"it is a website by shareholders."
""But it must be a "TUAG" website, or at least one that is operated by a TUAG affiliate.""
- OPINION OR FACT????
All this talk but yet it is mostly another opinion unless it can be definitively proven either way, RIGHT LOAN?
Where's the beef? I see no supporting evidence in your post that TAUG or an affiliate is responsible for the website, it's been made clear in the past that bringing an argument to the table must be backed by law, document, PR, not just ihub chatter, so please.... I ask you, Where is the connection, PROOF showing that TAUG is responsible for the website.
