If you're going to respond to a definition by authority and claim it's incorrect, let me know how A) your authority is better or B) how you distinguish the current situation from the definition. You can't just say 'you're not right' and claim you've done ANYTHING to forward discussion. What you have done is essentially restate your argument, which has already been substantially decimated by the presentation of authority disputing your claim.
I've pushed a pawn...and a queen. Let me know when you decide to play chess instead of Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Okay, if you insist on unpleasantness so be it.
Let's look at the definition you posted in note 12:
hypocrite
\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.
All right, now what is the core of that definition?
one who plays a part...a dissembler, feigner...one who...puts on...false pretender...simulates.
In other words, for those in the cheap seats, the sine qua non of the status of hypocrite is pretending to be something you're not. If you're not pretending to be something you're not, or to virtues you don't practice, you're not a hypocrite. Period.
A person who once was something, but has stopped and now freely confesses and accuses himself, is not playing a part, dissembling, feigning, putting on, pretending, or simulating anything.
In other words, your own authority shows that your understanding of the concept of hypocrisy is totally wrong.
For the last paragraphs, just assume that I've made various slurs on your intelligence and reasoning abilities in the same tone as your notes to me, and then say bye bye.