Pragmatists (I think this is becoming the standard term for people who work in pragmatics, defeating 'pragmatic theorists; and 'pragmaticists', appropriately enough for fairly pragmatic reasons) will no doubt be interested in what the White House spokesperson Tony Snow said about the death of Ken Lay. This cnn report quotes him as saying:
The president has described Ken Lay as an acquaintance, and many of the president's acquaintances have passed on during his time in office.
If you don't have enough context about Ken Lay and his role in the Enron saga to help you interpret this, then this Washington Post article should help. Or risk breaking your jaw as it hits the floor while you watch Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room
It makes me think of this famous example from Grice's 'Logic and Conversation':
A is writing a testimonial about a pupil who is a candidate for a philosophy job, and his letter reads as follows: 'Dear Sir, Mr. X's command of English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc.' (Gloss: A cannot be opting out, since if he wishes to be uncooperative, why write at all? He cannot be unable, through ignorance, to say more, since the man is his pupil; moreover, he knows that more information than this is wanted. He must, therefore, be wishing to impart information that he is reluctant to write down. This supposition is tenable only on the assumption that he thinks Mr. X is no good at philosophy. This, then, is what he is implicating.) (Grice 1975:52)
Billy