A Viscous Circle

In a recent post to the History of Analytic Philosophy -- we are discussing types of analysis, reductive vs. reductive-cum-reductionist, I proposed the well-known Gricean adage:

by uttering "p", U meant that p.

Someone complained, on record. "Surely you need q". "Else you haven't traveled far". But I'm not sure. This is all viscous.

Consider this from today's blog:

"A quote from a police inspector on the BBC News Berkshire site on 1st February was read by Jim Carr:

"This was a particularly viscous robbery,
however I would like to reassure residents
there are ongoing inquiries."

And no risk of anybody coming to a sticky end." (Courtesy of M. Quinion (c)).

Let's analyse the viscous circle allegedly involved here. We have p and q alright. Or minding your ps and qs:

By uttering,

"That was a viscous circle"

U meant that that was a VISCIOUS circle.

But are we to grant that the ignorant police inspector from Berkshire (the county that gave Windsor Castle and Ascot and the Guards Polo Club -- well, in Surrey, really -- to posterity) who cannot

articulate

'viscious'

will have, as Grice wants us him to have, a
deeper _psychological_ attitude that informs the concept,

'viscious'.

Or shall we just say that what he intended his addressee to form is the belief that the crime had been _viscous_?

Davidson addresses this and other topics on a very Gricean line in his "Nice derangement of epitaphs". Etc.