Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.
One thing many woos are fond of calling us is 'pseudoskeptic' in an effort to make us look like denialists, rather than people who seek out evidence. Interestingly enough, this tends to come up when the skeptics are doing exactly what skeptics should do: Ask for evidence, point out fallacies, and gripe about gaping holes in experimental protocols.
One factor that probably contributes a great deal to this is that a woo doesn't know what a skeptic is. That's likely one reason why so many of them can attempt to fashion themselves as being skeptics. The proper way to deal with the whole thing is to ask for evidence (or presenting when asked), point out fallacies, and gripe about gaping holes in experimental protocols: In other words, doing exactly what skeptics should do.
If you're doing a double take, yes, that line was repeated. Logic works the same way, regardless of whether you're debating a woo, a skeptic, or a reverse-woo. Name-calling doesn't work (though it can supposedly be therapeutic), but pointing out logical fallacies and such is always a legitimate strategy.