The above statement is true if, and only if, you think/believe that your answers thus far have provided me with the information that I'm seeking. If you think/believe that what I've quoted below captures that, then thank you for being honest, but I must say that you are mistaken. You've not yet provided me with your reasons for calling my words a "red flag", and that is the information being asking for.

You're testifying to answering honestly. It only follows that you think/believe that the following two claims are both true and have provided the information being asked for.





If "it" refers to what "red flag" means, then you must think/believe that there is a causal relationship between you explaining your own use of "red flag" and my knowing what a red flag is.

If "it" refers to your reasons for calling my words a "red flag", then you must think/believe that you're explanation of your reasoning is contingent upon my knowing what a red flag is.





Incomplete thought makes for incomplete statements.

An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that.

This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice.

Why is that a red flag?

I've merely taken your approach to the extreme in order to show your mistake. The above is an extreme version of an unfounded assumption. There is no reason to posit such a thing based upon what was given. Nor is there any reason to assume what you've assumed regarding what 'could be' the case. It doesn't follow from what was given.

My acknowledgement of what could be the case, such as speaking in private and the above, does not serve to support your position. Rather it serves to show you that while this or that could be the case, we cannot infer that from what was given.

It could be the case that there's an invisible pink and black unicorn that is controlling Jill's mind. There's simply no reason to assert such a thing. Do you understand?

You have no understanding of your own belief. Every now and again you get lucky and get something right, but it is clear that you have no idea how you do it.

So what's the red flag Pan? I'm asking you to explain what it is that you're calling a "red flag" and what it is that makes it so.

There's the colors again. She would kick yer arse in person.

It seems that you do not understand how language works Pan.

Look at how folk communicate. If we want to go to McDonalds to eat a Big Mac and fries, we do not go through and explicitly deny of all of the places that we do not want to go and/or all of the things on the menu that we do not want to order. We state what we want and others understand.

That is because meaning is public and shared, not private and unknown. Meaning is found by looking at how folk are using words.

Why then, during a thought experiment ought the author have to explicitly deny each and every logically possible meaning of every word s/he employs? Why ought the author be required to take an account of every possible meaning, or give an account which excludes all other possibl meanings but the one that is intended? It seems that you still have not apprehended the brute fact that there is no exactitude of meaning possible with natural/common language. That is why formal languages have been created.

What is there to wonder?

Well you didn't explicitly deny such a possibility, makes me wonder now...

I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?"



I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing.

I find no reason for Jill to be concerned about Joe's newborn baby compromising an otherwise private conversation. It's not like they understand what is being spoken. Mary still is in the other room, isn't she?

That is correct.

I am conceding to the idea that "Are you the only one here?" could indicate that Jill wants to speak to Joe in private. I am further saying that in order to know if that is what she meant it would require being there in person because those words do not mean that as spoken, therefore Jill's body language and intonation would offer the additional contextual information necessary to infer such a thing. It is possible that that could be what is meant by that expression.

Furthermore, I am saying that if Jill meant "can we speak privately" she wouldn't ask "Are you the only one here?" while meaning the room that they were both occupying, because she would be in that room and could see that much for herself so there would be no need to ask for information regarding that. Rather, she would be asking if it were possible to speak in private, which implies being uninterrupted by others. So, if that is the meaning intended, then she would be asking if anyone else were in the house.

I supposed that you'd taken the entire context into consideration. Evidently that was a wrongful presuppositon. If we are Joe when the question is first posed, we could - depending upon connotation, facial expressions and the like - know that that is what Jill was asking for. However, if Jill then looked around, found Mary, and asked why we lied we would have to explain that we misunderstood the question. The problem is that when asking to speak in private, the speaker usually has readily identifiable cues that are not present when asking if anyone else is home.

It is plausible though, no question there.

That doesn't follow from the provided context, specifically, the portion which stated that Jill looked around after Joe answered "yes", found Mary, and then asked Joe why he lied.

Nor does it answer the question being asked.

What information do you think/believe that Jill would be asking you to provide for her?

If you were in a house knowing that Mary was in another room and Jill walked in and asked you if you were alone, what information do you think/believe that Jill would be asked you to provide for her?

I agree that that is also a valid question, and an excellent one I might add. Kudos. What is your view concerning your own question, or mine, or both?



This is two questions. To the first, I would answer in the affirmative. To the second, I would also answer in the affirmative.



Indeed, I do.

That's what it usually means Pan. Honest folk do not question such a thing, nor insist upon an unusual meaning when a speaker does not specify one.