"it was removed cause the information was obvious, no extra information or opinion given"
I respectfully disagree.
The original message stated the S-8 was filed Dec 29th. That was not obvious to me (and I suspect others) because I don't monitor routine SEC filings unless they are PR'd (which this one was not).
The original message also added "look out below", which is opinion and suggests more dilution is coming. That was either misquided or deliberately misleading. I don't know which, but I felt the rest of the story should be told. (The S-8 was not a 50 million share shelf registration, it was a 1 million share registration for use in the employee's stock purchase plan.)
Deleting the "to the moons" is OK, but deleting ALL oneliners is arbitrary and capricious (for the lawyers). Sometimes oneliners can say a lot.
Subject closed as far as I'm concerned, but I prefer to make my own decisions as to how much weight to give any message.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
