Who is the skeptic? reason-denier? lacking in Integrity? which view leads to meaninglessness?

On more than one occasion, I have been accused by a Gangadeanian of being a skeptic. This goes hand in hand with being a "denier of reason", "lacking integrity", and falling into the abyss of meaninglessness, according to them. Just to set the record straight, I don't take myself to be any of these things. These are actually what is up for debate between me and Gangadean so it ought not to be presupposed at the outset. In fact, I suspect that if anyone is denying reason, lacking integrity, holding views that lead to meaningless or skepticism, it's the Gangadeanian. Let me explain.

My objections and criticisms are often of this theme: I try to point out uncertainties regarding the beliefs that Gangadeanians claim to be certain about. So it may appear that I am some kind of skeptic. Since skepticism is often associated with the sort of view you want to avoid, I worry that my being labeled a skeptic or thought of as a skeptic makes it too easy for some to merely dismiss what I have to say. I suspect that at least some Gangdeanians and sympathizers get in mind that "my way" leads to skepticism, and since they associate skepticism with meaninglessness, they can too quickly conclude that my objections don't seem worthwhile to engage with.  

But I think this is all wrong. My primary method in this blog has been to assume (for the sake of discussion) some of what Gangadean assumes and then to show how it stands in tension with some of his other claims. When I ask Gangadean for proof that his theory of knowledge is the correct theory, I am merely upholding his claim that positions need always to be rationally justified. The same for what counts as "common ground" and his many merely asserted definitions. I'm asking for him to rationally justify these definitions or analyses. I am assuming for the sake of discussion his mantra that "meaning is more basic than truth" and asking him to justify (rather than merely state) the meanings he assigns to his terms. The same for "self-attesting" and how he knows when something is self-attesting. I assume his theory of knowledge and ask how he comes to know when some proposition is self attesting on this very same theory of knowledge. You see, if he thinks one ought to be rationally justified in all of one's beliefs, then he should hold himself to the same standards. He ought to rationally justify each and every one of his beliefs. And if he claims to know with certainty a bunch of claims, and he holds others to a particular standard of knowledge, then he should be in a position to explain how he knows everything he claims to know, by the very same standard. And if Gangadean claims that some basic things are as clear as he says they are, then he ought to give us extremely precise, well developed theories of all the things upon which his beliefs rest. My objections or criticisms are in effect trying to point out that he fails to do so or at least that if he were to be consistent through and through, he would end up with contradictions or inconsistencies or at least very problematic views---and all this by is own lights!

So this brings us to an interesting juncture. Gangadeanians accuse me of denying reason, of holding views that lead to meaninglessness, as being a skeptic and of lacking integrity. But if internal incoherence of a system of beliefs leads to meaninglessness (which I take the Gangadeanians accept), then I am actually accusing Gangadean and his kin for having views that lead to meaninglessness by their own lights. If internal incoherence amounts to the denail of reason (again something I think they would agree with), then I am bringing the charge that Gangadean's views amount to the denial of reason by their own lights. And if skepticism follows from having a belief system with contradictions/inconsistencies, then I am accusing Gangadean of skepticism by their own lights.  Finally, insofar as having mutually inconsistent views without being willing to recognize it, or insofar as holding others to philosophical standards that one does not hold oneself to amounts to lacking integrity, I am accusing Gangadean of lacking integrity. What I am not doing is merely asserting that Gangadean and his kin are any of these things. Instead, I'm trying to show that they are via arguments and I would hope that my philosophical opponents would do the same.