I think you're really reaching here. I think I answered you adequately, without invective or insult, even without the indirect invective and insult hidden in "if" clauses. Look for the paragraph beginning "Penn is allowed to say whatever he wants." If you think that I did not, then you are welcome to point out where I didn't and ask for clarification.
In fact, I am not pi**ed off but rather amused. However, this may shed some light on your reaction, and we may be nearing a breakthrough. Is the fact that I consider Penn an entertainer what set you off? Because that's quite accurate. I do. I do not know what "professional skeptic" means. I certainly don't know what it means well enough to be able to decide whether he is one. Is it merely that one has made money promoting skepticism, or is there more? I appreciate magicians getting involved in skepticism, as they have useful skills that they can bring to the table, but the notion of "professional skeptic" mystifies me. If the term were to have any significance, I would estimate that it had something to do with combining real scientific training with training in conjuring. I don't know how much scientific training Penn has, and in the absence of that knowledge, I'm not willing to declare that he is a professional skeptic.
Perhaps you can convince me. Perhaps you can directly address the fact that I consider Penn to be primarily an entertainer with some interests related to skepticism. I firmly believe that it is possible to get this right, and I don't even expect university accolades. However, based on my viewings of the famous and most recent cable show by Penn and Teller, the name of which I dare not mention, I am not convinced.
Yes, you can attempt to fire me. It will have little effect, unless it does. You'll know if it does, because I'll get kickbanned by the moderators.
