ORCA
16 hours ago
THE BEST TIMES OF VPLM WERE IN DECEMBER 9TH 2022 HAD A LOW OF .01.LOOK BOLD BELOW.
THEN TWO MONTHS LATER IN FEBRUARY 9TH 2023 THE STOCK HAD A HIGH OF .1144.UNREAL=A RUN OF OVER 1,000%.IF YOU BOUGHT THEN 1 MILLION SHARES AT .1144=$ 114,400.00 OMG.TODAY IT COST ME $7,000.00 TO BUY 1 MILLION SHARES:)))I LOVE IT.
9 Feb 2023
0.104965
0.016065
18.07%
0.091
0.1144
0.087
10,593,170
9 Dec 2022
0.0121
-0.0005
-3.97%
0.0126
0.0127
0.01
793,934
DeerBalls
16 hours ago
$.007 This DB guy seems to gain a bunch of attention; very odd.....? 🤔🤔🤔
Yes, I've been buying over the past week and won't comment while transacting. "Excited" is an understatement! I see ways VPLM could go far higher than my former target of $.85...
It's been a long time here, but that's what it takes @ times. If 100 to 1 returns were quick and easy, everyone would be doing them! If VPLM were to just hit the former high, $.45, that would be about 64 to 1 from here.
LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME FUN AND "SURPRISES"! 🚀🚀🚀🚀🤣🤣🤣🤣
ORCA
16 hours ago
I ADDED OVER 1,2 MILLION TODAY.IN THE .0069 AND .007.I GOT MORE BIDS WAITING.
12/12/2024 Buy
Trade Details
VPLM
VOIP-PAL COM INC
473,429
$0.007 $3.00 -$3,317.00
12/12/2024 Buy
Trade Details
VPLM
VOIP-PAL COM INC
300,000
$0.0069 $3.00 -$2,088.00
12/12/2024 Buy
Trade Details
VPLM
VOIP-PAL COM INC
434,989
$0.0069 $3.00 -$3,003.92
nyt
1 day ago
Oh, and to those of you that unfortunately STILL think and believe that patent validity and the 36 positive IPR outcomes means that the patents are indeed what they've been cracked up to be by the liars over at the liars den, wellllll.....sorry bout your comprehension challenges. It's been explained to you clearly numerous times but you stick your finger in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala" so naturally you don't GET IT! .
And since all that wasn't enough to get you to listen, so I challenged you to produce, in any way, shape or form, evidence that any judge or court decision, anywhere, anytime, has ever alluded to positive IPR outcomes as a reason or even partial reason for said judge to rule in favor of the party on the positive end of the IPR outcome. None did, so nah-nah-nah---nah naaah nah😛
nyt
2 days ago
The opening lines over at the liars den, aka VOIPPALOOSA (voippalusa.com) are:
"VoIP-PAL is a company that owns patents that have transformed global communications.
Today - Our technologies enable seamless navigation of voice and data across cellular and Wi-Fi networks, connecting individuals regardless of their location on Earth. VoIP-PAL makes it easy and affordable to bring the world together."
This is stated as FACT....when IN fact, it's a lie. Zero infringement has ever been shown or proven In a court of law or anywhere else. It has never been shown in any way, shape or form that any of the accused, alleged, infringers or anyone else for that matter, has ever used any of the patents to provide their services. And I highly doubt any such occurance will ever take place because as I've pointed out many a time, IF....there was any legitimacy in the claims, they would have sold or been or licensed LOOOONG ago with such tremendous power and value. Common sense...
Soooooo.... Those opening statements on the site are NOTHING MORE than BS hyperbole. The emperor has no clothes...
ORCA
2 days ago
VERY INTERESTING.SO YOU ARE TRADING WITH 8 ACCOUNTS.1,000% MANIPULATION IMO.WOW.8 ACCOUNTS.
POOR MMs.YOU PLAY THESE GUYS WITH 8 TRADING ACCOUNTS.ONE HAS TO WONDER WHAT YOU DO.
TRY MAKE MONEY WITH ONE ACCOUNT.AND TRY MAKE MONEY ON PENNY STOCKS.THAT MOST OF THE TIMES HAVE NO VOLUME.YOU WILL LOSE ALL YOUR MONEY 100%.THE BIG BOARDS YOU PLAY IS A WALK IN THE PARK.BECAUSE THE VOLUMES ARE ENORMOUS TO GET IN AND OUT ALL DAY.TRY DO THAT WITH VPLM.LET;S SEE HOW YOU MAKE MONEY.ON A STOCK THAT HAS NO VOLUMES.AND USE ONE ACCOUNT LIKE ORCA.
fung_derf
Member Level
Re: ORCA post# 75105
Wednesday, December 11, 2024 12:20:49 PM
Post#
75107
of 75108
Dude, you're a lightweight who wants to feel special by buying penny stocks. Posting your $800 buys as if to impress.
Stay in your own lane. I wouldn't show you any of my 8 accounts. You'd probably try to hack my accounts. I don't need to, I post the day I buy and sell with prices. If you can't do math that's on you.
Now keep posting these for me on the VPLM board.
You sure post meaner when you are getting crushed by a stock. Show me what a stud you are, go buy another $6k worth. You lightweight.
ORCA
2 days ago
FUNNY YOU DID NOT REPLY TO ME HERE.LOL.BUT HERE IS YOUR POST AND MY ANSWER TO YOU.SO STFU.SCROLL TO READ.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=175510832
fung_derf
1 hour ago
#75099 RE: ORCA #75098
Is this proof enough for you numbnuts? Let me know if you have any other questions on how to buy and sell. I pay more in taxes than you make on trades....and don't need to type in caps about it.
fung_derf
Member Level
Re: None
Thursday, November 21, 2024 10:19:20 AM
Post#
100094
of 100103
Ð.....I guess I should keep posting my buys here as a way to keep track, but now I feel it's just as my own diary. Should probably update the "My stocks" page here, but I doubt anyone actually uses that.
Anyway, bought $SOUN the other day around $6.50. I think it has some room to run.
Since I haven't been posting them and been pretty active,
sold PLTR, but hoping to buy it back soon. Made 232% on it in about a year.
Bought $CLMB around $97
Bought $LRCX around $70.50
I forget what else
then...
fung_derf
12/02/24 12:11 PM
#100097 RE: fung_derf #100094
Ð....update on $SOUN. I mentioned I bought some at $6.56 on 11/14. I'm up currently about 39% at the moment (it has pulled back a bit today). Annual high is $10.25. Is there any reason to believe it will or will not rise above this? It still isn't profitable and as I've said many times over the years, I like my stocks to have earnings.
The problems with these somewhat gambles are that I'm not going to buy enough to care one way or another, although, this one fell into the category of in between. I bought 9000 shares. So, do I sell off a third or half, which would be the common sense thing to do? I can't believe I've put myself into a situation this year that taxes from gains will be brutal, and I don't have losses to match. So, I think I'll keep fingers crossed until January.
Who is this company's competition?
fung_derf
Member Level
Re: fung_derf post# 100097
Friday, December 06, 2024 10:19:35 AM
Post#
100101
of 100103
Ð.....$SOUN.....I sold off my cost basis this morning and am keeping the rest for a while. Over 100% in 3 weeks, this market is stupid.
Why is anyone buying penny stocks again?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175511792
LMAO.HEY KITTY CAT,YOU POSTED ON WRONG BOARD.BUT STILL I DO NOT SEE THE TRADES.HERE FOR YOU WHAT THE REAL PROOF IS JOKER.DID YOU SAY 3 WEEKS??LOL.WELL I MADE DOUBLE WHAT YOU MADE IN 3 WEEKS.SO STFU.
AROUND $60,000.00.3 WEEKS.KITTY CUT.STRAIGHT FROM SCHWAB ACCOUNT.SO DO THE SAY TO BELIEVE YOU.
AND ON THE END OF YOUR POST YOU SAY WHY IS ANYONE BUYING PENNY STOCKS AGAIN??LMAOOOOOOO.
I GUESS $60,000.00 FOR 3 WEEKS DOES NOT JUSTIFY FOR YOU WHY WE PLAY PENNIES.STUPID DOG.
fung_derf
7 days ago
OK, were you drunk when you posted all that? I know you're ticked because you're losing more money with each buy, but what in the world do you think this company is and what do you think your small buys accomplish??
This is a nuisance lawsuit company with no revenues or product. The entire value is in either, getting paid by someone a nuisance fee to go away, or their ability to print shares, claim it as the insiders wages since they stopped taking a salary, then dumping them into the market. You're not helping anyone by buying them up! I get it, you're counting on some pump and dump or fake news put out by the company to make a very short term pop in the stock price so you can dump into them. I get it, you're the hyena who tries to snatch the carrion away from the lion after the kill, but the insiders don't care about you! Have you seen (well I know you have) how much money insiders are making from dumping? Barbara is selling shares to fund her fancy restaurant. Maybe it makes money or maybe she just likes hobnobbing with the wealthy. She buys someone a bottle of wine to get them to come back again, you pay for the wine.
IF, you'd quit buying, perhaps the share price would drop quicker. Although, the only thing your small buys do is show interest, not support the price. I'm actually surprised by how few shares you have. You talk a big game (and type in big print), but I can assure you I trade far larger than you in real stocks on a daily basis. You are no longer the hero of the penny world.
So, go read any of a hundred boards on IHUB and the story is the same. Reverse split, stock goes dormant.....a couple years from now someone buys the empty shell and the new guys try to repeat the story. If you'd like, I'll give you some boards here to read, but I think you already know the game.
I'm not sure right now who you are more angry with.....me? Barbara?? Yourself?? You seem to get mad whenever I point out the reality here. It's as if you're worried the mullets will listen and figure it out....news flash....they won't.
nyt
1 week ago
nyt
Re: None
Wednesday, 11/13/2024 10:00:10 AM
The antitrust suit sounds ridiculous to me unless I'm missing something. At least the vplm patents "story" sounds good and has facilitated all the monies the vplm bod has raked in over all these years. But I'm thinking this beyond frivolous antitrust suit will get laughed out of court. The suit seems to say that the big dog voip companies supplying all the varied services they do, is a bad thing. Seems like offering more and more different services is a good thing. And since it's 4, now boiled down to 3 companies offering all these services, is the opposite of a monopoly, especially when considering that these 3 companies rent out their services and tower space to a slew of MNVOs, who make up near half the voip services out there and their are many MNVOs. I use one myself and get unlimited everything for 25 bucks a month, incl 5G and Hotspot. Did I mention unlimited? No way that is a monopoly. It's actually a very competitive market with a large number of companies offering the voip services. So just on that fact, the suit makes no sense. But you have to drill down deeper to reveal the real reasons upon which the suit makes it's claims. I have a feeling many proponents of the suits don't even realize some important facts. The 1st ones are stated above. The next one makes it appear to me that whoever drew up the suit has been leaking grey matter for some time...
A careful read reveals what they are claiming is the loss of value to the consumers because they are paying for cellular service they don't need, if, I repeat if, they can just use wifi instead. Most phones have wifi chips now and the user can switch between cellular or wifi. And apparently the carrier can switch the user between cellular and wifi. I'm guessing that part depends on how the user has the buttons set on their phone. Seems like the user can be in control of that if they turn wifi off or turn cellular off per their situation. Whatever the case is with regard to that aspect, apparently sometimes the carrier can switch the customer from cellular to wifi, thereby saving alot of bandwidth and saving that money that the customer pays via their fixed price plan.
So the bottom line is the suit says the consumer are being ripped off because they have no choice in the matter, regarding paying for a bunch of cellular they don't need because they could just use their wifi. Therein lies the ridiculessness of the suit, as I see it, and I'll gladly stand corrected if someone can. The ridiculousness lies in the fact that no cellphone users can use wifi as their operating fuel........EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE HOME (or using some insecure wifi hotspot). Wifi is short range signal. Approx 150' indoors and 300' outdoors. So that only works when home. And THAT is why it's so great that their phones and their service contains both wifi and cellular. Ppl are oft on the go and need the cellular signal and can switch to wifi at home. How great that is! How convenient that is! How enabling that is! And obviously, no one knows when or how often that cellular signal is necessary so it HAS to be available 24/7.
Also obvious is the fact that if the consumer were to use a plan where they pay for only the Mbits they use, like it was long ago, it would cost WAY more NOT LESS! . Thus the suit makes no sense. What's out there in the cellular offerings is widespread, varied, offered by many different companies (MNVOs) is in no way shape or form, monopolizing and any other way of doling out the ability for the company or the customer to use wifi or cellular would cost the consumers much more. The whole thing is the most ridiculous contention and lawsuit I've ever heard of.
All I said above, is directly based on the verbiage used in the suit, which has been posted here and I read it.
It's stupid... Take away the ability of the carriers to save by utilizing wifi when possible, then the customers bills will double or triple.
Duh
I GUARANTEE YOU THAT VPLM's PART IN THIS IS PURELY DIVERSIONARY!
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments 9
nyt
1 week ago
For anybody that doesn't believe my statement that the emu claims Vplm invented wifi calling, just read these answers from him recently:
"Answer: "VoIP-Pal cannot simply walk away and allow our Wi-Fi calling technologies to be deployed illegally. We have a responsibility to our 6,000 shareholders to protect the value of what we've created.
Answer: "It's been an extremely tough road, with many sleepless nights, but what keeps me going is the strong hope and conviction in VoIP-Pal's technical Wi-Fi calling invention.
Above, is what's commonly known as a crock of shit. And don't forget, if you had wifi ONLY calling......well guess what.......YOU WOULDN'T!
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
sunspotter
15 hours ago
Dontnosheet
2 days ago
Hot Features
Premium
