Could you elaborate? It's not obvious, except in the sentence with Heidegger, that you disagree at all. "Fraud" is a bit harsh, but saying that his claim to have a new way of thinking was a pitiful jump off a cliff is not to say that "every word he says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" Maybe the image of jumping off a cliff is too vivid. I take it mean having reached a position where you can convince yourself of anything, but that doesn't mean that you'll use this new tool to actually convince yourself of everything.

No discussion of Hegel is complete without posters.

I certainly believe that many people will be mislead by Michael Vassar's comment because they don't notice the difference between "very many" and "most."

"Folks from the outside often see 'philosophy' as something without internal divisions (like people from the outside of any culture)."

Aren't those people just straightforwardly wrong? If anything, philosophy has too many internal divisions.

"While it's true that 'very many' (for some values of 'very many') think Hegel is a fraud, he's still both popular and influential."

So? Those are not criteria that are useful for judging correctness - neither correctness in general, nor the correctness of the societies in question.

The site is Less Wrong, not Less Unpopular. We need to be concerned with what rightness and wrongness are, how we can distinguish between the two, and how we can recursively use the ability to tell one from the other to improve our ability to tell one from the other. Popularity / prestige not only has nothing to do with correctness, it tends to reinforce itself blindly.