Version 1.0 of 24/3/2010-8:55 a.m.

"This is crap. It should not be on tee dot bee".

"You are accusing me that i write crap?"

"No! YOU are accusing me that i am accusing you that i write crap"

"Ok, i will not accuse you anymore."

"Fine. So let's agree that we will not accuse each other."

"This is totally stupid, you know, how can we set some standards of quality if we don't filter the input in some way?"

"You are accusing our agreement of being stupid."

"No! YOU think of it as an accusation. It is actually a call to observe quality"

"Ok, then you are accusing non-quality"

"I don't mean to accuse non-quality, but we cannot include it in tee dot bee..."

"Why not?"

"Because it's not bizarre"

"You are accusing non-bizarreity. Please try to be fair."

"No! YOU are accusing me of accusing non-bizarreity."

"Ok, let's agree to not accuse non-bizarreity"

"Fine. Then we allow non-bizarre stuff in tee dot bee?"

"As long as it approaches bizarreity in the limit for sufficiently small values of non-bizarreity"

"Who will be the judge of that?"

"The mathematicians of tee dot bee"

"Are u accusing the non-mathematicians of inability to recognize bizarre limits?"

"Well, no, but we have to have an objective judge for the quality of the limits"

"Then you are accusing all non-objective judges of the bizarre as well..."

"Shut up! Can YOU be the judge?"

"Are u accusing me that i cannot be an objective judge?"

"No. I am just saying that there cannot be an objective judge for those limits."

"I see. So you are accusing the lack thereof of objective judgment in this issue"

"Well, YES, we *have* to accuse *something* for criss sakes!!"

"What shall we agree to accuse?"

"Let's agree to accuse the notion of accusation"

"Will that cancel any pending unfair accusations to members of tee dot bee?"

"No, because tee dot bee has no *explicit* members"

"You mean tee dot bee is the empty set?"

"It's not empty. There is at least one member in it"

"Who's that?"


"So you are accusing the rest of the people who contribute in tee dot bee of being non-bizarre"

"No, i am accusing Previtera of *being* bizarre"

"According to YOUR standards, i presume"

"Are you accusing my standards?"

"Ok. Let's not accuse anybody's standards. Perhaps Previtera IS bizarre afterall..."

"What about Scott?"

"Scott neither is a member nor is not a member of tee dot bee"

"Why is that?"

"Because he meta-commented on the definition of bizarreity. He cannot belong to the set"

"Do *we* belong to the set of tee dot bee?"

"If we belong using any explicit definition, we are not bizarre, thus we don't belong. If we don't belong, using any definition, we are bizarre, thus we belong. I think it is time to close. We have reached Russell's paradox..."

"Are u accusing the axioms of my set theory?"