If we are describing formal logic, then fine. (Although actually, not even fine there, really. There is a fairly powerful theory of "conversational implicature"

If we are describing formal logic, then fine. (Although actually, not even fine there, really. There is a fairly powerful theory of "conversational implicature" that I studied once upon a time: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/ It tries to tease out some of what makes conversation (which is gappy and missing a lot logically speaking) as effective as it is.) If we are describing human conversation, then - um - I call bullshit. If you give advice, you most certainly imply (for a suitably non-formal definition of 'imply') authority, knowledge, etc. about the matter you give advice on. Your example - or the way you spin it out - is very odd. If you give directions to some coffee shop, we should be able to assume that you know where the coffee shop is. I suppose at the very least we should be able to assume that you believe that you know where the coffee shop is. The guy gave advice on backing up - he passed along someone else's advice, and said he it was essential advice. The relevant switch for your analogy would be asking him to be able to describe the code in rsync or dd or whatever. Nobody is doing that. They're simply pointing out that he didn't practice what he preached (with various degrees of unfortunate serves-him-right schadenfreude, but never mind that for the moment). Answering a question implies a claim of authority. Offering advice on the internet (unsolicited) is the equivalent of building a freaking billboard with directions to the coffee shop.