The debate between Derrick and Searle in the 1970s and 1980s, spurred by Derrida's engagement with Austin in “Signature Event Context”, is perhaps the closest thing that the tradition has to an ongoing exchange of ideas between well-known analytic and continental philosophers, notwithstanding the sometimes aggressive and polemical stances taken by both Derrida and Searle. Both philosophers claimed that their interaction should not be understood as a clash between representatives of the sides of a “divide” In fact, Derrida accuses Searle of being Husserlian in relation to meaning and intentionality (indeed, there is a fairly close relationship between Searle and Husserl on the intentional, issues of naturalism aside), and Searle accuses Derrida of being Fregean in maintaining that unless a concept involves rigorous distinctions it is not an appropriate philosophical concept to use at all (a charge that Derrida accepts). Derrida even suggests that his own work is actually closer to Austin's than Searle's (Searle being the avowed inheritor and well-credentialled speech act theorist). Nonetheless, it has proved difficult for people to avoid this way of seeing it, if only out of a curiosity as to whether useful debate across the divide is possible. Analytic philosophers have widely proclaimed Searle the victor (Føllesdal 1996: 204; Glock 2008: 257), and have regarded Derrida's contributions as largely ad hominem attacks. It is not uncommonly alleged that, while Searle demanded clarity and calculable answers and solutions, Derrida compounded problem upon problem, such that the distinct became obscure and the obscure became distinct, and then proceeded to play with Searle's name (SARL).