Putting the ‘imp’ back in implicature

Next time I teach Grice on conversational implicature and the Cooperative Principle, I think I’ll use this sentence as an example of how not to be maximally relevant:

In Trier, Germany, birthplace of Karl Marx, the prosecutor’s
office has been investigating the claim of a woman that babies were
being cut up and eaten in Satanist rituals.

Link via Jonathan Goodwin, who reliably bursts with timely and topical quotations. Such as this:

Philosophical works among [the Solipsists] are more or less of this
sort: “Does the scarab roll dung into a ball paradigmatically?” “If a
mouse urinates in the sea, is there a risk of shipwreck?” “Are
mathematical points receptacles for spirits?” “Is a belch an exhalation
of the soul?” “Does the barking of a dog make the moon spotted?” and
many other arguments of this kind, which are stated and discussed with
equal contentiousness. Their Theological works are: “Whether navigation
can be established in imaginary space.” “Whether the intelligence known
as Burach has the power to digest iron.” “Whether the souls of the Gods
have color.” “Whether the excretions of Demons are protective to humans
in the eighth degree.” “Whether drums covered with the hide of an ass
delight the intellect.”

Discuss. In strict accordance with Grice’s Cooperative Principle. That is, "make your conversational contribution [concerning the protective puissance of demon excretions, etc.] such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or
direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged."