On Jun 16, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
While I see your point when viewed solely from the
perspective of logic, I find much more subtlety in the statement than you did,
Dude, whatever. You called Paul's statement a paradox. "Paradox" has a fixed, conventional meaning. Paul's statement is not a paradox. Argue for its magnificence to your heart's content; I will have no objection. Just don't call it a paradox. Because it isn't one.
Removing the "can" modal, as you suggested,...
I removed it because it doesn't alter the statement's status as a logical falsehood but it's easier to demonstrate. If you think keeping it there adds to its magnificence, have at it, Hoss. I couldn't care less.
Bottom line: Paul's statement, whether merely moderately clever or magnificent, ain't a paradox. You said it was. What you said is false.
Pass, but thanks. Nothing you can say will be relevant to my simple point (besides, of course, "I was wrong when I said Paul's statement was a paradox", but I'll not hold my breath in anticipation).