Thanks for your thoughts, August.
If you reread the first post by Jason, you will see that no conversation is started: the first sentence is merely a claim about "the writings of Edmund Huseerl [sic]", the second a representation of the writers negative feelings ("it's a damn shame") towards "the relativist/postmodernist ANTI-philosophers."

Jason does not defend the dogmatic opinion of his second sentence with anything substantial (and he comes across as precisely dogmatic, rabidly dogmatic; note that he does the same sort of thing in other posts, such as the "Philosophy v. Critical Theory" thread on this Tribe-and read the comments following his post too). "Who replies to being called dogmatic."[sic], you ask in a statement: anyone who can defend their position and is confident that they are not being so.

You then write "You name call" - and then attempt to insult me about my familiarity with internet. Perhaps you are trying to be funny and ironic - but I am not sure that you have a complete grasp on your own writing.

You then mention that the 4th criteria is mentioned in the writer's post - yet I acknowledged that in my parentheses; you then go on to acknowledge my acknowledgment, making your first point moot. You then go on to assume that I have feelings for Husserl's philosophy, that I "care" about it. For all you know, I dislike his work; contrariwise, I may think it is the best thing that ever happened to philosophy, and agree that "relativist/postmodernist ANTI-philosophers have tried to co-opt the thrust of what he wrote" - perhaps I have even stronger thoughts about them (or perhaps I think they are right). But how would I know to whom Jason was referring when he talked of "relativist/postmodernist ANTI-philosophers" without naming names?

As for killing a thread, it was miscarried, and I tried to revive it by asking questions so that the original poster could rephrase and offer us something to work with; you, however, have turned it into a critique of my attempt to develop a conversation, and have therefore driven the stake between its phantom shoulders. I am merely playing with ghosts at this point, defending my post rather than talking about the original topic.

>>"In point two, you assume that the writer is talking of two camps when it is quite clear that they are speaking only of one. If you were to mention a faction of a particular philosophical camp, at what lenth would you have to define it's opposision, and or, its relatives."

... If I say that I am anti-X, I have obviously posited X, and its negation. That adds up to two, by my count. In Jason's case, he was opposing the ANTI-philosophers to whom if not the (true or legitimate) philosophers? I asked question number two so that Jason might contextualize and situate his position, so that the rest of us would know where he stands, what he is defending and attacking. Without that knowledge, little intelligent can be said. As I said, a messy miscarriage.


>>"The writer called a faction "anti-philosophers", but have you not the sense to flush out how that constitutes wrongness? "
Well, I have opinions about what the term means, but they do not necessarily coincide with those of others (I think Jason is an "anti-philosopher"), including those of Palomo-Lamarca (the author of the essay to which you referred me). Note that you say "this s[sic] anti-philosophy," dogmatically asserting that Palomo-Lamarca's view is the only one ("is", as opposed to "is a position on, and defining of"). Besides, people have been accused of being anti-philosophers for aeons - usually by persons for whom any challenge to their dogmatic worship of their crystallized image of thought is frightening. Such persons are, in my opinion, more deserving of the title anti-philosopher than those they seek to repute. Their view of philosophy is so rigid that they cease to do philosophy, and sometimes try to asphyxiate it.

>>"If you disagree with it, start a thread about it, don't kill the Husserl conversation with boring criteria of a marginally important sematical argument."
By "it", I assume that you mean "anti-philosophy" - if so, I've already explained why I posed my questions: I wanted to know what Jason meant by that term so that I could *then* engage in meaningful conversation about Husserl. As for "boring criteria of a marginally important sematical argument" [sic. again, try a spell checker next time - they've been around even longer than public use of the internet], I have responded to that in various ways herein. And were you to reread Jason's post, you would note that he wrote two paragraphs: (1) "The writings of Edmund Huseerl [sic[ were brilliant" (a statement - had Jason asked "What do you think is brilliant about Husserl's writings?" we would have had a conversation-starter); and (2) a claim about ANTI-philosophers. So all that I had to go on was that he likes Husserl and dislikes ANTI-philosophers. I like ice-cream, but I don't like salmon. So what?