That's what I did. I verified it by posting the definition of a "gagged TA". I didn't make it up myself. The definition & the article came from ihub & infopedia. The purpose, as I stated, was to clear up the debate. The definition is clearly given and supports a gagged TA. It is not at all surprising that they are gagged, as vplm has historically used every possible tactic & device to not disclose anything that might be seen as negative about them, for example, when they outright lied about not having anything to do w/the sawyer letters and then, when push came to shove, and they had to print a sort of retraction, it was not even a real retraction, as it was as DECEPTIVE as it gets. In the PR, they fail to state what exactly IS being retracted and instead simply issued a new PR and left it entirely up to readers to try to figure out what was different or changed from the orig statement where they denied collusion. It was a flatnout lie! And they did whatever they thought they could get away with to hide it, both the orig collusion w/sawyer and the failure to admit they lied about it when busted. That's just one of many such examples of them lying, decieving and covering things up. There are so many. I've posted many here. They get ignored or treated as trivialities, but they are not. Anyway, since the long ongoing argument about gagged, not gagged never seemed to be answered definitively, I thought I would research it. The definition/explanation seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.
