Its fair to say there are a copious number post event therapists...

Its fair to say there are a copious number post event therapists on all HC forums who provide insight into the dangers of investing in specific stocks. Additionally, the HC Terms of Use clearly states that you should be careful not to use the information exchanged on the threads as investment advice - fair warning and requires people to lean into it and own the implications if they do the contrary.

Generally those who post a substitute for 'critical analysis' limit themselves to very high level generalisations at worst or sloppy analysis at best, so its not unusal for them to be challenged or dimissed by those who have put in the research leg work. Why should anyone take downramping baseless head lines any more seriously then gifs of rocket ships?

Furthermore, when people parade post event spruiking stories about the CEO attempting to influence and muffle market commentators without a shred of evidence, quite some claim, why is that any different from the less sophisticated downramping machine on principle, other than an attempt to negatively influence with a little more subtle nuance.

Good public discourse is easy to write and aspire to, but a little more difficult to execute so it appears... happy to have you prove me wrong on the CEO comment with factual evidence. Anything less now you've made it, places you in the same bucket of slop you are so desparate to bring awareness too.