Only trying to further my understanding here. This'll long and probably filled with missteps, but I hope you'll bear with me. I did not just read the Fundamental Verses by myself, so I really shouldn't be so careless when I refer to it!

When you write "full form of the arguments," are you referring to the Catuskoti (four-pronged negation)? Can you elaborate on that? It is my understanding (which, as you point out, may be faulty) that the Catuskoti involves four truth values instead of the Western two, that is, true, false, neither true nor false, and both true and false. With this in mind, do you think that it could be appropriate to say that the "annihilation" I mention may not be as black and white as I indicated in my comment, but that nirvana involves (that is not to say is necessarily defined by) a sort of an annihilation of one's attachment to concepts like selfhood, etc.? I think that this account could be acceptable on the way to coming to an understanding of Nirvana, maybe with reference to the portion of my comment that followed the portion that you quoted where I indicated a sort of "return."

I point this out because I believe I simplified the whole idea of nirvana and equivocated "annihilation" with "extinguishing," and Nagarjuna does refer to "extinguishing." What are your thoughts on passages such as:

"When views of "I" and "mine" are extinguished, whether with respect to the internal or external, the appropriator ceases, This having ceased, birth ceases." (Andrew Garfield translation)

What do you make of the term "extinguishing," and could you explain why Buddhist thinkers never associate nirvana with annihilation? Do you think we shouldn't be pulling parts of the text and instead consider it as a whole?

You write "both existence and non-existence are inapplicable to it [nirvana]." Do you think the title "Fundamental Verses on the Middle-Way" might serve as a guide-post here, in that the "middle-way" is a manner of orienting oneself (I hesitate to use the world "self") towards nirvana from within samsara? Or maybe is that getting too bogged down in a kind of nirvana vs. samsara thinking? Do you think the middle-way is nestled within the "center" of the catuskoti, and that one shouldn't fall into one of its terms but "move" with it? For example, to say that nirvana is annihilation would be inaccurate because we should also consider the other three truth values? Of course, I'm thinking in terms of Nagarjuna's work and there has been a lot of discussion on the topic between him and us...

Could you give a little account of the anti-foundationalist interpretation with which you're involved?

Thanks for your comment!

Also, the SEP has, of course, an entry on dialethism and the bibliography will indicate some good Priest articles (as well as others)!