Cathinfo's identity as a free-for-all reflects the moderation policy of its owner. Matthew deliberately minimizes his interventions in the forum. As I understand it, this is both a philosophical position and a practical matter of not having time to do it any other way.
A significant proportion of posters use the freedom created by this policy to engage in insults. It does not seem reasonable to blame it on any individual. Nor do I see any reason to associate it with any particular position on the Crisis or other theological views.
Singling out one person to ban for a behaviour engaged in by many does not seem just. Retroactively making insults an offense punishable by banning, without any warning, also seems unjust.
I acknowledge that Ladislaus is not very nice and has a tendency to make arguments personal and unpleasant, but there are many others that would need to be banned if those were the criteria.
I also note that Poche is one of the nicest posters on this forum. In my recollection, he is also the poster who has had the most people comment that he ought to be banned. Personally, although I appreciate his affability and even-temper, I would find banning him a far more reasonable choice than Ladislaus. Even so, I prefer that there be no public calls for banning and leaving the question of bans up to Matthew.
I agree with the entirety of your post.
My banishment call was a debate tactic, and not sincere (though I must admit I would be quite happy had Matthew actually done it).
Notice Matthew didn’t even take me seriously?
Ladislaus smelled blood, where he should have smelled a rat, and like a dog locked in on a pheasant, got tunnel vision, and did not see where he was being led:
The papacy of Francis and the last 6 popes is a dogmatic fact which he is obliged to accept, or be a heretic (and schismatic).
If he wants to wiggle off the hook, he will need to show why the last 6 pontificates have not been dogmatic facts, despite the peaceable universal recognition of the Church, which is what makes them so.
Ps: And since Lefebvre himself sometimes quoted this same doctrine, it ought to have shown Ladislaus that he did not properly understand Lefebvre and Williamson (just as he did not understand Chazal), or does he wish to imply Lefebvre and Williamson are heretics for denying dogmatic facts?