So, here you are "strenuously agreeing" with me that the original statement was false. We both think that "saying it has too much politics behind it is an oxymo

So, here you are "strenuously agreeing" with me that the original statement was false. We both think that "saying it has too much politics behind it is an oxymoron" is false. You and I agree that one can think that the ice cream cone might have one too many toppings, and to utter such a statement ain't oxymoronic - debatable, but not in any way contradictory. In fact, you think "too much politics" is a common cry. Yes, it is a common kind of debate, but not therefore trivial - since one might end up with a lot of ice cream on one's shirt if the pile of toppings is too high. I think that's already happened. The more people try to bundle what are in fact quite distinct aims into one movement, the greater chance of failure. Not to mention the greater chance of including an aim which is harmful, not helpful. So I'll stand by my thought that adding in the defeating-the-patent-system-or-bust goal was maybe a tad much. Nobody doubts that politics are complex and divisions common therein; but surely it's also obvious that politic movements can vary in complexity (number of toppings,) too. One can't always follow Lincoln's first law of strategy: "One war at a time", but it's an excellent rule of thumb, for politics as well as war, and I think it's pretty clear to most of us now that the EFF has wandered much too far from it, with (economically) catastrophic results - namely all those wasted billions, not to mention the limited supply of developer work-years thrown away on mere rewrites. Not every political movement overreaches anything like this badly. That there are other arguments with a similar structure to mine does not distress me. That other, false axioms plugged into the same structure might produce a false result doesn't - and of course shouldn't - dismay me either. (Which is not to take one side in the example argument you cite. Not here, anyway.)