Are you really trying to argue that because people don't really understand the word, the word should be included? Surely, the logic should be because people don't really understand the word, the word [i]shouldn't[/i] be included, as leaving out the word actually delivers exactly what you want anyway? You're making no sense here. Talking about "authorisation" just confuses the issue. You clearly don't want to talk about what authorisation actually means, you clearly don't care and you clearly [i]want[/i] to ban all modification talk. Leaving the word in there, coupled with the actual meaning of the word and events such as MS's [url=http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/01/windows-phone-7-jailbreakers/]tacit[/url] [url=http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/11/open-kinect/]authorisation[/url] of the modification of their products just leaves the rule meaning absolutely nothing. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ArchAssain So basically obey the rules here (because that where you are) and be nice. Or don't obey and be punished is the bottom line and who care about what terminology it is explained in? I like it![/quote]What on earth are you talking about? The issue here is that the rule [i]actually[/i] means the complete opposite of what is intended. Someone with a proper knowledge of their rights as a consumer could, in theory, follow the rules and fall foul of their intent. The whole point of the rewrite was clarity. [Edited on 01.25.2011 12:31 PM PST]