User talk:EmbraceParadox

Reading the talk pages of our paradox articles, you find that many people get their knickers in a knot over their very existence. Some of this can be explained away, but some of it is because our articles are inadequate. They shouldn't leave a reasonable person with the impression that many intelligent people have missed something obvious. Of course this isn't easy.

Ignore all rules It's not just a good idea. It's the law!

Property is theft

This article is only going down in quality as it is edited. You removed two quotations, but kept the sentences that were written explicitly to introduce them. What's left is so much less informative. I really don't understand why. Then there is that objectivist pov-warrior who surely will never relent. I'm about ready to give up. The article was very high quality, but I just don't see much hope of keeping it that way. Sigh. —Jemmy_tc 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Barber's paradox

Hi,

I noticed you recently made a comment on the subject of the accessibility of Russell's paradox. Please see my comment and ensuing discussion on the talk page. Katzmik (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)