I was arguing with my buddy that this statement is true even if we deny the "I never forget" part, but to be honest, I was shooting in the dark. I was trying to translate the statement into an implication, then show that denial of the consequent entails the falsity of the antecedent, which entails the truth of the whole implication nevertheless, trying to prove it's not absurd. How would you treat such a statement? Is this some kind of a self referential statement, or Godel's undecidable, another example of Russel's paradox, or simply incoherent "square circle"? what is it? how would you translate or symbolize it if you had to treat it formally?