Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Research Frontiers (REFR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: inchingup who wrote (4862)	2/24/2004 11:16:54 PM
From: inchingup	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50495

Nancy Dixon is a complete Fraud: She has posted 1000's of lies on this board and on the Yahoo board. Nancy is a well known cult member and has many groupies following her. These miserable creeps have no morals, ethics, or code of honor. They believe that by osmosis they can move mountains. They will threaten people with legal action, get cozy with management, receive insider information not available to others, and likely take a blood oath never to sell a stock. This cult is truly amazing. Most have held their stock for a period of 8 years and missed the opportunity to make 10's or 100's of times the amount others have made in the market. The group though is now coming apart at the seams. Several members have broken their ties and now are intent on selling their stock against the wishes of others. Knowing this, the cult will lie, cheat, mislead, and deceive to find other suckers to buy the stock as they have invested 100% of their funds to try and save this company that is dying. They are dead broke and have no way to support the stock on their own. Nancy tried this gimmick before with BCAM...and the CEO took off with the entire cults money to avoid prosecution. Facing imminent demise the cult members plead, cheat, and distort looking to steal dollars from outside sources to save their dying company. Fortunately, smart investors have read the rantings of Nancy starting some years 7 years ago and know she is totally demented. Watch your wallet or the thieves running this operation will steal from you like they have stolen from others.

To: inchingup who wrote (4862)	2/27/2004 11:25:52 PM
From: inchingup	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50495

REFR IS IT A SCAM OR A FRAUD? You decide. REFR has survived by issuing materially misleading and deceptive statements since 1989. Neither Saxe nor Harary has ever recanted their claims of profits and sales for REFR that date back to 1990. All they have done is keep the carrot stuck in front of the jackass's faces. In fact, it now appears from perusing the filings that REFRs "income" may have only been a kickback on research and development funds granted to licensees. There is no evidence that REFR has ever sold a single product in an arms length transaction in their 39 year history. REFR has also manipulated the stock price by stating that it initiated a buyback program for the stock, and then only days later turned around and issued stock instead. Most of REFRs buyback programs were negative to investors. In other words, REFR, a company with no capital of its own, only that raised through an offshore fund, has had an ongoing track record of manipulation by deception. I suggest you look at every buyback program and attempt to find one that REFR bought back shares at a lower price than they issued them. REFR management in 2002 issued a glowing update on the outlook for SPD and on the same day it was issued, Bob Saxe started unloading 100,000 shares of stock. The entire transaction took a week to execute and investors were not informed until after sales had been made. REFR management, both Saxe and Harary did the same thing on days surrounding a 1998 or 1999 press release touting delivery of the goop to MSC and in a CC some time later. REFR also failed to mention in its 2002 filing that some of the income it received was from SPDi. Acutally it amounted to nearly 1/4 of the annual take for REFR. Then, only months later REFR gave investors money back to SPDi under another pretense having to do with the so-called investment in SPDi. REFR insinuated sales and/or profits in 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2001. In 2001 their "expectations" were for a possible Q4 2002 profitability and a full year of profitability in 2003. Unfortunately for investors REFR had a better income statement in 2000, before the so-called introduction of products. Before the introduction of so-called SPD products REFR licensees were apparently told not to provide progress reports on SPD because it was "proprietary". Since SPD was introduced, inquirees I have made to several licensees ended up with responses along the lines of "we can give out no information, however, although we cannot/will not give out information it is illegal for you to publish what we have not told you." In other words, most companies would be happy to get inquirees from possible buyers, yet the companies that I tried to contract threatened legal action instead of appeasing a possible customer. REFR stated for years that SPD went from "clear to dark or anywhere in between". They finally stopped using that material misrepresentation after my friend Beamer and I discovered that the clear state was close to that of muddy water in our opinion. REFR also taunted GNTX in 1994 stating that they believed that SPD mirrors would be cheaper and faster responding. Of course, 10 years later REFR has yet to show a sample mirror for a vehicle that I know of. REFR intimated many, many, times that SPD would sell for $10-20 per square foot meaning a reasonable price. So far, the quotes received, not products sold, were quoted at a minimum of 5-7 times the higher amount making SPD well beyond the reach of the average buyer. REFR licensees are a joke also. THV, the company first touted by REFR as the purveyor or SPD windows to the public stated it has unused SPD that they cannot do anything with. Inspectech outright lied when they stated they intended to sell 5K airplane windows per month in 2002, even after the 9/11 attack. So far they have known sales of Zero. The cockpit door fiasco was another black eye for REFR when one of the principles of the company involved took offense at how they were presented by REFR. Today, several years after the fact no one even mentions them. REFR to date if I remember correctly has 3 licensees signed to make SPD sunvisors. This is the twelfth year since they were first announced and nary a sunvisor has been seen. REFR also touted SPD as a replacement for LCD's. I believe in 1984 Saxe intimated that SPD would be replacing LCD in the near future. Obviously, that never came about either. In a 1997 press release Hankuk stated their intention to build a plant to produce SPD in 1998. Several years after that fact a plant was supposedly built funded partially by REFR investors. That plant was supposedly going to turn out 20K square feet of SPD per month starting in 2003 and was also in 2002 filling back orders. Where are the 1/2 million square feet of SPD? In 2002 it was also brought out by a party not part of the REFR organization that SPD had streaking problems. Of course, REFR never informed investors of this themselves before the fact/ REFR also touted Reid Glass in Michigan as a distributor of the product and that they were going to send a large display there for customer to view. The next thing we heard about from Reid Glas was in an article in Forbes last fall whereby Reid Glass was of the same opinion as Beamer and I and that SPD was not a reasonable product to market. The above is only a glossed over history of the REFR stock scam. There is more, much more

To: inchingup who wrote (4862)	2/28/2004 8:45:25 PM
From: inchingup	Respond to of 50495

How REFR management steals from investors-Must Read! REFR IS IT A SCAM OR A FRAUD? You decide. REFR has survived by issuing materially misleading and deceptive statements since 1989. Neither Saxe nor Harary has ever recanted their claims of profits and sales for REFR that date back to 1990. All they have done is keep the carrot stuck in front of the jackass's faces. In fact, it now appears from perusing the filings that REFRs "income" may have only been a kickback on research and development funds granted to licensees. There is no evidence that REFR has ever sold a single product in an arms length transaction in their 39 year history. REFR has also manipulated the stock price by stating that it initiated a buyback program for the stock, and then only days later turned around and issued stock instead. Most of REFRs buyback programs were negative to investors. In other words, REFR, a company with no capital of its own, only that raised through an offshore fund, has had an ongoing track record of manipulation by deception. I suggest you look at every buyback program and attempt to find one that REFR bought back shares at a lower price than they issued them. REFR management in 2002 issued a glowing update on the outlook for SPD and on the same day it was issued, Bob Saxe started unloading 100,000 shares of stock. The entire transaction took a week to execute and investors were not informed until after sales had been made. REFR management, both Saxe and Harary did the same thing on days surrounding a 1998 or 1999 press release touting delivery of the goop to MSC and in a CC some time later. REFR also failed to mention in its 2002 filing that some of the income it received was from SPDi. Acutally it amounted to nearly 1/4 of the annual take for REFR. Then, only months later REFR gave investors money back to SPDi under another pretense having to do with the so-called investment in SPDi. REFR insinuated sales and/or profits in 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2001. In 2001 their "expectations" were for a possible Q4 2002 profitability and a full year of profitability in 2003. Unfortunately for investors REFR had a better income statement in 2000, before the so-called introduction of products. Before the introduction of so-called SPD products REFR licensees were apparently told not to provide progress reports on SPD because it was "proprietary". Since SPD was introduced, inquirees I have made to several licensees ended up with responses along the lines of "we can give out no information, however, although we cannot/will not give out information it is illegal for you to publish what we have not told you." In other words, most companies would be happy to get inquirees from possible buyers, yet the companies that I tried to contract threatened legal action instead of appeasing a possible customer. REFR stated for years that SPD went from "clear to dark or anywhere in between". They finally stopped using that material misrepresentation after my friend Beamer and I discovered that the clear state was close to that of muddy water in our opinion. REFR also taunted GNTX in 1994 stating that they believed that SPD mirrors would be cheaper and faster responding. Of course, 10 years later REFR has yet to show a sample mirror for a vehicle that I know of. REFR intimated many, many, times that SPD would sell for $10-20 per square foot meaning a reasonable price. So far, the quotes received, not products sold, were quoted at a minimum of 5-7 times the higher amount making SPD well beyond the reach of the average buyer. REFR licensees are a joke also. THV, the company first touted by REFR as the purveyor or SPD windows to the public stated it has unused SPD that they cannot do anything with. Inspectech outright lied when they stated they intended to sell 5K airplane windows per month in 2002, even after the 9/11 attack. So far they have known sales of Zero. The cockpit door fiasco was another black eye for REFR when one of the principles of the company involved took offense at how they were presented by REFR. Today, several years after the fact no one even mentions them. REFR to date if I remember correctly has 3 licensees signed to make SPD sunvisors. This is the twelfth year since they were first announced and nary a sunvisor has been seen. REFR also touted SPD as a replacement for LCD's. I believe in 1984 Saxe intimated that SPD would be replacing LCD in the near future. Obviously, that never came about either. In a 1997 press release Hankuk stated their intention to build a plant to produce SPD in 1998. Several years after that fact a plant was supposedly built funded partially by REFR investors. That plant was supposedly going to turn out 20K square feet of SPD per month starting in 2003 and was also in 2002 filling back orders. Where are the 1/2 million square feet of SPD? In 2002 it was also brought out by a party not part of the REFR organization that SPD had streaking problems. Of course, REFR never informed investors of this themselves before the fact/ REFR also touted Reid Glass in Michigan as a distributor of the product and that they were going to send a large display there for customer to view. The next thing we heard about from Reid Glas was in an article in Forbes last fall whereby Reid Glass was of the same opinion as Beamer and I and that SPD was not a reasonable product to market. The above is only a glossed over history of the REFR stock scam. There is more, much more

To: inchingup who wrote (4862)	3/1/2004 5:43:16 PM
From: inchingup	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50495

REFR IS IT A SCAM OR A FRAUD? You decide. REFR has survived by issuing materially misleading and deceptive statements since 1989. Neither Saxe nor Harary has ever recanted their claims of profits and sales for REFR that date back to 1990. All they have done is keep the carrot stuck in front of the jackass's faces. In fact, it now appears from perusing the filings that REFRs "income" may have only been a kickback on research and development funds granted to licensees. There is no evidence that REFR has ever sold a single product in an arms length transaction in their 39 year history. REFR has also manipulated the stock price by stating that it initiated a buyback program for the stock, and then only days later turned around and issued stock instead. Most of REFRs buyback programs were negative to investors. In other words, REFR, a company with no capital of its own, only that raised through an offshore fund, has had an ongoing track record of manipulation by deception. I suggest you look at every buyback program and attempt to find one that REFR bought back shares at a lower price than they issued them. REFR management in 2002 issued a glowing update on the outlook for SPD and on the same day it was issued, Bob Saxe started unloading 100,000 shares of stock. The entire transaction took a week to execute and investors were not informed until after sales had been made. REFR management, both Saxe and Harary did the same thing on days surrounding a 1998 or 1999 press release touting delivery of the goop to MSC and in a CC some time later. REFR also failed to mention in its 2002 filing that some of the income it received was from SPDi. Acutally it amounted to nearly 1/4 of the annual take for REFR. Then, only months later REFR gave investors money back to SPDi under another pretense having to do with the so-called investment in SPDi. REFR insinuated sales and/or profits in 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2001. In 2001 their "expectations" were for a possible Q4 2002 profitability and a full year of profitability in 2003. Unfortunately for investors REFR had a better income statement in 2000, before the so-called introduction of products. Before the introduction of so-called SPD products REFR licensees were apparently told not to provide progress reports on SPD because it was "proprietary". Since SPD was introduced, inquirees I have made to several licensees ended up with responses along the lines of "we can give out no information, however, although we cannot/will not give out information it is illegal for you to publish what we have not told you." In other words, most companies would be happy to get inquirees from possible buyers, yet the companies that I tried to contract threatened legal action instead of appeasing a possible customer. REFR stated for years that SPD went from "clear to dark or anywhere in between". They finally stopped using that material misrepresentation after my friend Beamer and I discovered that the clear state was close to that of muddy water in our opinion. REFR also taunted GNTX in 1994 stating that they believed that SPD mirrors would be cheaper and faster responding. Of course, 10 years later REFR has yet to show a sample mirror for a vehicle that I know of. REFR intimated many, many, times that SPD would sell for $10-20 per square foot meaning a reasonable price. So far, the quotes received, not products sold, were quoted at a minimum of 5-7 times the higher amount making SPD well beyond the reach of the average buyer. REFR licensees are a joke also. THV, the company first touted by REFR as the purveyor or SPD windows to the public stated it has unused SPD that they cannot do anything with. Inspectech outright lied when they stated they intended to sell 5K airplane windows per month in 2002, even after the 9/11 attack. So far they have known sales of Zero. The cockpit door fiasco was another black eye for REFR when one of the principles of the company involved took offense at how they were presented by REFR. Today, several years after the fact no one even mentions them. REFR to date if I remember correctly has 3 licensees signed to make SPD sunvisors. This is the twelfth year since they were first announced and nary a sunvisor has been seen. REFR also touted SPD as a replacement for LCD's. I believe in 1984 Saxe intimated that SPD would be replacing LCD in the near future. Obviously, that never came about either. In a 1997 press release Hankuk stated their intention to build a plant to produce SPD in 1998. Several years after that fact a plant was supposedly built funded partially by REFR investors. That plant was supposedly going to turn out 20K square feet of SPD per month starting in 2003 and was also in 2002 filling back orders. Where are the 1/2 million square feet of SPD? In 2002 it was also brought out by a party not part of the REFR organization that SPD had streaking problems. Of course, REFR never informed investors of this themselves before the fact/ REFR also touted Reid Glass in Michigan as a distributor of the product and that they were going to send a large display there for customer to view. The next thing we heard about from Reid Glas was in an article in Forbes last fall whereby Reid Glass was of the same opinion as Beamer and I and that SPD was not a reasonable product to market. The above is only a glossed over history of the REFR stock scam. There is more, much more

To: inchingup who wrote (4862)	3/3/2004 12:14:02 PM
From: inchingup	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50495

REFR IS IT A SCAM OR A FRAUD? You decide. REFR has survived by issuing materially misleading and deceptive statements since 1989. Neither Saxe nor Harary has ever recanted their claims of profits and sales for REFR that date back to 1990. All they have done is keep the carrot stuck in front of the jackass's faces. In fact, it now appears from perusing the filings that REFRs "income" may have only been a kickback on research and development funds granted to licensees. There is no evidence that REFR has ever sold a single product in an arms length transaction in their 39 year history. REFR has also manipulated the stock price by stating that it initiated a buyback program for the stock, and then only days later turned around and issued stock instead. Most of REFRs buyback programs were negative to investors. In other words, REFR, a company with no capital of its own, only that raised through an offshore fund, has had an ongoing track record of manipulation by deception. I suggest you look at every buyback program and attempt to find one that REFR bought back shares at a lower price than they issued them. REFR management in 2002 issued a glowing update on the outlook for SPD and on the same day it was issued, Bob Saxe started unloading 100,000 shares of stock. The entire transaction took a week to execute and investors were not informed until after sales had been made. REFR management, both Saxe and Harary did the same thing on days surrounding a 1998 or 1999 press release touting delivery of the goop to MSC and in a CC some time later. REFR also failed to mention in its 2002 filing that some of the income it received was from SPDi. Acutally it amounted to nearly 1/4 of the annual take for REFR. Then, only months later REFR gave investors money back to SPDi under another pretense having to do with the so-called investment in SPDi. REFR insinuated sales and/or profits in 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2001. In 2001 their "expectations" were for a possible Q4 2002 profitability and a full year of profitability in 2003. Unfortunately for investors REFR had a better income statement in 2000, before the so-called introduction of products. Before the introduction of so-called SPD products REFR licensees were apparently told not to provide progress reports on SPD because it was "proprietary". Since SPD was introduced, inquirees I have made to several licensees ended up with responses along the lines of "we can give out no information, however, although we cannot/will not give out information it is illegal for you to publish what we have not told you." In other words, most companies would be happy to get inquirees from possible buyers, yet the companies that I tried to contract threatened legal action instead of appeasing a possible customer. REFR stated for years that SPD went from "clear to dark or anywhere in between". They finally stopped using that material misrepresentation after my friend Beamer and I discovered that the clear state was close to that of muddy water in our opinion. REFR also taunted GNTX in 1994 stating that they believed that SPD mirrors would be cheaper and faster responding. Of course, 10 years later REFR has yet to show a sample mirror for a vehicle that I know of. REFR intimated many, many, times that SPD would sell for $10-20 per square foot meaning a reasonable price. So far, the quotes received, not products sold, were quoted at a minimum of 5-7 times the higher amount making SPD well beyond the reach of the average buyer. REFR licensees are a joke also. THV, the company first touted by REFR as the purveyor or SPD windows to the public stated it has unused SPD that they cannot do anything with. Inspectech outright lied when they stated they intended to sell 5K airplane windows per month in 2002, even after the 9/11 attack. So far they have known sales of Zero. The cockpit door fiasco was another black eye for REFR when one of the principles of the company involved took offense at how they were presented by REFR. Today, several years after the fact no one even mentions them. REFR to date if I remember correctly has 3 licensees signed to make SPD sunvisors. This is the twelfth year since they were first announced and nary a sunvisor has been seen. REFR also touted SPD as a replacement for LCD's. I believe in 1984 Saxe intimated that SPD would be replacing LCD in the near future. Obviously, that never came about either. In a 1997 press release Hankuk stated their intention to build a plant to produce SPD in 1998. Several years after that fact a plant was supposedly built funded partially by REFR investors. That plant was supposedly going to turn out 20K square feet of SPD per month starting in 2003 and was also in 2002 filling back orders. Where are the 1/2 million square feet of SPD? In 2002 it was also brought out by a party not part of the REFR organization that SPD had streaking problems. Of course, REFR never informed investors of this themselves before the fact/ REFR also touted Reid Glass in Michigan as a distributor of the product and that they were going to send a large display there for customer to view. The next thing we heard about from Reid Glas was in an article in Forbes last fall whereby Reid Glass was of the same opinion as Beamer and I and that SPD was not a reasonable product to market. The above is only a glossed over history of the REFR stock scam. There is more, much more