To say the least, communication does not function as a means of cooperation in Harold Pinter’s No Man’s Land. The purposes of exchanging information are elusive and ever-changing, the authenticity of references is questionable, and their relevance dubious. To make the rules that are flouted more explicit, I adopt Paul Grice’s famous conversational implicatures and examine their significance for the understanding of the communication strategies in No Man’s Land. Together with reading the play from the perspective of uncooperative communication, moreover, I also examine its role in the various transient self-affirmations. In the play the self appears as a confident semiotician, who—advocating a precarious necessity of community and knowing exactly what signs can do—conjures up a series of dubious places in which it comfortably, even boastfully shelters itself. This, indeed, is carried out at the expense of pursuing a common direction in communication. To be sure, the primary thrust of communication is not cooperation, but self-affirmation achieved through the creation of little, familiar worlds through signs.