I read your post Eagle and I still don't understand how you think "may expend no MF in the road... beyond the minimum..." the hypens in 'dashed-to' not withstanding.... means that you can spend 2 MF there. The phrase "expend no MF in the road" cannot be independent of "beyond the minimum."
This is truly an edge case that comes up one in a zillion games -- Dashing thru a woods-road intersection. I want to agree with you Eagle. I think it makes perfect sense that a unit can dash across a woods road intersection, from whereever, and pay 2 MF and avoid FFMO. I'm so ok with that. But I also honestly think that if someone (but not me) wanted to be a psychopathic rules lawyer, the rules text of "may expend no MF in the road... beyond the minimum" means you must spend the minimum MF in the road hex. What else could it mean? It certainly doesn't mean you can't expend MF at all,because that would mean you can't dash, at all. What completes the thought... "may expend no MF in the road..."? because something must complete it.
If you want me to sign a statement saying it's better your way, I will sign! But I think the rule text supports the other interpretation.
(FWIW as I read it you've also got to spend the minimum in the dashed to location. Eg. If the dashed to location is a multilevel building you enter the ground floor, only. In the intersection case, If it's a woods-road intersection you dash thru and the dashed to location is woods road. You've got to spend road mf in that destination too. No dashing into woods if the destination hex is connecting woods-road you've entered from a road hexside. This could potentially nullify the dash by turning the destination into Open Ground. )