I will agree with you in part, but I will also kindly disagree.
Having the right to free speech does not enable one to say anything and everything they want. Honor and respect dictate that some things do not necessarily have to be discussed in the public setting.
Some of us have "unofficially" adopted a certain code of conduct, as it pertains to posting information. Part of that "code" is that we seek to fully understand the entirety of facts behind a story, before we post any of it in part. This is done so that facts are still presented, however, partiality is not portrayed or set forth as "absolute truth".
I pursued the "entirety" of the Child Watch story, and exactly as Mr. Wood described it, I found the "entire truth". Instead of posting a "half truth" and demeaning a man's character, I learned the "whole truth" and actually gained a greater respect for the man.
Public forums can be a dangerous place. Words have meaning. Real people are involved here, and real money is at risk. Each one of us should carefully consider the content of our posts and should take our "free speech" as a responsibility, as much as we do as a right.
JMO. I appreciate your candor and willingness to further discuss this issue. I'm glad that Mr. Wood took the time to clarify the details of this issue and to candidly talk to the shareholders about the past.
Perhaps the other issue you have in question, should be DD'd thoroughly through appropriate channels and then the whole story, if in fact there is one, be posted for all to understand.
All the best.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
