Huh?

I wasn't really disagreeing with anything, I was breaking down the article for people who don't have a WSJ subscription, don't want one, and don't want to bother with the archive link.

I feel the article is mostly pedantic fluff, reiterating a concept that most people are already familiar with in order to just say what she says in the final paragraph: That she can be a tolerant person, tolerate people, while still disagreeing with their viewpoint. Basically responding to the whole "you can't be tolerant and hate intolerance" canard.

My issue isn't with her stance on paradoxes, it's with the fact that she doesn't say anything.