  Starting with Church (1942), Moh (1954), Geach (1955), Löb (1955) and Prior (1955), discussion of Curry’s paradox has emphasized that it differs from Russell’s paradox, and the Liar paradox, in that it doesn’t “involv[e]  negation essentially” (Anderson 1975:  128).[19]  One reason the negation-free status of Curry’s paradox matters is that it renders the paradox resistant to some resolutions that might be adequate for such “negation paradoxes”.