Ah, they’re 1940’s style “boolean brain logic”.
English cliches aside, can you answer my question?
Err… it seems like people have. Sorry that it’s not the answer that validates your opinion. 
If I’m understanding your question correctly, you’re presenting a premise that the meaning of words varies from person to person - that each of us have a different “sense” of what a word means.
Your sense of the word flimflam is that it means a nonsense word. And then you’re asking whether flimflam is itself a nonsense word.
If this is the case, then the question is unanswerable. If you accept the premise that each of us has a unique set of word meanings then you can’t reach a consensus on the meaning of a word. For some people, flimflam would be a nonsense word and for others it would not - it’s going to vary based on what their sense of the word is.
Well, I’ll be superamalgamated!
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
I find the OP a little hard to understand but it sounds like he is trying to articulate the Taoist concept (“the Tao that can be described in words is not the true Tao”).
I’m not sure there is any other word besides Tao for which this is true.
For example, the word “ineffable” means “incapable of being described in words”, but the word “ineffable” is not itself ineffable.
“If you meet Barnum on the road, kill him” ??
I believe what he is asking rather is that if flimflam means nonsense then wouldn’t it be true that the first time a person is introduced to the word, when they have not yet formed a mental association between the idea of something being nonsensical and the particular combination of sounds we translate into characters as flimflam, that to them flimflam itself is a ‘flimflam’, or simply nonsense and furthermore that once they have developed an understanding of flimflam the word is no longer a flimflam to them because it is no longer nonsense but a perfectly ordinary word. This process would happen with any new word, it’s just amusing in this instance because flimflam ends up feeling sort of self-referential.
I don’t know whether the OP is looking for something philosophical or something physiological about the five senses, so let me answer it as a communications major.
Words are written or spoken representations of objects, concepts, sensations, or whatever. They have no intrinsic meaning or value until a critical mass of users can agree on one.
A perfect example is your understanding that “flimflam” means nonsense, while other posters understand that it means deceptive or fraudulent.
Unless the speaker/writer and listener/reader ascribe similar meanings to a word, it is useless as a method of communication. This is a problem not only among speakers of different languages, but also among speakers of the same language bringing different contexts to their understanding of a word.
However, a word is not “nonsense” simply because someone doesn’t understand its meaning. A word is nonsense when no one understands its meaning.
Or putting it in simple terms, if you “like to use eloquent language out of of context” to the point where other people can’t understand what you’re trying to say, then what you’re saying is useless. Stop it.
Evidently, we do not agree on the meaning of the word “answer.”
In that case, may I offer my most enthusiastic contrafribularities?
Furthermore, rather ironically one might say it all depends on your understanding of nonsense.It depends on whether one considers nonsense as dependent on the observer- by which the answer would be associated with the understanding of the observer, whether it is based on a general consensus or furthermore perhaps merely it being documented would suggest that a flimflam is not a flimflam.
In the 2nd case- imagine a scenario where the whole world was destroyed and only one human survived.Therefore a flimflam would have to be a flimflam (assuming that they do not know the meaning of the word) because the general consensus of the word would be nonsensical.
On the other hand, in the third scenario would a flimflam still NOT be a flimflam because in the past someone has asserted its meaning?
Finally, if your definition of sense would suggest a general consensus then what is the general consensus to the meaning of sense.I have asked several people and they all seem to have varying views.The only problem is is that if the definition of sense is proved to be different through general consensus what would it be then? Surely this is a paradox? What would that mean for all of the other words if their right to belong in the dictionary was attributed under a paradox?
Please don’t hurt me.But correct me if I am wrong- or take the “right” logic further.
Hey kid, go outside and get yourself some fresh air; A little exercise. See if others will let you join in a friendly game of football in the park. Try not to annoy them with this flimflam business.
Best example of word salad I’ve seen in a long time, actually.
This thread just reminded me that I need to fill the propane tanks for my gas grill.
Ha ha.You see the problem is that THOSE kids are playing on X-box.I actually only posted this because I got into an argument about it with a friend of mine.And unlike you american types I do not drive to the postbox- I actually do often get excercise.But I do not think I have really had an answer which surpasses the first step of logic (flimflam is not a flimfla because it is in the dictionary) or is not abuse or repetition of what has already been said.
But yes, I probably do I need to get out.But I think everyone one this whole damn website probably needs to get a bit more fresh air.And if you are talking about childhood- OFSTED took that away a long time ago.
14 my arse.
Stop impersonating a teenager and annoying the grown ups.
What kind of sick minded person would impersonate a 14 year old?
Unfortunately my innocent question has found itself unanswered (or so I think) and sadly this legitimate question has turned into the chatroom from Napolean Dynamite.
So, yes I am 14.
I think that I shall consider this thread closed until somebody can come up with a good old sensible answer.
You got one. More than one, actually.
That answer isn’t suddenly insensible simply because you don’t like it.