Politifact says 'Pants on Fire' doesn't mean 'lied'

Why Politifact has lost all credibility, episode whatever:

@mattyglesias We never said "lie."  We said Reid provided no evidence and our reporting found no evidence.
' @politifact via TweetDeck
What Politifact actually said yesterday:
We find no evidence for Reid's claim that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. Pants on Fire! http://t.co/...
' @politifact via TweetDeck
So they shouted "Pants on Fire!" but they didn't technically say the word lie? That's quite the parsing from a fact-check organization. What was "Pants on Fire!" supposed to mean, then? (Then again, they re-parsed Reid's original statement so that they could fact-check something he didn't actually say, rather than what he did say, so they're not exactly strangers to creatively re-parsing things.)

Sorry, but we've got to rate Politifact's defense here as "Pantaloons Ablaze." That's different from both lying and pants-on-fire lying, but only in that pantaloons is a pretty cool word and needs to be used more often.