On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...) paradox at all. Unless I misunderstood her first statement.
How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have missed that bit. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
