Well, of course it is questioning your legitimacy. I fail to see what is odd about that, though. You are just a random guy on the internet.
I'm merely pointing out that it showcases a lack of benefit of the doubt and is overall a hostile action, warranted or not.
The people most likely to be interested in a video interview with you are the people least likely to be able to judge for themselves how well you know and do what you offer. As I already said: Of course, laymen can be right and professionals wrong, but the opposite view works better as a general approach. In other words, appealing to an authority (by definition 'a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject, an expert') makes more sense than appealing to a layman.
That may be accurate but may also not be accurate. Some people may also find it an interesting challenge to see how good I am. Personally, I would probably fall in that category, but you are probably right in that I constitute a smaller minority who get kicks out of challenging people's knowledge.
I again assure you that I did not ask because I am interested in whether or not you know the lore and can wield the vocabulary, but because I wondered what path you have taken to feel comfortable offering your knowledge as expertise. I got my answer.
You have not changed that much since you wrestled with Kalach over typology last year.
In some ways I probably haven't, but in a lot of ways I have. Though again, I find it odd for you to ask for my credentials if you are, as you say, not interested in what lore and vocabulary I can wield, since those credentials ultimately infer, especially as you imply, what I'm wielding.
The session wasn't that helpful and Kashimi proceeded to denounce all tests, all questionnaires and all "general" characteristics of the types, so basically only his form of thought is right it seems, postponement, interruptions and add to that he diagnosed me on 10 simple answers of 7 simple word questions. We chatted through text since we were unable to video chat, however, which should have called for more than what we talked to actually get an accurate typing. He typed me ESFP and I attribute it to my longest statement that he cared to receive being Se related as it's the one function he asked most questions for and the only question I was able to verbally speak after his end of the skype videochat didn't work, the questions were really vague which I felt asked for vague answers without fluff and so he says that I must not be a logical thinker as the questions were open ended, but he hardly asked any questions where you could determine through ones actions if one was logical or not. The questions were incredibly open-ended, for example "What movies do you like?", "Why?" as if expecting to receive reviews for each and every single one of my favorite movies and so he says that my answers are essentially indicative of shallow thinking.
It honestly felt half-assed and I don't care to waste my time again trying to "get it right" because that's really all it was, a waste of time seeing as he couldn't really contrast between ENTJ or ESFP , all he probably based that on was my long Se answer due to questions which were Se related and me telling him I was certain of those functions exactly, but have a go at it and see how knowledgeable you feel he is because he made it seem he's done more intensive research and work than the people who made the tests and type categorizations, hell, maybe even Jung himself. He definitely types better than he speaks, but that hardly means anything. I might be coming off as critical, but this is what happened. Why lie? Remember, we only chatted through text, there would have been much more to type off if we spoke through video chat. Anyway, good luck getting donations!
I'm sorry if you felt it was not meaningful to you and I felt that you were perhaps needlessly shortworded over text and maybe it had helped to have a video conversation but since Skype kept breaking up and/or ending the call, I figured there was no point to it.
As for more "effort", I think effort could have been put forth both ways. You did however seem unresponsive to what I asked you, so with that there isn't much I can do about it if you yourself do not feel there is anything you want to talk about that you felt was relevant outside of answering questionnaires. Some of my questions weren't that much different from that of the questionnaire questions though. The most important thing when being typed, which I can advice anyone about, is to try to not be tongue-tied but when asked questions, try to really respond to those questions and if you think the questions are not meaningful, suggest what else to talk about. Subjects are not something I'm picky over, since I think the easiest and best way one can figure out someone's cognition is to see what people are most naturally drawn to do on their own.
With that said, yes, I do denounce all tests since I think the tests are ultimately not really dealing with the cognitive functions as much as they end up being about stereotype behavior and sometimes that fits, sometimes it doesn't fit. Since I, as it says in the OP, primarily offer Jungian typing, MBTI and such tests therefore mean very little to me.
As for ENTJ vs ESFP, I don't think I really got time to actually explain the differences between the two either, though. I could have offered you a much more in-depth difference between the two, if you had asked for it. I did begin to explain how Te is like and what rationality is, however, and if you feel that explanation isn't meaningful, then perhaps Jungian type isn't your cup of tea in the first place so I wish you luck in whatever kind of information you are looking for, then.