Do You Obfuscate?

Well, DO you?

ob·fus·cate

Pronunciation: 'äb-f&-"skAt; äb-'f&s-"kAt,
Function: transitive verbInflected
Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
Etymology: (Latin) ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown

1a:DARKEN
1b: to make obscure
2: CONFUSE

I'm reminded to ask this question by a recent comment from Sammy Sosa's agent, Adam Katz. When asked if he thought Sosa and his teammates could make up and play nice together next year after Sosa skipped out on his teammates (and fans) the last game of the season, Katz replied:

"I've said a hundred times that any inflammation that exists I consider manageable. It's not even remotely insurmountable."

Now THIS is obfuscation at its BEST! First off, that the situation is considered 'manageable' does NOT mean that everyone has to sing a happy song together. If Sosa gets traded to another team, as example, that's perfectly manageable, too, isn't it?

But it's that next sentence that takes the cake: "It's not even remotely insurmountable." So 'it's not even' plus 'insurmountable' is a double negative, which means he really means, "It's remotely doable." But then there's that pesky little word "remotely". You'd think that'd mean it's a no-brainer, easy thing to do, right? But 'remotely' means, among other things (see definition 6) "small in degree : SLIGHT". So that means what Katz is REALLY saying is this:

"It's a remote possibilitity that it can actually be done."

And that is 180 degrees opposite of what Katz seems to want us to infer. Bottom Line: This is not the stuff that trust is built-upon.

So I ask again, do YOU obfuscate?