Whither Pie?

Who wants pie?

Pie, as many have gradually surmised, is usually only typical in the vernacular when common knowledge (or "understanding") has failed or will fail the explication. Therefore, instances of pie nominally indicate pertinent or latent failure, while the absence of pie, or the negation of the possibility of pie, should signify or herald certain success in the discussion.

Why then would most people prefer the placement of pie in the general area of the discussion?

As usual, the great philosophers of history, & their closest friends, have chosen to hedge their bets in this atomic dissection of human behavior. The great Flautis of Norma mentioned that, "Section a pie into eight, ten, twelve, a dozen slices, there is never enough pie!" (In Norma, a dozen was considerably more than twelve. He wasn't stupid or anything.)

In Germany during the Renaissance, the Ulmberg scholar Von Fredinhole declared, "The filling fills us!" (The German, "Das Fillingung Ist Uns Gefilledup!" is generally thought to be less interesting than any translation.)

Even American philosophers, usually tending bar after World War II, have evaded the question rather than answer it. "Shut your pie-hole, pie-eye! Have some pie with your pie in the sky!"

Linguists trying to find their way into the great disagreement have also sleepily missed the point: who cares where the word came from? Are those real peaches or canned?

Yet, as the pie industry overtakes the scone industry in most industrial countries, a wonderment of sorts is inevitable: if pies are outlawed, those who chose to ignore a monstrously dumb law shall enjoy the pies. But also all the cursed ignominy of pie karma. For that is the way the universe has thus far chosen to work.

As Pali Wallah Doodl, the great ascetic from several years before the birth of Chrysler, once put it: "Good heavens look at all these pies! Tell me please is there really shoo fly in the shoo fly pie? Or else may I have a slice?"