In reply to:
nice of you to credit Hofstatder, but why not stick with his words: "...we can use two terms invented specially for this paradox: autological (= "self-descriptive"), and heterological (= "non-self-descriptive"). The question then becomes: "Is heterological heterological?" Try it!"
I couldn't stick with Hofstatder because after avidly reading GEB when it came out all those years ago (we should be able to date it by reference to the then extraordinary claim by the author that his was the first book ever to have been written and laid out on a personal computer) I, in a moment of foolishness, lent my copy to a person I imagined at the time to be a friend. You can imagine the rest... if you're out there - you know who you are - BRING BACH MY GOEDEL!!! 
So I had to reconstruct the argument from memory. Tsuwm's right. Hofstatder's heterological's neater than Rusty's non-autophenonymous. But hey.
