FDL again, was: My concerns about GPLv3 process

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > >  Note that it claims the FDL purpose is for functional work.
   > 
   > ... with non-functional parts.

   Were that true, then the FDL preamble would be an argument that the
   FDL is not suitable for applying to invariant sections.

Huh?

   I think a level-headed discussion is impossible if you are going to
   contradict the licence you claim to support. Please stick to the
   FDL.

I haven't contradicted anything.  You are inventing things, and
putting words into my mouth.