2 ms·
I think we can get the gist of what they're trying to say without nitpicking on the particular word they used. However, I've no doubt a court could argue it is
by NoPicklez 1y ago
I think we can get the gist of what they're trying to say without nitpicking on the particular word they used. However, I've no doubt a court could argue it is considered tampering with enough creative legalese, where it not just implies but is to make alterations to or even touch something you shouldn't.
- drdaeman 1y agoFair point, thank you. In practice - yes, that could happen I guess. I lived in Russia, I've seen a lot worse "creativity" from the courts. Ideally, though, such "creative legalese" shouldn't be a thing, as it ultimately does more harm than good.
- NoPicklez 1y agoAbsolutely I agree, and for that reason I'd rather not toe the line of the law when it comes to things like aircraft