|
Omitting part of a sentence, changing its meaning to the opposite is quite a bit different from omitting another part of the document. I would not have complained if you had included the second part of that sentence.
I think that the text is inconsistent and it is really wierd. In one paragraph it says that Dell is not responsible for what third parties are posting in the forums, etc. Then in another paragraph it says that Dell is not responsible for anything, regardless of who posts it. This just doesn't make sense. It also says that the moderators are authorized representatives of Dell. If you put this together, the result is that Dell is not responsible for what an authorized representative of Dell says. Which I find a bit wierd. What is the meaning of authorization and representation then?
Since the text is self-contradictory, I have my doubts about its value if Dell tried to use it in an actual legal procedure.
Anyway, let's close this issue.
|