The [in]compatibility of science and religion

[tama]

55. OK, please enlighten me

My main criticism is the same as that of Marcello Truzzi, "one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organization after only a short time, arguing that many of those involved “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.”[22] Truzzi coined the term pseudoskeptic to describe critics in whom he detected such an attitude.[23]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry

What I see in "real life", if Internet counts as such, is much of the same attitude in the most vocal (and angry) supporters of the skeptic movement that Truzzi criticized as pseudoskepticism. A movement that has - at least in large parts - morphed into spitting image of what it was supposed to oppose.

Now, do you deny that pseudoskepticism, as Truzzi describes, exists? And if you don't, can you enlighten me to what extent "modern skepticism" has overcome the problems that caused Truzzi and many others to leave CSICOP and other related organizations?