If you had to read their minds to tell the difference then it would mean they both used the same methodologies for different purposes reasons. The definitions show a distinct difference between the two. Pseudoskepticism is the anti-christ of true skepticism.
But the definitions don't tell me how to
distinguish between the two.
You say that: "A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking". Very well, then: so if someone claims to have seen fairies at the bottom of his garden, then the
true skeptic, who is prepared to be persuaded of any claim, no matter how startling, if presented with sufficient evidence, will say: "You will have to show me some good evidence for that claim, or I shall not be convinced". Whereas the pseudoskeptic, a bigot who has closed his mind to the possibility of fairies, will "cloak denialism in the language of skepticism", and will say ... "You will have to show me some good evidence for that claim, or I shall not be convinced".
How, then, are we to tell the two apart?
---
P.S:
here is a believer in fairies complaining about "pseudoskeptics":
The 'pseudoskeptics' can simply ignore the issue of consciousness for now, but they won't be able to understand the UFO/ET situation, or one of the major implications of contact. Any advanced technological civilization visiting our world (and their 'technology') will have not only a vastly greater understanding of physics, but of metaphysics and consciousness as well, and they will certainly be using this knowledge for their purposes here, in ways that most humans cannot imagine, much less understand.
Humans have long interacted with strange beings from countless other realms, such as angels, fairies, ghosts, etc.
At any rate, if I am right about this, I probably won't be the last Trek nerd to question the provenance of your quote, so you might as well save yourself some aggravation and embarrassment and check it out for yourself. 
