Perhaps you missed this, or could not understand it?

"Thus, regardless of how many negatives you see floating there must be some perceived balance in your mind against the positives you see floating, or no reasonable person would stay invested."

I never suggested that balance be somehow created on baseless arguments. There are definite negatives without a fully offsetting positive. And vice versa. But based on my above conclusion (which IMO is not arguable), certainly there is a "balance point". The proposal is to depict it.

I suspect the depiction would probably consist of a slew of negatives, largely based on the distant past up to the present, and a few positives based on the recent past into the future. While each may have a counter-argument (and each probably should), some items will ultimately be perceived as negative, and some positive or less negative. When completed, the reader can try to grasp the whole picture and draw their own conclusions.

As for facts versus conjecture, herein lies the biggest challenge, and the probable basis of many counter-arguments. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. And it is typically factual. But where the conjecture comes in is when one places themselves at the decision point, looking into the future.

For instance, was promoting Turley a good idea at the moment in time when that decision was made? While this may be arguable and in hindsight it may not have been such a great idea, as I recall when it happened folks were generally happy with that decision. Is it right to penalize the company at this late date? Does it matter any more?

SGE