• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Also stated at least three times in the article you didn’t read – as early as the second paragraph of the main prose.

        Major Hellstrom from Inglorious Basterds seeing three fingers

        • Corvidae@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          7 hours ago

          There is no text in the article, it’s just a headline. I can take a screen shot to prove it, but you’re just a nobody.

          • vortic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I’m not sure if you’re using a broken app or something but there is definitely text there. Here are the first three paragraphs.

            President Donald Trump has allowec the use of cheaper red-dyed diesel. typically reserved for farm operations, to be used more broadly in an attempt to bring down record-high fuel costs

            Trump signed an executive order Monday evening stateside to temporarily allow truckers and farmers to use red-dved diesel - which is exempt from highway fuek taxes - and deferred related taxes on the fuel through the end of this year

            The tax-free diesel is typically used by farm equipment, construction machinery, trucks and other off-road vehicles. It is therefore exempt from a 24.4-cent-per-gallon tax applied to dliesel fuel sold for highway transportation.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Here’s an archive of the article if you’re wanting to read it and having technical difficulties (or for anyone else who is; sorry, the Wayback Machine doesn’t capture the full article).

            I was never going to assume you were lying about your experience if you claimed “there is no article”; it’d be such a batshit claim if you knew one existed.

              • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 hours ago

                backing up my “batshit claim”.

                I said “it’d be a batshit claim if” followed by something that I acknowledged wasn’t true – a hypothetical. As in it would’ve been batshit to knowingly lie about that. I understood why you couldn’t read the article, but why you couldn’t understand this basic if/then statement is beyond me.