Is it correct to say that 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?

Buddha says in saṃyuktāgama : > “One who craves for and delights in bodily form, craves for and > delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha will not > attain liberation from dukkha. In the same way one who craves for and > delights in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, craves > for and delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha > will not attain liberation from dukkha. Clearly Buddha did not hesitate to say "One who craves for dukkha will not attain liberation from dukkha". The "One who craves " should not be a valid statement because Dhamma says we can not frame statements like the above. We can only ask or say depending upon what the craving arises or ceases. Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter : > “Venerable sir, who craves?” > > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One > craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a > valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus. > Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with > what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid > question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition, > craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with > clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole > mass of suffering.’ There is some contradiction is framing the statements above. One statement statement says 'One who craves'( a self is implied) and the other statement says it is invalid to ask 'who craves' instead we should ask depending upon what the craving comes to be(no self is implied)? My question is : Is it correct to say 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?