On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 20:12 -0700, John Smith wrote: > Hi, I'm Bucky. I'm here to (again) attempt to deliver the following > message: > > If I have not already done so, I explicitly initiate an inquiry case > on the statement "Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make > an unqualified public statement that is identical to this statement." > > I am aware of CfJ 1887, which says that stating the liar paradox would > violate Rule 2215. Since this statement is similar in nature to the > liar paradox, its truth follows directly from CfJ 1887. This does > not, however, mean that it isn't a paradox.
It would indeed be illegal for you to make such a statement; the paradox means that it would be unreasonable to believe it was true (or specifically false, for that matter). -- ais523
