• cocobean
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    They figured out how to make a superscript 5 but can’t type “for” or “to”. Amazing

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Just incredible stuff. People like this need to be tracked and catalogued so we can understand them better

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    This guy is going to a lot of trouble he doesn’t need to. I mean, the “non commercial” limitation is due to a law of the land. But all he has to do is convey that vehicle to a boat ramp and let it touch water from time to time. Now it is no longer a land vehicle; it is a maritime vessel, portaging overland between ports. It is now immune to the laws of the land, and the laws of the sea don’t have a “non-commercial” limitation.

    You do need to remove the “private” placard from your conveyance, and affix a “maritime” placard instead. And I’d be happy to grift you sell you such a placard.

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 days ago

    Their excellent spelling and grammar assures me that this is someone who certainly knows what they’re talking about

    • Noel_Skum
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Honestly I found it really easy to read - not sure what that says about me though. I often find this illiterate text-to-speech style is “easier” to decipher when I read it out loud (albeit in my head). I’m not sure if that last sentence will make sense to everybody.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 days ago

      The poor spelling is a filter, much like scam (Nigerian at the time) emails, they don’t want people who will question their motives, just people who are looking for an easy easy out

      • kata1yst
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        No, I appreciate it! Couldn’t find a complete gif that didn’t look thoroughly nuked.

  • cheezoid2
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you’re driving to, say, the store to get some milk, wouldn’t that count as travelling for business? There would be a transaction involved.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      No, because you just travel privately, the travel ends, conveniently there’s a store there (that’s why they’re called convenience stores), you do your business (no drive through!), and then you travel home with your souvenirs.

  • wjrii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yet more evidence that anything that goes well for them is cops/clerks/judges/etc who don’t think they’re creating an imminent danger and don’t want to deal with their shit that day.

  • J'Pol @lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’ve often wondered how many of the sovcit posts are honeypots made by local cops.