<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<pre wrap="">Hi Bastien,
</pre>
> I believe even political points deserve to be based on logic <span
class="moz-smiley-s1" title=":)"></span><br>
<br>
> In fact, I’m <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>really<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <span
class="moz-txt-underscore"><span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span>really<span
class="moz-txt-tag">_</span></span> surprised so many people
agree with using Facebook for spreading FLOSS values... guys???!!!!!<br>
<br>
>That’s my gut reaction.<br>
<br>
You have clearly abandoned your preference for a politics of logic
here and opted to communicate your ideas using a politics of emotion
really clearly - completely voluntarily and with no coercion - no
logic here - just gut feelings - like you said.<br>
<br>
I suggested FSFE political activists ambitions will be realized much
more effectively if they engage on the assumption that other people
are emotionally attached to facebook (they are not using it
'logically' are they? In other words - we agree that being on FB is
not a 'rational choice' because it is harming their individual
freedom, right?).<br>
<br>
For FSFE to be on FB then seems contradictory, (we agree) because it
is... but the alternative you are relying on depends on all FSFE's
public affairs being controlled strictly within networks only
running FS - which is not only impractical... it's also 'illogical'
too.<br>
<br>
I think therefore we actually agree that politics is not logical at
all... I hope so - and on that reading Facebook, along with all the
other non-free software out there is both a threat AND an
opportunity - not just a threat - after all - if non-free software
didn't exist - there would be no need for the FSFE.<br>
<br>
Facebook then can (and should) be part of the strategy, because it's
'logical' to do so.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>