Member Info for nockynoo

from the link posted at 20:42

"Our licensing deal with Dow allows display application customers access to a secure supply line of world leading CFQD® quantum dots manufactured by one of the world’s largest and most respected chemical companies"

it almost appears to be an admission the that nano are not directly
supplying cfqd to for downstream display applications.

*We believe we are the only company with the ability to produce high quality, cadmium-free quantum dots in commercial quantities*

note not the emphatic *we are world leaders in the supply of cfqd*
also as Samsung are already in commercial production of cfqd display it is clearly wrong.

if nano's prospects are so good, why have LO just sold another tranche of stock

feeks, its a bird with a long neck

jplay the only factor that dictates the share price
is supply and demand, all these conspiracy theories
are absolute tosh and nonsense..
it is a market with buyers and sellers

its interesting that osram are involved in the programme
given that nano severed their joint research with osram into cfqd use
in lighting approx 3 years ago, however still an interesting read, good find

nigwit, if so, perhaps you ought to return.to fill placate the residents

the post 14:15 yesterday answers diddly squaut.
the only answer that is relevant is are the posters on this
board saying nanosys are lying about the touch taiwan video

nigwit comment about the touch taiwan recap vidoe on nanosys homepage

"This short recap video includes a walk-through of the show floor highlighting the latest
Nanosys ***Cadmium Free tech*** from 8K TVs to HDR gaming monitors."

are you saying they are telling porky pies?

mars, nanosys also have no control when displays/tv using
their product comes to market.. The difference
being their product is being used in current production of display/tv

nigwit do you honestly think AUO would allow nanosys to state
their displays were cad free if it was n't true?
As for your second statement (hey and their licencees remain the only suppliers of CFQDs.)
perhaps you don't want to recognize reality,.

nigwit, as i have stated previously, but here it is again in case you don't understand
patents don't produce profit or pay dividends.

attendees will be required to leave their wallets and signed cheque books
nano will fill in the amounts.

nigwit I suggest you study the use of contextual english,
using effete, which implies artificiality or pretence.
There is nothing pretentious about asking the same question 4
times because you point blank refuse to answer

nigwit do you think offering cheap share options to people
who have n't earned them, whilst denying them to long term
investors.is ethical.
Yes or No?

warren you have a vivid imagination conjuring up images
of me as an investigative journalist. You ought to be more
circumspect. After all the 18p distribution was done at yours and
every other established investor in nano's expense, the bod appear
to be treating nano like an in house branch of wonga or their
own personal piggybank at your expense.

nigwit do you think offering cheap share options to people
who have n't earned them, whilst denying them to long term
investors.is ethical.
Yes or No?

HL show a year low of 22.0p

nanonano
publish a link to the chart showing the drop.
in the meantime look at the sp chart on the HL website.
ps another 6 foot white rabbit has been spotted in the vicinity of runcorn,
possibly the same one seen leaving nano HQ in manchester

nigwit
1 When was my request for documentary proof of the sp dropping to 18p answered
2 if you consider requesting evidence to back up unroven statements and generalisation's
is a slite, I am in awe of your definition of an insult
3 I do not use profane language or inference.

the only response to reasoned critique on this board appears to be shoot the messenger.
bit like trump threatening to jail journalists who don't write nice things about him.
again nigwit, et al when was the sp 18p