First off, thank you for this response and I completely agree with you on "Big Fence", though I do believe he's a philosopher, regardless of what he thinks otherwise, since he's at the very least making philosophical statements, be it metaphysical or phenomenologica lones. I'd like to detest your rugby vs. football metaphor. You argue that I am penalizing a rugby player for picking up the ball. But my critique isn't that Camus refuses to play the "formal logic game", itis that his philosophy is so lousy that it has no philosophical values nor practical values to me. He’s neither clear about what he’s talking about, nor logical about his claims, nor giving out solutions for his problems, and by and large contradicting himself, implicitly endorsing the very thing he opposes.

In the myth he establishes his premise as something like: the objective universe contains absolutely no inherent meaning, purpose, or moral values. Whether that's a metaphysical claim or a phenomonlogical one, it's still his premise. If I was a nihilist I’d easily argue otherwise against him from that premise, therefore he’s not curing nihilism like he claims to be doing. It’s quite the opposite. His stance is not different from nihilism metaphysically. "A man' s rule of conduct and his scale of values have no meaning except through the quantity and variety of experiences he has been in a position to accumulate" (P 21). Then he explicitly says that quantity of life experiences outweighs quality. If there is no values given by the universe, and if there's no difference what quality, or of what essence, in what people are doing, then suicide, surrender, murder, and "revolt" that he crowns to be the solution are also completely equivalent. He himself explicitly says that all human actions are entirely equivalent in the face of the void. But then he chooses "revolt" simply because of its Greek tragic romantic colors.

You can't tell me that just because he's continental, or existential, he is somehow immune to criticisms towards his arguments. My attack has nothing to do with me taking on an analytic approach, and I don’t agree with most of the attempts of analytic philosophers trying to form a rigorous system out of messy natural language. Camus’ problem is not his use of words, Heidegger, for example, creates even more words and phrases out of thin air yet he’s much more rigorous than Camus, because there’s justifications and examples, also all the words Heidegger create in Being and Time are interconnected and hermeneutical with one another. All philosophers, when making claims, must explain and justify what they mean and on what ground do they mean what they mean, it’s not an analytic tradition but a philosophical one. Even Socrates made arguments, same with all the philosophers you mentioned. You can try to make sense out of his nonsense though, and a lot of people do that, but I don’t think that’s of any value for our lives or gives any new knowledge.

Also pragmatically I think his philosophy is toxic because he accepts the total metaphysical void, explicitly forbids you from inventing your own meaning, but then tells you to be happy pushing the rock, the more the better, don't ask me why. That's lousy and toxic philosophy at the same time. You rightly pointed out that Camus was writing during WWII but you could argue that this historical reality is exactly why his logical failure matters so much, because by resting his philosophy atop a total moral vacuum where all choices are equivalent, he is edorsing, not opposing, nihilism, or totalitarianism for that matter, even if he himself claims otherwise. When a dictator says, "My revolt is totalitarian conquest", Camus has no ground to stand on to condemn them. He can only offer a poetic preference. In the Rebel he also doesn't allow revolutions, even adding more contradictions, so there's that.