The authors themselves seem to seek a way to make more out of the discovery and kept comparing it to shitty pants in vague ways. I'm taking those authors with a grain of salt. All media on the internet now take any contribution from anyone, and in the sites disclaimers is always the part where they take no liability from contributions, so the internet site source is no longer a gauge to the veracity of the contribution. Even when it's worded that the author contributes regular to the site. And some news sites pay people as well as a contractual type arrangement which again doesn't always mean the authors comply with the slant of the site.
This is a common mind game that stock promoters use constantly. Putting up stock info on known websites as if the site asked them to do so, but the impression is incorrectly perceived by stock chat readers as 'it must be true, it's on bloomberg or cnbc'
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.