Who Writes about Nothing?

So I am poking around the internets listening to music and drinking coffee. I'm minding my own and not bothering a soul when I find this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon. I defy a living person to explain what the hell this means. It appears to me that the person writing the Wikipedia entry did not grasp the concept either, but that is just the way I experience the phenomena or is it noumena? I read it a few times through and understood it less each time. Phenomena, noumenon what the freaking hell?

Here is the most succinct thing in the entire entry and the only thing that shows any promise of shedding any light on this for me. Noumenon is "That which is tangible but not perceivable, the reflection of phenomenon." The problem with this succinct explanation is that it appears to make sense, but does not in fact make any sense. Read it a couple times.

I am ready to start seeping brain cells out of my eye sockets. There is nothing that is tangible but not perceivable. Anything that you can touch, you can perceive. Am I right? The perception is likely wrong, skewed, bigoted, loony, biased, or how ever else your world soiled mind colors it, but it is perceived. We must then be talking about nothing when we talk about noumenon, and if we are talking about nothing, why?

A normal person might have stopped there. A normal person might have said "right then, it is about nothing. I see. Well then let's move on to something that is about something." Normal people don't live here. I kept reading. I thought maybe there would be another gem of a sentence buried somewhere in the mess that would make my dim bulb get bright. Why would anyone take the time to write so much about nothing? There must be something to it. Yeah, you know what I found? A bunch more nothing. I am banning myself from Wikipedia and all of philosophy for some arbitrary time period. That stuff just does not mix well with coffee and early morning.