Machiavelli wrote:
Anyway, if self-reference is not the point, then what is? It seems like the only thing that could result in a turtle would be a single clause within a rule that contradicts itself.
Which has happened. Here's a rundown from my Hall of Fame list: * CFJ 3087 (self-contradictory rule) * CFJ 2878 (self-reference) * CFJ 2650 (self-contradictory rule) * CFJs 1980, 1982 (contract with infinite loop) * CFJs 1883, 1884 (yes/no questions rather than true/false statements, before the rules were patched to equate them "the answer to <question> is yes") * CFJ 1787 (self-reference) * CFJs 1594, 1596 (self-contradictory judgements, one of which was later interpreted as incorrect instead) * G., cards, June 2005 (playing X to draw Y, then playing Y to retroactively cancel playing X)