&gt;will favor an approach, like that of von Neumann, Bernays, and Godel, in 
&gt;which "class" is treated as a primitive notion corresponding to the 
&gt;intuitive notion of a collection, a set is defined as a class that is a 
&gt;member of some class, and not all classes are sets. Whatever its defects, 

&gt;the appeal of such an approach is that it permits the most straightforward

&gt;interpretation of Chris's claim that "The set theoretic paradoxes all arise

&gt;by taking some proper class or other to