Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Welcome to another day of nothing. And another week of nothing. And another month of nothing. Don't forget to generously donate to the lord emu go fund me page. They need your help desperately.
The "process"... What a laff. The only thing that's been processed is the brains of the believers that the Vplm story is real.
1000 IPR so called "wins" would not make the patents any more valid that the day they were born. If you travel back to the days of the procecutions, all you hear about from the same ppl who now keep leaning on ipr wins, is how great and un-trumped by ANYONE for their thoroughess and high level of expertise. So all those 36 rulings (by known corrupt leader and judges, lololol) were and are to be expected and they did not strengthen the validity of the patents except in some peoples minds I guess. Any of those additional claims upheld are fine except they most likely do nothing and never will in my view. This is why none of the alleged infringers has never bought or settled or licensed. Would you, if you had the bucks, NOT buy the patents? And if not why not? Why would you wait for the infringement damages and other losses take you down? And why would you sit back and wait for any competitor to get froggy? You can't adequately answer those questions so don't even bother trying.
There it is.....exacy what I was talking about.... arrogant nerve whereby you think you possess the knowlege and ability to tell me I can't process. Same old insult you've tried to lay on countless ppl here, with your smarter than thou personality issue, to put it nicely. You've said the same thing so many times to so many ppl, can't even begin to put a number on it. It's THAT MANY! And if anyone doesn't believe that, all they have to do is check your history. On the contrary, I process quite well. I've taken 3 IQ test over my lifetime and while I won't quote any numbers, I will say that one of them mentions that my top ability lies in processing. To be honest, I really didn't even know exactly what they meant by that but I just find it ironic that you would say the opposite. No one else has ever said anything of the kind to me.
I understand the process you speak of totally, however I don't subscribe to it because, well because I've explained my whole overview of this company and if you understood that, you would understand that sometimes the normal process of things doesn't apply in some cases because the normal process assumes certain regularities which I happen to find are not present with vplm. It's the same thing that has often left your processed brain perplexed at the actions, inactions and mysteries shown by Vplm. So happens process doesn't always work. Often times non processed is better or more practical.
Vplm is unusual in several ways and the usual processes seen in patent cases ain't gonna fit it...
Big surprises, in my opinion, will rear their ugly heads regarding the patents and that's all I'll say here and now because I've delineated the entire alternate process as I see it, more than enough times. What I will say is that while the normal expected process has already brought many surprises, still, admittedly, there is a certain amount of the process you are thinking of, that IS indeed playing out and I have not denied or negated that at all. It just hasn't gone and will not go, the way you expect it (even tho I've seen you move the goalposts and switched teams several times over the years, unsurprisingly when the process doesn't fit your template).
What that means is there is a certain different kind of process going on which I called 5 yrs ago to last another 5 yrs or so and it is going strong. But it's not the legal system process you speak of. That system is awfully corrupt. It is the Vplm system that has been the boss ever since they did their great renege and became the poster child patent troll. The irony is the obvious patent troll is only part of the mirage. They are not a true patent troll. They just use that persona as part of the front. What they are is a very sophisticated and highly thought out, big, mean green, fiat share printing and selling machine that is very successful at it for years ever since the big lie around 2013 or so. When looked at in that perspective, all the dots connect and process, at least for me and a few others. I've seen this before and been through it before with a company named TIV.
You don't get away with a scheme/process like what vplm is, without making it look very real in some ways which are enough to pull the wool over enough eyes to get lots of new shareholders (years ago but not anymore) and sell lots of shares that came from the company and allowed the scheme to happen and grow. Lord Emu of eGipped has said and DONE so many things over the years that many recognized as nefarious and sneaky and disingenuous. And still lives up to that but he's probably planning on getting out soon, like Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos and Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker. They will likely flee the country.
So you see I can PROCESS with the best of them but it's just a different process I see in place. If you choose to believe in this farce, I won't put you down for it. Your entitled to your view. Some day it will play out and I hope I'm wrong, being a shareholder... but I've mentally written off those shares long ago so no sweat for me to use them for wallpaper if I dint ever see 50 cents. I call it the way I see it. Truthfully, I am usually found to be right in the end with my sometimes unorthodox views.
I don't need to ask them anything. I also did not ask you anything even tho you posed your reply as tho I did. I did not. After seeing years of the attitude and arrongance you have taken with ANY and ALL here who did not agree with you or see things your way, I would never ask you anything, because of that years long observation. When I think of all the hundreds of times you've admonished ppl and DIRECTED, almost ORDERED them to go back and read what you had said previously about any number of subjects, as if, no, not as if but definitively as tho you considered yourself THE authority on the subject. You have told many posters off here who refused to accept your opinions and that is many many times. A perfect example is right here right now. I did not, as you stated, ask you any questions and in fact I did not even address you. What I DID do was present some clear cut facts and conclusions. I challenged anyone to show the facts were incorrect. I challenged anyone to dispute my facts and conclusions by showing any law, court or judge that has categorically said that IPR positive decisions were instrumental in a trial finding. That is the correct thing to look for. That is the ONLY way to determine if the positive ipr decisions are important to infringement trial outcomes. Very simple and indisputable is looking in that direction. Instead of dealing with those appropriate places to look (law, precedence, judge opinion) and acknowledging the critical thinking, you just dismiss in your cranky way, as you so often do.
At this juncture I was about to say that all above said, I would take a quick look at the cases you noted but on a 2nd look I noticed you said ask the defendants... Hate to break it to you but defendants do make the law, or precedence or the opinions of judges, not to mention the final judgment they make in a trial outcome. The fact of the matter is, as I noted in my previous post, people, litigants, whoever, may come to think that past ipr decisions (only when it's a positive outcome for patent owners) lend weight and validity to a given patent, but that is not what matters because they are not the ones to rule on trial outcome. If you can't see and acknowledge that, you're missing a big thing.
My challenge and one that makes light years more pragmatic sense than confering with trial defendants, was simply simply show where a judge has ruled on a case based on or at least based partly on, positive outcome ipr decisions. Arguing with that challenge is futile.
You may now go back to direction ppl what to think and to always make sure they better go back and read your infallible words on some given subject. Hundreds of times that's exactly what you have DIRECTED peeps to do as though your posts are the end all be all final word on the subject.
Afaic, anyone who finds fault with looking for case law or precedence or the opinion of patent law judges, is on the wrong track.
I don't need to ask them anything. I also did not ask you anything even tho you posed your reply as tho I did. I did not. After seeing years of the attitude and arrongance you have taken with ANY and ALL here who did not agree with you or see things your way, I would never ask you anything, because of that years long observation. When I think of all the hundreds of times you've admonished ppl and DIRECTED, almost ORDERED them to go back and read what you had said previously about any number of subjects, as if, no, not as if but definitively as tho you considered yourself THE authority on the subject. You have told many posters off here who refused to accept your opinions and that is many many times. A perfect example is right here right now. I did not, as you stated, ask you any questions and in fact I did not even address you. What I DID do was present some clear cut facts and conclusions. I challenged anyone to show the facts were incorrect. I challenged anyone to dispute my facts and conclusions by showing any law, court or judge that has categorically said that IPR positive decisions were instrumental in a trial finding. That is the correct thing to look for. That is the ONLY way to determine if the positive ipr decisions are important to infringement trial outcomes. Very simple and indisputable is looking in that direction. Instead of dealing with those appropriate places to look (law, precedence, judge opinion) and acknowledging the critical thinking, you just dismiss in your cranky way, as you so often do.
At this juncture I was about to say that all above said, I would take a quick look at the cases you noted but on a 2nd look I noticed you said ask the defendants... Hate to break it to you but defendants do make the law, or precedence or the opinions of judges, not to mention the final judgment they make in a trial outcome. The fact of the matter is, as I noted in my previous post, people, litigants, whoever, may come to think that past ipr decisions (only when it's a positive outcome for patent owners) lend weight and validity to a given patent, but that is not what matters because they are not the ones to rule on trial outcome. If you can't see and acknowledge that, you're missing a big thing.
My challenge and one that makes light years more pragmatic sense than confering with trial defendants, was simply simply show where a judge has ruled on a case based on or at least based partly on, positive outcome ipr decisions. Arguing with that challenge is futile.
You may now go back to direction ppl what to think and to always make sure they better go back and read your infallible words on some given subject. Hundreds of times that's exactly what you have DIRECTED peeps to do as though your posts are the end all be all final word on the subject.
Afaic, anyone who finds fault with looking for case law or precedence or the opinion of patent law judges, is on the wrong track.
Either way, I still think that positive ipr outcomes for the patent owner do not add any more validity that the day the patent was born. Remember, any and all possible challenges should theoretically already been looked into by the examiner if he did his job fully. Each and every one of any possible challenges, should already be addressed in the patent itself because a challenger would presumably have to choose some attribute of the patent already written in to the patent.
Bottom line: as far as I'm concerned, unless and until someone can show me where a judge has ruled positive on an ipr challenge, in favor of the patent owner, based even partially on the fact of such "wins", then I maintain they add zero.
That said, it occurs to me that in the case of a jury decision, a jury presumably could vote however they want, regardless of case law or precedent......except I don't think ptab trials ever use a jury. I think they use one of those "corrupt" 3 judge tribunal panels, you know, likd the 3 seperate panels it took over a years for them to get the balls to finally come up with their ruling.....which, hahaha.....was the DIRECT RESULT OF THE WARNING BY TOM SAWYER THAT THEY BEST DO THE RIGHT THING OR FACE FEDERAL RICO CHARGES.
That's wrong imo. The question being begged by the challenger, would be to see if he can throw a challenge and see what sticks. I say that because a specific challenge to some claimed attribute of a patent is just that and seeks to invalidate on that basis, whereas the question of infringement is a whole other question. The 2 are mutually exclusive (if I said that correctly). In fact when you think about it, it soundsike such a challenge tried to remove itself from the infringement question. Maybe that's what you were saying and I missed it... In fact, the more I think about it, maybe that is what you meant, ie, the alleged infringer should know if they infringed or not and so if they know they did, then the only way to proceed is to try to invalidate. Is that what you're saying?
That's wrong imo. The question being begged by the challenger, would be to see if he can throw a challenge and see what sticks. I say that because a specific challenge to some claimed attribute of a patent is just that and seeks to invalidate on that basis, whereas the question of infringement is a whole other question. The 2 are mutually exclusive (if I said that correctly). In fact when you think about it, it soundsike such a challenge tried to remove itself from the infringement question. Maybe that's what you were saying and I missed it...
Thanks for posting your ipr info however I was in no need for the ipr lesson. I already was very well versed on it because when the ipr challenges 1st began, years ago, I studied everything about it and the history. No one on this board, at the time, nor apparently on the bod, seemed to have ANY knowledge whatsoever about ptab or iprs. As far as I could see at the time, the initial iprs came as a complete surprise to most if not all here, including myself of course. But I did study up on it a great deal at the time.
I disagree with your assessment or interpretation regarding how a positive ipr ruling for a patent owner strengthens the patent. I think that's an opinion of yours that I don't believe you can back up with an legality. It is 100% true and factual that a patent is 100% valid at birth, by virtue of the rigors of the USPTO. It is also 100% true and a fact that no amount of ipr so called "wins" (which are not wins but are successful defense of. Nothing was won and you will notice that lord emu never refers to them as wins either), legally adds any attribute to the patent that it didn't already possess at birth.
That said, many ppl obviously view such positive ipr outcomes, as adding additional validity. There are clearly many on this board who wholeheartedly believe the patents are more valid than not, due to the many positive ipr outcomes. And I understand that but it's only an opinion held by those who think it. It's not actual or attached to any legal tenet. What's important is not what you or I or anyone else opines on the matter, rather what the law, courts and judges say about it.
So a couple years ago, I became tired of how no one seems to agree with me on this, so I decided to do some research on it. It's a simple question of whether there is case law or precedence shown by any judges, as to whether or not the law or judicial opinion lends any weight to positive ipr results for patent owners suing for infringement. I could find NONE! In fact the ONLY info I could uncover that related to it, was I believe a law firm take on it. I think I may have that article in my files but can't remember if the source is identified. I'd have to dig it up and look. Anyway, it basically states that no court or judges have given any opinion whatsoever on the question, one way or the other. And that, by default, would seem to imply that there is no case law about it. I tried to search for any judge in any case that used ipr positive outcomes for patent owner suing for infringement. I couldn't get any hits on it at all. It seemed to be a non issue. From that I concluded that the ONE AND ONLY purpose and action or effect of it, was in order for the defendants to win their challenge. It's a totally different ballgame when an ipr challenge is upheld because then the patent becomes invalid which is a true loss for the patent owner. But when it's a positive outcome for the patent owner, nothing is gained and nothing is lost. It's a wash and a successful defense which obviously is a good thing but does not add any weight or validity because solely of the assumption of validity that comes with patenthood and the fact that the highest authority of patents, the USPTO, has diligently already explored all the necessary avenues of scrutiny of the patent application via their deep prosecution.
So you or anyone can argue the point all you want, but unless the situ has changed since I looked into it, then I think I'm correct about it. As I already asked for.....if you can show me any opinions by judges that differs, I might have to modify my view. But for now, I think I've made a solid case for my view of the question.
Show me any patent cases where the judge, not a jury who might misunderstand the scope of an ipr positive outcome, states that his finding for a patent owner suing for infringement, based his decision on ipr "wins". If you can show me that in a clearcut way, I'll back off or modify my opinions on ipr outcomes/patent validity.
Begs to differ WHAT? Your 1 liner shows that you don't understand the legal nature of a positive ipr outcome. It is not a win of anything. It is simply the successful defense against someone's challenge to validity. And validity, as I have explained many times does NOT equate that a patent can actually do what it claims.......plus, as I just pointed out in previous post, the USPTO who is the agency that provides the validation of a patent, does not automatically require proof of that be provided nor is source code provided to them. There is the clear proof of my statements. Perhaps you need to delve somewhat deeper before making such a sweeping but shallow 1 line determination, as opposed to a set of circumstances that show the logic of a determination. Also, as of a few years ago, at the least (but the question may have been answered by now..), judges and courts have never decided whether or not positive ipr outcomes for a patent owner, is anything that sways a court one way or the other. In other words, unless you can show me where the court system and judges accept such ipr outcomes as evidence that it has any bearing on the question of infringement.
Vplm was not required to prove to USPTO the patents actually work as described. The rules do not require it. If they had an appropriate reason, the USPTO could have asked Vplm to prove it, via a working model or whatever means necessary to provide such proof. It is my understanding that normally, such proof is not asked for by the USPTO for software patents such as vplm's. So the question is...did the USPTO ask Vplm for such proof and was it supplied by Vplm. Again, such proof would come to the USPTO by way of some kind of suitable working model and not via source code.
So does anyone out there have any information as to whether or not Vplm was asked for and supplied such proof that the patents do what they profess to do? And since the patents are public info, would the USPTO be required to divulge receipt of such proof?
Since proof of workability is not required by the USPTO, I believe that is proof that while a patent is deemed valid the moment it becomes a patent, and that validity holds throughout the life of the patent unless and until someone challenges that validity and wins, that a patent may not work as claimed or at all. And so that fact validates what I've been saying forever about a patent's validity does in no way ensure it works as claimed or is necessary to voip or has any value.
I would suppose that if the USPTO did indeed ask Vplm to provide the proof, the results of the alleged 3 city nodal testing may have been adequate proof for the USPTO. I imagine that would depend on the entire testing process and the interpretation of the results. It's possible that the USPTO might not have accepted vplm's proprietary testing procedures. Is any of this public knowledge, thus available for inspection? Does anyone know one way of the other?
Sound familiar?
We're getting closer and closer to the big day atltraderken promised. Can't wait... Anticipation...... is making me wait
It wasn't easy......for moronic ol me, but I think I managed to bring you more intelligence since you asked... So apparently, this msg board supposed to be for posting about the company at least that's what the tos says but no one pays any attention to rules anymore..... So I looked at around your last 10 posts. I forget how many of them are calling ppl morons but in any event, 10 in a row were personal attacks against other posters and zero about the company. THAT'S pretty INTELLIGENT, no? I also normally don't give stock buy/sell advice but in your case, I think you should sell everything you own (if anything) and buy as much Vplm shares as you can. Remember, very soon, Vplm is gonna explode! And I think you need to reap the benefits of that explosion.
So, instead of posting about the company, you just keep posting to those ppl whom you think are idiots. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY GENIUS!
GLTY
Something intelligent? Oh, ok. You claimed to be able to count the amount of posts you've made on your hands. You've made 277 posts or if you're just counting Vplm, over 200. My question is why do you have over 100 fingers on ea hand? That must do some real damage when you scratch your head...but I'm sure all that medical marijuana helps you with that. 11 yrs with vplm I see. You must've really made out...
Amazing. I am truly perplexed by your post...
ie:
"No one, absolutely no one would continue to bash this stock unless they were getting compensation. 12 years of bullshit on both sides and it has produced absolutely nothing. There is never any substance to any news that comes out. Even the conference calls years ago produced no new information. Emil has screwed this up from the beginning. I firmly believe Rich is as nuts as you to sit and talk to you week after week about supposedly the happenings with VPLM. Nothing will ever happen. "
* It sure looks to me that you are bashing the stock. Allow me to qualify. I have explained my view of discernment between bashing, which is simply doing so for the sake of itself and alternatively, posting negatively about the company based on DD and negative observations, which may or may not have been evident initially, but later discovered. The former, I agree to calling it bashing. But I do not consider the latter to be bashing. I see it as just as valid a commentary as any pro view.
That being said, I understand, at this point, that discernment is not paid any attention to by anyone but me, as far as I know, thus I just have to accept that con sentiment is going to be called bashing. I wanted to make that clear because I totally agree with all you said......
EXCEPT...........
saying that no one would bash the stock unless compensated or insane. Well, 1) I am not compensated and, 2) I'm not insane. Which one (or both) are you?
If you chose insane, that might allow you to explain (insanity) why it's so difficult for anyone here to "get" why it's perfectly reasonable and valid (just as much as pro peeps) to "bash" a stock that they found to be scammy at some point in the relationship, ESPECIALLY, if they are a shareholder from many years ago? So it might take insanity to explain such an insane state of that affair, lol.
A buyout huh? Wow, what a novel idea... Um...do you realize that 10 or 11 yrs ago, that's exactly what this became all about when vplm, after reneging on their much repeated promise to integrate the patent technology into their own platform, all of a sudden, with no why's or wherefore's, decided to sell the company. And ALLEGEDLY/SUPPOSEDLY, that's what they've been trying to do ever since. And allegedly, when they could get no buyers or even licensees, they then allegedly decided their only option was to start sueing the alleged infringers. Did you know that? I ask because it sounds like you didn't know that. Sorry if I misunderstand.
Funny thing I heard on the way to the forum.......
The great irony that explains so much here.....
Is that when vplm/Chang told all those blatant lies about the acquisition being complete, when it wasn't, the patents being patented, when they weren't, the announcement that Vplm was in the process of folding/integrating the technology into their own ALLEGED voip service provider business, which they never did, and how there were offers on the table and imminent deals about to happen to sell the technologies, which never happened because it never was true in the 1st place (admitted to in one instance by the highly respected CEO, Tom Sawyer), and phony mandates given by Vplm to southbank, which they never did, and phony offers by Dr Gil, which was nothing more than a collaboration by him and the emu, as proven by the leak posted here 2 months prior.... DUH!, etc etc etc etc etc etc......the irony is that none of the shareholders, from either side of the aisle....... GAVE A SHIT OR GIVE A SHIT! They let it all slide and never so much as question any of it. So what do they EXPECT?
The only things they've ever mildly complained about is the lack of communication from the company but only in a light, soft way......quite similar to the so called, alleged infringement love letter that Vplm sent out to some of the alleged infringers and only suggested to them that they might be infringing (there is no argument about this, the letters were embarrassingly published here). And the other thing is the insider selling, but most accept the lowdown mouthpiece of the company, who tell you it's all good.
You should have opened your mouths and protested to the top of your lungs and demanded answers and explanations. Instead everyday you find less dough in your pockets and more peeps making excuses for it. Of course it's too late now with all the elements that built this phony insider ATM and share printing service, so entrenched. Now you've no choice but to wait for the inevitable play out that is not good in my opinion. You sit here and are forced to endure all the BS trial delays and push backs and phony "settlements" that are like mirages in the desert and believe that once the trials happen, then the billions and billions will come in to you.
Nah.....me not tinking so.
Amidst all the controversy surrounding the value, need, modern workability/compatability and efficacy of the patents, a normal, common sense question and request for the results of ALLEGED nodal tests carried out in 3 cities around the world, allegedly designed to show the viability of the above noted attributes, attributes that would be necessary for there to be any chance for the patents to be "ALL THAT".......would be something very much desired for all to see, not just the Vplm inside. And yet, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever for such results to EVEN SO MUCH AS EXIST! And if they do not exist, that is a BIG BIG RED FLAG! No source code. No secrets. Just simple results of the testing ALLEGEDLY carried out in 3 cities. OMG.....why in the world would or would anyone want to see such test results. What business is it of our. Who are we to ask for such results to be made public about a publicly owned company? Who do we think we are......???...... asking for test results. Don't you know such results need to be always be kept a secret?? Don't you know such info involves national security?
Why were the Vplm patented technology global nodal test results NEVER RELEASED?
Could it be....
See, emu knew that ppl were capable of believing anything and that the basis he worked from. All he has to do is every few months put out a pr and say how he is pleased as punch at the developments and that patience is a virtue and his cult followers bow.
Few more days to non event. Don't miss it...
Vplm is a killer stock. I wonder how many have already died waiting? Patience is a death sentence with vplm. Too bad you can't get a loan on the future Vplm ship coming in and get yourself cryogenically frozen as a preemt for science to discover how to get Vplm to get a big win and then get thawed out....only to find out they ain't given nunya any money ANYWAY! Just like with Verizon.
Hey slick....look up......now look down......see my thumb, gee you're freakin dumb...
Do you not see where I have stated over and over that I am long for approx 13 yrs. You either need to get back on your meds or quit taking them. Additionally, did you know that it's a proven fact that the names, the specific names that name callers call others, is actuality what they are themselves? Fits you perfect. By the way, how does it feel to not have a clue? Does it hurt? Does it gnaw at you. Do you medicate for it? Just curious as I noticed that your attention span lacks much length. I don't give stock buy/sell advice normally, but in your case, I say sell the farm and keep buying til you bleed.
The only one being sized up is you, twice over, imho. 1st, is me doing the sizing up of someone who needs some kind of medication to quiet their overactive and perhaps paranoid mindset. 2nd is vplm....the snake of 25 yrs of 1 self enrichment deal after another and who may be gobbling up any share value you had, as we speak. If one has no cost basis, like me, then they can't hurt them so long as they refrain from buying more stock, which I've done for years. So, if something is able to get the price jacked up, that's a plus for additional windfall. If not, even if they go bk, I'm still in the black in perpetuity. So save the snake business for someone else. It's just laughable to me. The patents are useless and valueless. That's obvious otherwise we wouldn't be here with the current situation. Currently, the stock is in the manipulative hands of pumpers, mm's and the insiders. All the litigatory action is a combo of members of the cabal and innocents who are just going thru the motions which as anyone can see, never truly amounts to anything and never will cuz it's all a madoff level scheme that has lots of steam left before it gets played out. Likely another 5 yrs. I predicted 10, five years ago. The court stuff is just the machinations that are the beauty and genius of this operation. When lord emu of eGipped let his hotel go bk and then got outsmarted by Cameron, he decided to put together a real whopper of a scheme and worked out all the details. And he also operates from the known hotbed of pennystock scams, Vancouver. The whole thing is run from his laptop out of his pizza shop. It's all been funded by you and me and all the contributors over a 13 or so year period. It was jump started by that creep Chang who for 2 to 3 yrs kept telling everyone that the acquisition was complete when it was not and that they (Vplm) would forthwith fold the technogy into their alleged voip services platform that was all nothing more than rented turnkey operations and various deals that all wound up with their partners saying that Vplm didn't live up to their end of the deals. All that can be read about the in the early days of this msg board. He said it would very quickly bring the subscriptions up by hundreds of millions and that Vplm would immediately be raking in tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties. Plus with the platform supported by the technology, it would soon be the king of the hill voip service provider because the patents were allegedly essential and fundamental to the very ability of voip to continue operation. It was also said that every single voip service provider out there was automatically an infringer. This was telling all shareholders and potential sharebdefs that basically, Vplm had everything LOCKED UP with the patents. He also kept referring to the patent applications as patents, long before they were. All this had no problem getting this whole scheme off the ground with tons of new shareholders and buyers. Then, with no warning, no fanfare, no input from shareholders, on a dime, the whole rug was pulled out from under the deal that never really was and the company immediately, allegedly went up for sale. The whole thing was one big whopper of a lie. The emu had been long accumulating shares enough to do his little takeover and him as well as all the digi-phony-ca peeps were now what is become today, Vplm. And ever since, it has been the emu Malak go fund me page as it took alot of money to pull this off and to keep it going so that it has been the insider ATM for all these years of fiat share printing ad nauseum and selling like their shares are going out of style, which they are but are kept from going trips my the mm manipulation. There's your snakes.
..........................or not. I could be wrong. I doubt it. If you had the money, would you buy the patents???
Have another day
'Course you did. We believe... No bout-a-doubt-it...... certainly you did. Why would anybody doubt you?
A little patience is all that's needed for a little brain. If a large brain, alot of patience is needed... but by that time, your brain will have begun to shrink. Something about entropy..
"all that's needed is a little patience"
hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahhaha. Oh, the ignorance
What, no fishsticks or chicken frios today?
Oh gee look at that.....Im causing the stock to plunge again. I'm sorry. Guess I need to better measure my powers!
Sure it did....lol
So what's your point....i have a zero cost basis as well and achieved that long ago close to 10 yrs now. So what? Who cares? Apparently your main point is one that you should grow some hair and cover up...
Sure it is. We believe you
Oooh flirting with the 13s now. Don't worry, it'll be several years more before trips and the end comes. Lord emu of eGipped and queen Sellalot are working towards a burial with cash not dirt.
Apparently, not so much. Lol
"But you continue to respond to them though"
Good point. Oops, there I go overdoing it again. Just can't seem to help myself
Got it, lol!
(oh, sorry for the length of my post. Shoulda just used a thumbs up)
My advice to you would be for you to police what you think and post and I'll do the same. I do just fine posting exactly what I wish to. Don't look now, but I am not here to please you or your expectations. Incidentally, newbies, prospective shareholders are always here, mostly by virtue of the paid pumpers who drag them here.
Also, your crap about not being able to read to the bottom of my posts is indicitive of what a bullshitter you are since if you take say the last couple days as a random sample, you'd find that the majority of my posts were far shorter than yours is which kind of makes you sound foolish. Perhaps a secondary reason might be a lack of comprehension tires you out prematurely. Understandable... For your lacking information, I'm fully capable of making my posts be exactly the length I want them to be, ie, long, medium or short. No problem for me only for you. Also, I further advise you to speak for yourself as when you speak for others, you amplify your wrongs. I think you may be the perfect person to use your AI. I think it would be very suitable for you. Myself, I prefer the realism of my own well spoken words thankyou very much.