Read the blog with some interest although the party sounded pretty nasty.
Other minds debates always seemed pretty pointless to me. What is the point of debating (with other minds) the existence of other minds?
Why believe that we must first be absolutely certain (a priori) of the existence of other minds before it makes sense to interact with other people?
Do these people ever go visit their moms and stop before they press the bell and think: "Hey, can I be sure (a priori) that I am the sort of being that has a mother?"
Why believe that social life must be grounded philosophically in this way?
Alternatively: Your post is in English (as are Adrian's claims). Why waste time thinking (even at a party) that English might be some figment of your private mental life and not something that has developed historically with the participation of a multitude of agents who all presuppose a shifting background of shared meanings that they rely on even when solipsistically wondering about the oddest time-wasting propositions such as: "Perhaps dogbiscuits are false".
When the medication wears off, we know (from experience unfortunately) that we are in a particular historical situation that gives us a hell of a lot that needs to be thought about and engaged with. Philosophy at its best acknowledges that entanglement and involvement in this contingent and very questionable situation. Philosophy has really gone on holiday in the worst possible way when it says: "Hey, hang on. Can I be sure (a priori) that I am here and not somewhere else or perhaps nowhere? Perhaps I need a bullet-proof argument that all minds - all conceivable forms of intelligence - logically presuppose a historically contingent context."