Things Written During the Past Week on the sci.logic Newsgroup

Well... This sounds like Meinong's theory
This is a classic example in quantifier elimination.
You do indeed not look like James Harris.
I hate to use the Loch Ness monster story because it is so overused but it is simple to convey.
As Russell says, even though I am not acquainted with the Emperor of China I nevertheless truly judge that he exists.
The set of all books is not itself a book.
You are wrong. S should have S for a member, since S is the totality of sets which is not a member of itself.
I don't see how any of the foregoing descriptions conflict.
While those numbers are all interesting from a pop-math point of view, my interest has always been with more number-theoretic numbers, such as the anti-Goldbach numbers.
What is needed, in addition to FOL+, to establish the p-inconsistency of (1,2), are two premises: that 0 multiplied by any number equals 0 and that 1 is not equal to 2.
Well, your formulation is not very precise... I guess you mean something like "it cannot happen that when f does not hold anymore, g STILL does not hold, and has not since the initial state."
Not only will it print the smallest natural number never printed, it will also print the smallest number never considered, as well as the exact number of people alive at 13:00 12.3.3423.
Don't you ever tire of talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Reading the sentence I wrote, I can't understand what I intended to say.
Yes, but in describing it you used "tautology", which normal human beings take to mean "self-evident truth" and not something *stipulated* to be true.
On the other hand, I can't imagine what any fluent speaker of English understands by an if-then sentence if it's something other than a conceptualization in which the validity of modus ponens and modus tollens are implicit.
G1 does not seem to imply it.
Unfortunately I have no idea whatsoever as to what I had in mind, if anything, when I wrote the sentence.

Back to Issue #1