"Aside from that helpful interjection, this discussion is quickly degenerating into attacks, both foolish and mean."

I don't think it would be either foolish or mean to attack all obscure continental verbiage verging on pompous nonsense in the name of analytic clarity and rigor. If you think it is foolish and mean, please note that I am not alone in this, as I side with such illustrious analytic philosophers like Jonathan Barnes (writing in one of his books of the "kind of charlatanry" that passes for continental philosophy), David Bell (who wrote about the "dismal and dogmatic" aspect of Husserl's philosophy"), Timothy Williamson (see the interview with him at http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/classical-investigations-timothy-williamson/) and Roger Scruton (who once said he does not understand Heidegger at all and does not know anybody else who can make any sense of his writings)... and I could extend the list further.
They don't hold these disparaging views because they are ignorant of the topic (which they surely aren't) or because they have had a dismissive attitude from the beginning  - no, these views are often the result of several years of fruitless effort in vain, devoted to make sense of continental thinkers.

"Do you really give 7 years of graduate training (on average) so little effect?" 

I have already corrected myself in my earlier post on that point, because of course what I had in mind was people with analytic training. Still, I would like to add something.

7 years of graduate training in analytic philosophy provides you with everything you need to defend your claims on the philosophical issues you are interested in, assess the validity of arguments, think up counter-examples, discern the failings of inadequately formulated positions etc.
By contrast, after 7 or more years of graduate training in continental philosophy you will still find yourself struggling to decipher the obscure texts written by the "big names" in the field.
After  all those years you will not be in a position even to judge whether what they've written is really intelligible or not, far less to decide whether their statements (if they made any at all) are true or false. Of course, you can make yourself believe that you understand them, but that would be no more than a kind of self-deception or self-conceit. To see that it is the case indeed you only have to look to the vast amount of secondary literature that abounds with wildly diverging interpretations of any of the classic and contemporary figures in the continental tradition. Who is to decide which is the correct one?