More often than not, Føllesdal's "Fregean" interpretation of Husserl's notion of noema gets distorted and his critics argue against a strawman. Recently, critics have complained that on Føllesdal's reading Husserl would be commited to either

• a radical form of internalism about intentional content and/or

• descriptivism about the meaning of singular terms and/or

• the claim that there can be no direct reference, since intentional representation is always mediated by noematic Sinn, all of which are found to be implausible.I will argue against these objections.