reply to post by Mintwithahole.
For what it's worth, here are my definitions of the terms you picked up on. If you review the thread in detail, you'll get more of an idea of why
I've defined these terms thusly:
Debunker
Someone who is out to "debunk" a hypothesis or assertion at any cost: they may be being paid to do so or they may be driven by psychological
necessity. An example of the former is J. Allen Hynek when he came up with the infamous "marsh gas" explanation for a UFO case - exactly which one
I can't remember. From Jacques Vallee's views in
Forbidden Science (well worth a read imho), Hynek, while working for Blue Book, knew full
well that it was just a front and occasionally had to perform duties of debunking that actually sat rather badly with his own convictions.
There is also good reason to believe that Philip Klass was a paid debunker: NASA has one or two people they routinely wheel out who seem to fulfil
this function.
At any rate, it's almost invariably someone
with an agenda.
Pseudo-skeptic
Someone who considers himself to be a skeptic but actually invariably espouses the accepted/conventional view of things. This type is generally not
given to questioning conventional wisdom and usually attacks those who do. I would say that these people have much in common with the
right wing authoritarian personality type and is very much
the "follower" type who cheerleads on forums like James Randi's.
Zetetic
A genuine skeptic who will question and/or reevaluate
just about anything given reason to do so. I'd place myself in this camp. Usually
criticised for being "gullible" by the pseudo-skeptics.
In posts earlier in this thread I have more to say about the early split in CSICOP and how the zetetics tend to leave because they're intellectually
honest, whereas the pseudos aren't.
Skeptic
A title claimed equally by all three categories above.
Some people do it to be smart, some do it because they like to disrupt everyone else or go against the grain, others might do it because
they follow the medias example, or because they fear being called a "conspiracy freak." Some people simply believe what they want to and refuse to
accept things no matter what facts are presented to them! Anyway those are some examples I can think of that would cause a person to appear to be a
disinformant. 
