I’m afraid I have no time to sort out your post, because we’re about to drive 1000 miles.
So I will say two things.

I don’t have John Searle’s intentionality book with me, however I was intimately involved in its writing. John, who was my teacher, acknowledges my help in the introduction and cites me in the text. John taught a course on the first draft of his book, I was the TA.  John, the phenomenologist Christine Skarda (fresh from the Husserl archives), and I were involved in constant conversations about the manuscript, all of us good friends, though of course the extraordinary creativity the book manifests is his. What a book!

During this time John was reading  Being and Time, brought the book to all his lectures, showed it to the students and spoke positively of phenomenology. He felt the division between analytic and continental was needless. He said that phenomenology is the part of analytic philosophy that deals with intentionality, and analytic philosophy is the part of phenomenology that deals with everything else. He acknowledged in his lectures a debt to Heidegger. I’m no expert on Heidegger and I believe the part of his book which deals with The Network and The Background are derived from Heidegger.  Quite crucial to the book. And very good stuff.

There are plenty of Continental philosophers, obviously, and each philosopher often talks about lots of different things. One can have a very low opinion of some continental philosophers without having a very low opinion of all of them, and one can object emphatically to what one of them says about something  while thinking that other things he says are quite valuable.

As mentioned I have studied other important continental philosophers in graduate seminars taught by leading analytic philosophers. Just did it this semester with Robert Adams. Made sense to me, made sense to them. And I myself have used continental writing in some of my publications, especially concerning the imagination and dreaming. As have others, e.g. Colin McGinn in his recent book on the imagination.

Second, I want to say personally how sad I feel about your posts. Perhaps I haven’t understood adequately what you are doing, and it seems to me your posts have taken the thread down an unfortunate path that can lead to nothing fruitful. Nothing personal. I don’t believe what you do about continental philosophy, though I do understand why people sometimes think it, but if I did believe it, I don’t suppose I would argue for it here. Of course, if you have widely studied continental philosophy and reached the conclusion that it is largely bunkum, you’re entitled to your opinion. All the best