  Taken together, these results suggest that Skolem's Paradox may simply turn on a surreptitious slide between two different interpretations of Ω(x). Given a countable model for ZFC, it's the model-theoretic interpretation of Ω(x) which allows us to find an element  mˆ  ∈ M such that M  ⊨ Ω[mˆ]. But it's only the ordinary-English interpretation which provides us with any real grounds for thinking that  Ω(mˆ) entails that  mˆ  is uncountable. Further, and as we have just seen, there are enough differences between the model-theoretic interpretation and the ordinary English interpretation to make us suspicious of any facile slide between the two (even if we didn't know that this slide would eventually lead us all the way to Skolem's Paradox). In particular, then, we should resist any attempt to move directly from the fact that M  ⊨ Ω[mˆ]  to the claim that  mˆ is uncountable.