> the amount of context that must be conveyed in order to disambiguate it. Precisely! I didn't want to assume what the parent was asking, so I asked for more

> the amount of context that must be conveyed in order to disambiguate it. Precisely! I didn't want to assume what the parent was asking, so I asked for more information. With a highly-context-sensitive phrase like this it is best to ask them to explain. If it is asked in sincerity a conversation can evolve. If it is asked with an obvious attempt to deliver the subtext, it is quite clear in about 3-4 sentences. I appreciate your documented thought process. I notice you diligently approach the phrase prima-facie and observe the semantics, but then don't move beyond that. You were super close there with "what did 0xff00ffee mean?", then moved on. Beyond lexing and yaccing some tokens, there is one very important question, often referred to by historians as part of analysis via the "Period View": "What is happening culturally (socially and politically) at that time and geography when the phrase was uttered?" Much like how historical record needs to be digested in context, which is where many of the logical dissections of ideological slogans have a colossal, debilitating blind spot. Not to say semantic analysis is wrong or irrelevant, it is just half of the process. A necessary half, but only half.