I haven't read past reply 57, so this may have been dealt with but...

Praeter writes there

Isn't dogmatic anti-sedevacantism disallowed here?

Ah! I expressed myself badly. I should have pointed out that Praeter has said that
"the Dimond Brothers and other sedevacantists or sedeprivationists....themselves are outside the Church".

Is it allowed to declare such things here?

The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.

This is what they hope is the worst anyway, but most actually believe that this would be the best case scenario.  

No, best case from their perspective is obviously that they're actually right.  +Lefebvre repeatedly stated that they could in fact be right.  I love it how so many self-proclaimed followers of +Lefebvre are dogmatic anti-sedevacantists when +Lefebvre was most certainly not; then they get upset at the suggestion that +Lefebvre was not dogmatic R&R, claim that the sedevacantists are lying when they produce verifiable quotations straight from The Angelus website, and throw tantrums in the face of indisputable proof.

That's just based on bad will and wishful thinking on your part.  +Lefebvre felt that they were very possibly right, so I guess he doesn't fall into your group of "non-sede Catholics".

Do you celebrate Mass in English, Russian, Ukranian or Latin? Do you sign yourself starting from the left or the right? Do you use three joint fingers? Do you believe the transubstantiation (two videos suggest that, yes, you do)?

But most importantly of all, does your rite (not you, personally) believe in strict EENS or lax EENS? I could not appreciate this from any of the videos (I googled Eastern rites EENS).

OK, we all know this, man.  All we're saying is that unlike many of his followers, he was never dogmatic anti-sede.

Not so, I actually hope that at some point in time that they are proven right the only way possible - by a future pope declaring as much. But if they are wrong, then they will suffer the consequences of being wrong. For non-sedes, this is the risk we are not willing to take, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to ever even consider taking that risk. Do not mistake my lack of liberal thinking with bad will and wishful thinking.

+ABL speculated the sedes might be right but he never went sede, choosing instead to stick with tradition. He never thought it was a good idea or ever told anyone to become a sede, but he did expel sedes from his seminaries, who in turn went off and started their own sede groups.

Still, best if sedes stick to referencing their own, like Ibranyi and Dimonds, Fr. Cekada and +Sanborn and +CMRI and etc,. After all, it only makes sense that non-sedes never reference sedes to support non-sedeism, just as it makes no sense whatsoever to reference +ABL to support sedeism as if he was a supporter of it.