You're being needlessly difficult to no good end. I am not dropping the law of non-contradiction in my comments here, where I speak about logics that drop non-contradiction.

And the point you're trying to make here ignores what I said. It is certainly the case that if you permit every violation of non-contradiction, whether or not it violates any other rule, you wind up with nonsense. In no way does that establish that nonsense follows from any violation of non-contradiction even in the face of other rules. I don't have deep enough knowledge to say one way or the other, but some mathematicians seem to think there are things of interest there and your superficial rejection does nothing to prove them wrong.

sorry if I came across as difficult; honestly not my intention.

You were perceived as difficult because rather than actually address the content of what I said, you tried to make the same point in the same way you had earlier - a way which was undermined by what I had said.

That's just being difficult. The real world does work that way. Take poltical labels for example, liberal, conservative, et al have totally different meanings for different people. Contradictions do exist, just externalizing them in a formal system is lazy.

I don't think linguistic ambiguity - while clearly something that exists - is the same thing as what is under discussion in this post.

Not trying to be difficult; just pointing out that language cannot work apart from PNC.