one of the things you mention about that article is that she is careful to distinguish between postmodernism, postmodernity, poststructuralism, etc. That is actually standard fare for any discussion of what is usually derisively termed 'pomo'. So to is the discussion of the difference between postmodernism as a period and a theory, etc. etc.
I recall having a similar discussion here on list, with Catherine Driscoll, you, Yoshie, and others who were, at the time, attacking pomo. Catherine asked pointed questions about the usefulness of lumping thinkers together under the label.
I bring it up because there is, I suspect, not much utility in trying to drive those points home. People have tried it for 10 years -- and the original texts on the subject were doing it 10 years before that. What you have is purposeful misreadings in that case -- which is why the conversation bogs down.
Dennis pointed out the fact that there are 655 comments on a piece by Stanley Fish in the NY Times (specifically addressing claims like Doss'), most of it rehashing the same old things that were said in 1998 and in 1988. It's kind of amazing.
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)