Zefram wrote: > Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".
Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that (~P -> P) -> P, then we could also say (~Q -> Q) -> Q, where Q = ~P. so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...) paradox at all. Unless I misunderstood her first statement. -Goethe
