Targeting a specific player is not a skill, but what is being taught is the tools needed to beat a specific player, which is by any definition a subset of knowledge. Under all definitions of learning, gaining knowledge is a form of learning. It is not analogous to being "handed a fish." It is analogous to being "taught how to fish but only a specific one." The analogy breaks down making statements about usefulness, fairness etc. because fishing and poker are significantly different, but it still remains learning something by any definition.
If you think that nothing is wrong with PTR then I have no problem with what you are saying because you are then being completely consistent.
It depends. There is a difference between saying that something is bad for the game and saying it is wrong. You can happily use it until it gets shut down and then think it's better for poker overall that it did.
You have yet to explain how the username in any way contibutes to teaching of poker. It is obviously unfair and bad for the "featured" player. And it is obviously bad for poker in general for the same reasons that PTR is bad for poker. Please explain why you think that showing the usernames is a good thing.
I don't have to explain how the username contributes to teaching of poker because I'm not advocating it does. It is the norm, and you need to prove that this is significant enough for people to deviate from this norm.
Being obviously bad for poker and unfair is not a good enough reason, because there are degrees of badness and unfairness. Teaching how to beat a type of fish is bad for poker, and it's unfair if you're that type of fish, or unfair if you're not signed up to the training site, yet no one is advocating the removal of that.
Your assumption that more people are using PTR than watching videos, I think, is unfounded.
No, I never claimed this. I claimed that people using PTR to get stats on specific players is greater than people using videos to get stats on specific players. A lot of people who watch videos aren't necessarily focussing on this information and using it this way.
By the way, if you keep saying that a lot of people believe this and many people believe that, I'm going to start asking for names.
I couldn't find an instance where I said a lot of people believe anything, but even if I did, it would be very hard to come up with all the names of people that I've had conversations with where I gained an intuitive sense of what they generally believe as a whole.