depends upon such facts as the location or identity of the speaker, and/or the referent of the demonstrative. Similarly, it is plausible (though not universally accepted—see, e.g., Capellen and LePore, 2005a &amp; b) that ‘tallness’ and ‘flatness’ are context-sensitive, insofar as there are varying standards that one might have mind in applying either predicate which affect what is thereby said. Note, though, that insofar as the truth value of such utterances depends on context, that is because their truth conditions—or, the propositions expressed thereby—are so dependent. That is, it is not that (1)-(3) each has fixed truth-evaluable content, the truth value of which depends on context. Rather, what propositions these sentences express depends on the location of the utterer of (1), the identity of the speaker (2), and so on. It is only relative to such facts that tokenings of such sentences have specific contents, and just what contents they do have depends on context. So too for EC. It is misleading to say that ‘knowledge’ sentences’ truth values are context-variable (e.g., Rieber 1998, 190, Cohen 1998, 289 and 2014, 70). According to EC, those truth values shift only because different propositions are expressed in different contexts.