I think that Ken Litwak and Bob Ingria are indeed using the word "ambiguous"
ambiguously, which is to say, doubtfully and uncertainly for Ken Litwak, and
as capable of being understood in two or more ways for Bob Ingria. Webster's
Collegiate 10th edition gives these as the first and second definitions re-
spectively of "ambiguous." Hopefully the conversation can now proceed with
the word "ambiguous" having, if only for the duration of the discussion, the
univocal sense of reference to multivalent senses--but if, and only if, I have
made myself clear.