I think the meaning of point three was a bit lost in the grammar.
Yes, RMS has (very clearly) stated that the only software a person should use is software that is free.
However, I think emilsedgh's point is that RMS _first_ wants people to value freedom, and use only free software as a result - as opposed to using free software because, for instance, it is (generally) cheap.
I can only speak of personal experience (and having spent time with RMS twice in total, several years apart that's not a lot).
My experience of him was that publicly he wants people to value free software, but it's a means to an end. I don't actually have a problem with about 60% of what he has to say on the matter. Open source software fuels innovation and as long as people can still fund further innovation I'm happy with that. However, what I object to is the idea that only FSF-papal-blessed software constitutes free software. If I want to release my software under a BSD licence, it's not free software because RMS doesn't think it is. That's my problem with him, at least professionally speaking. On a personal note I don't think we'd get along - primarily because (and credit to him) that entire argument is pretty much his life (as far as anyone can say from meeting him twice).
Now I could be completely wrong about all of this, and maybe RMS is a pragmatic standup guy and I just got the wrong impression, but even Theo De Raadt had a sense of humour.
"If I want to release my software under a BSD licence, it's not free software because RMS doesn't think it is."
I thought the FSF had publicly stated that BSD licenses were compatible with the GPL, and thus "Free" software. I wouldn't be surprised if rms wished the software were more free (in his sense of the word), but I don't recall him ever saying it wasn't free.
They do consider the modified BSDL to be both a Free Software license and compatible with the GPL. There are other licenses which are not compatible with the GPL, such as the original BSD license (with the advertising clause), yet they do still consider them to be Free Software licenses.
Yes, RMS has (very clearly) stated that the only software a person should use is software that is free.
However, I think emilsedgh's point is that RMS _first_ wants people to value freedom, and use only free software as a result - as opposed to using free software because, for instance, it is (generally) cheap.