diff --git a/FAQ.md b/FAQ.md
index 2e95605..8bf2cea 100644
--- a/FAQ.md
+++ b/FAQ.md
@@ -146,3 +146,34 @@ Social change groups have worked in this way to challenge and change power struc
 Rainbow Gatherings are a working example of this grassroots governance. They have been going on for 50 years and the core is still based on the founding traditions which came from the Vietnam War - not the hippy dippy origins that people talk about.
 
 From the perspective of a radical, grassroots, social technologist this is distilled into a codebase, as a “permissionless” roll-out of frameworks for social groups to form and see/govern themselves."
+
+
+Q. You’re bringing in the idea of “fluffy” and “spiky”. And you think both have merit.
+
+A. Have been working with bridging this often hostile divide for more than 30 years in hundreds of campaigns on the ground and online. The best outcome you can hope for is “diversity of tactics/strategy”
+
+Q. You’re also drawing attention to the very hard idea of “diversity of tactics” - using different tools in different settings.
+
+A. It’s a miracle when the two sides can hold this bridge in place, the effect of this miracle is more powerful outcome for both agenders BUT the longer this bridge is held in place the stronger the internal and outside forces push to demolish it - it falls, have never seen a bridge hold for the whole campaign.
+
+Q. You’re also saying that the “spiky” approach to governance has more value for our society.
+
+A. The #mainstreaming agender always supports the #fluffy aproch and pushes down the #spiky aproch so its less a question of right/wrong more a question of holding the balance agenst this #mainstreaming pushing. The balance is where maximum power lies. So yes in this forum, and in general, the “spiky” aproch has more “power” than the fluffy aproch simple because its is repressed by the mainstream and meany of the “common sense” fluffy crew.
+
+Q. And that given the #climatechaos and the swing to the right it’s really important to keep having the “debate" about which approach to use.
+
+A. The “debate” is in this case is a metaphor for action, it’s important to keep both approaches working and hold a bridge in place, so people can cross and communicate between them.
+
+Q. Also that whatever process people use, it needs to work in the mess.
+
+A. In tech outreach work using the hashtag #geekproblem to highlight the “need for control” that is a clear block and not a solution to the very human mess we are in. We need to build structers/code where we “lose” control of our current #mainstreaming agenders and take “control” by building bridges and holding these human bridges in place, so we can choose different paths.
+
+Q. So I think we have to actually experience an approach or a tool before we can say if it is “fluffy” or “spiky”, or works in a mess.
+
+A. Yep, best to build tools/process from “lived expirence”. We are swimming in a river of social shit with the #mainstreaming of neo-liberalism and postmodernism that is the bases of “thinking”. Thou these ideology died years ago, the zombies of both are still eating our social brains.
+
+Q. Is that also true for what you’re calling the “spiky” approach? That unless people have actually experienced it they wouldn’t be able to judge it?
+
+A. You guys experienced it here, when I came to this well “fluffy” space I was met with a well “spiky” reception. The more dogmatic liberals can often be VERY spiky were the #fahernista radicals are generally kinda “fluffy” in their actual outcomes. Lifting the lid and look at the actions, don’t take what people say at face value, to see the fluffy/spiky debate in action, by lifting this lid you start to build a bridge…
+
+Putting and holding this bridge in place is the start of power for social change/challenge.