismissal.I wonder if Zellzander can use the recent vexatious litigant ruling to shut down this action. Best not to do anything until service is complete, but that may be a way to halt some of the nonsense Stebbins typically files.
Once again, as I scroll up from the bottom of the page, I can tell a post is yours before I see your name on it.He should be arrested, imprisoned and executed for felony autistic turkey gobbling.
I can't imagine how he'd react to be sanctioned. Maybe he'll go off the deep end like Patrick Tomlinson.Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to respond to Defendants’ inquiry to “identify all recordings of conversations between [plaintiff] and counsel...
Plaintiff is FURTHER ORDERED to file an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he has complied with the Court’s order by deleting all copies of those recordings...
Plaintiff is further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why sanctions should not be imposed for bad faith conduct.
Sanctions may include monetary penalties and/or dismissal of this action with prejudice.
The Court invites Defendants to immediately submit their billing records for time spent attempting to enforce the Court’s August 31, 2023 Order.