  The non-bracketed sentence, absent an utterance of the bracketed content, will typically convey the order events as being mirrored in the order of the conjuncts. But, as Grice famously argued, this isn’t due to an embedded ordering in the meaning of ‘and’ as shown by the addition of the bracketed content not producing a contradiction. The Gricean stories about how we come about this extra information in non-cancellation cases is fairly well known. But given the preceding, it’s not hard to see that an option has been overlooked: why shouldn’t we think of ‘but’ as playing the role of a disambiguator? If ‘and’ were ambiguous, for example, wouldn’t one way of avoiding an contradictory utterance involve adding a phrase that ruled out one possible meaning? We saw Grice’s claims about Modified Occam’s razor and so perhaps attributing an ambiguity to ‘and’ is not so attractive.  But perhaps an ambiguity in the assignment of times to the present tense markers is, and the putative cancellation serves to indicate the intended resolution of the those variables? Or perhaps ‘and’ signals two or more possible discourse relations and the putative cancellation services to disambiguate between those? Lepore and Stone (2016) put disambiguation to work in an attempt to show that ambiguities in interpretation are more rife and wide spread than we might have previously assumed. If they are right, ambiguity plays a more central role than perhaps might have been thought in sentence, utterance and discourse interpretation. It remains to see if they are. The point of these examples is that it is often difficult to tell which theoretical treatment best explains a case of multiple interpretability. One must be cautious in one’s approach to these issues. It is all too easy to notice an apparent ambiguity, but often all too difficult to explain its nature.