For Foodie and others of a philosophical bent: what the REALLY smart guys are saying

[Botafogo]

This is almost beyond belief:

http://enemyvessel.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2115&FORUM_ID=4&CAT_ID=1&Topic_Title=The+Big+Broadcast%2E%2E%2E&Forum_Title=We+all+have+issues

[Kcwhippet]

Some people have way too much spare time.

[Botafogo]

Moderators, do you have any magic ways to shrink that URL down to a smaller hyperlink that is titled something like "Parker Kant Taste"?

[ShortWiner]

Well, you gotta enjoy the statement that it is "epistemologically impossible and gnoseolocially groundless to point wines." Whatever gnoseolocially means, I agree!

[Auburnwine]

You know it's funny. Just last evening the missus was asking me: "Do universals really exist and what is their nature? Are they reducible to set theoretical constructs over a domain of particulars, albeit perhaps merely possible particulars?"

Naturally, I says to her (always the safest answer): "Yes, dear." Yep, we got many a wry titter out of that one.

And to the woefully uninformed, "gnoseolocially" is a wine-tasting term that means sniffing wine with friends. It's just that that fellow can't spell -- he means "nosey, oh socially".

[Thomas]

What a read: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Bucko]

It speaks volumes about anyone who would go to "Wine Therapy." Yikes!!

[winoweenie]

Enny_bodies care to join me starting Tuesday in "Gnossisociaapathic 101 wine-snorting?" WW

[hotwine]

That kind of discourse was fun in my philosopy courses 40 years ago. Now, I think "What a bunch of crap!"