I think Trinoc alludes to an interesting point. I suspect most attendees (including me) put speakers into one of two groups: skeptics or believers. Of course I'm sure it's not as simple as this and that there is a more complex continuum. But advantage of this simple dichotomy is that is helps attendees create a framework for what is about to come.
I, probably like most there, had placed Julian in the category of knowledgeable skeptic, based, for example, on his writing in various skeptical media.
While I was disappointed with the skeptical quality of his presentation, my real concern is the number of people in the room who may not have noticed.
This means that as a group, we are not doing enough to educate our members and to ensure their growth as skeptics.
Now that is very presumptive of me because I am projecting my personal objectives onto other members. But perhaps they don't really want to know about the in's and out's of skepticism - perhaps everyone does just want a reasonably intelligent debate whether "properly" skeptical or not followed by a piss up.
And just for the record, I'm first in the line for a piss-up, but I disagree with us calling the content - especially of speakers like Julian (as opposed to Louis, Chris, Richard, etc. - "skepticism". And I am not saying I am an expert, but I make the effort to study it quite rigorously.
I predict that unless our group understands and articulates its mission, we are in danger of losing direction and fragmenting. Perhaps observations like mine or Tricon speed or even cause this fragmentation. I don't know.