Don't be stupid. Derrida is fairly fabulous. Those who resort to calling him not philosophy generally subscribe to willful misreadings of his texts at best, or at worst simply don't want to do the work.
I'm not being stupid. He's not a logician, an actual philosopher on the level of Betrand Russell. He's a literary theorist, what some people would incorrectly label a philosopher, on the level of Roland Barthes. Of course, to some this will seem to leave me open to criticism since many morons (wikipedia I'm looking at you here) would lump Russell in with Derrida. Far from it, in my opinion. Russell, at his best, employs symbolic logic. That's the great thing about symbolic logic: we don't have to do too much 'work.' Things are written simply, with little wiggle room. Derrida postulates in the opposite way. He reminds me of Neitzche, sort of an anti-Aquinas type style, where you have to hunt for the thesis. Way too much obfuscastion. That's why Foucault called derrida and his work "obscurantisme terroriste
". But that bit about the baguette wasn't a complete slight. David Farrell Krell writes in his book "The Purest of Bastards: Works of Mourning, Art & Affirmation in the Though of Jacques Derrida" that Derrida latches onto Rousseau's 'movement of the stick' or "ce mouvement de baguette" in the "De Grammatologie" and expounds upon it until it fills an entire chapter. But, when he does lay out said framework, it still seems unecessarily impenetrable. For instance, I see Derrida's 'nothing says what it is' concept much more simply laid out in Hegel (if one can rightly use Hegel as an example of streamlined simplicitly.)