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 Inc. - Moderated (REFR)
An SI Board Since May 2004
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol SI Sentiment
46 7 0 REFR ★★★★★ (Strong Buy)
Emcee:  613 Type:  Moderated
Moderated to remove only annoying posters that currently include one long (N. Dixon) and one short (gary schrimpf).
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
46Now SPD has Raytheon's approval. Much more significant than a small Long Is613-2/9/2007
45No argument there! The only positive thing out of this annual meeting was the f613-6/14/2005
44<<But we still need someone to make the stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!>>> YeaArea51-6/14/2005
43Annual meeting coming up next week but I'm sure everyone that follows REFR a613-6/2/2005
42A REFR Haiku Forty years ago Robert Saxe saw the future Hoofnagle welfareBill Wexler-4/22/2005
41Hey Bill, Glad to see someone posting to this board<g>! Will you admit yo613-12/7/2004
40<b>Update on the REFR stock fraud 12/3/2004</b> As many of you are Bill Wexler-12/3/2004
39Bink or Wexler? Results speak for themselves: Wexler 9/27/2001: <<<BBill Wexler-8/19/2004
38The amazing BINK 8/10/2004 <<<I can not judge what the two people I mBill Wexler-8/19/2004
37613, I can not judge what the two people I mentioned say here since I refuse to BinkY2K18/10/2004
36Thank you for your interest in the REFR Moderated board. I see we have a wider 613-8/10/2004
35Moderation? I took a look at SI and see this group has new messages. It claims BinkY2K-8/10/2004
34Wex: One for you - what's your comment on the recent large purchases of REF613-7/27/2004
33re: LaPointe. What are you getting at and why is he a target? He's only a P613-7/27/2004
32I must have missed this post. Here's the late response. <<Have you 613-7/27/2004
31WANTED: information about Michael LaPointe To all REFR investors and interestedBill Wexler-7/27/2004
30<<Have you forwarded this info to the SEC?>> Yes. We also sent numBill Wexler-6/28/2004
291. re: scam/fraudulent. As long as you don't keep yelling it without other f613-6/28/2004
28<<If you want to have a discussion about REFR issue, let's leave the wBill Wexler-6/28/2004
27>>The more relevant question is, is anyone seriously working to generate s613-6/22/2004
26<I>Management has no credibility - agreed. I would boot them in a second fKevin Podsiadlik-6/21/2004
25I call it immoral and PR's were, IMO, deceptive but probably not illegal as 613-6/21/2004
24<I>If you want to have a discussion about REFR issue, let's leave the Kevin Podsiadlik-6/21/2004
23FYI - I had a private email conversation with gschrimpf. I never read all his p613-6/16/2004
22If you want to have a discussion about REFR issue, let's leave the words fra613-6/15/2004
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):