That's an interesting point Nettles. Perhaps the answer will emerge if we find out why people become skeptics in the first place. For example:
1. If the purpose is to bash non-evidence claimants, then skeptics are as subject to pack behaviour as any other creatures and hence why everyone "agrees" with everyone else.
2. Perhaps skeptics are scientists who doggedly follow the rules of science. There is either evidence for claims or there is no evidence for claims. Not much for skeptics to disagree on there then.
I am also beginning to find popular American Skeptics magazines boring because it's ho-hum the same UFO/psychic/medium themes, just the names and places change.
On the other hand, for example, I find research into why people are willing to accept non evidence-based claims interesting precisely because we know so little about it and it is therefore usually novel. However, these topics is not as popular as believer-bashing in skeptical circles (check out headings in these forums to see what the majority of topics are).
A refreshing change from the usual skeptical literature is the The Skeptical Intelligencer magazine edited by Mike Heap of AKSE. For instance, the last issue was themed around the placebo effect with fascinating articles by experts from various disciplines. The final article by Mike was brilliant and I still laugh when reading it: it's about how to set up your own "placebo practice". When you read it, you'll see exactly what every homeopath and alternative healer is doing! And indeed how to start your own and make a million! Mike kindly sent me an electronic copy and if anybody wants one, pm me here with your email address and I'll send it.
I guess what I am suggesting is that there can be more to skepticism than Believer-Bashing which while fun at times tends to get repetitive.
In fact Wayne Spencer, one the finest skeptics I know, believes that in order for skepticism to become an interesting and seriously accepted discipline, it needs to throw off this its populist believer-bashing image. However, while I sympathise with his view, I am not sure that I entirely agree. Serious skepticism can be as dry as any scientific article and therefore not accessible to most members of the public, surely one of the audiences that need it most for their protection. I therefore believe that skeptical populists do a good job of educating the public, but I hope that is not the beginning and end of all skepticism because as we are discovering, it can get rather boring with not much new content to discuss.