What sort of language is that?  Do you talk to your mother like that?  Would you talk to your wife like that?  Would you talk to your daughter like that?  If not, then why would it be appropriate to use that language here, on a forum dedicated to traditional Catholicism that is not only publicly accessible, but presumably read by, both women and children?  Setting aside its obvious misogynistic overtones, do you think it is appropriate in this forum to create in the minds of its readers an image of a man wearing panties?  That's acceptable here?  Are you not the same individual who has a thread on this very same forum castigating boys for wearing shorts at athletic events, as well as decry the moral depravity dealt us by the 60's generation?  And yet at the same time you use this type of language?

Hypocrite.

And a vulgar one at that.    

Let's see:

So, after your failed "surveiling the FSSP" attempt, your bruised ego is giving it another go by attempting to goad me into an argument, at a time (i.e., arguing with Ladislaus on another thread) in which you hope I will be hot enough to reciprocate?

Quite honestly, you aren't worth it.

I would end my conversation with you here, with the same words I ended the last one:

"I leave you to consider your own motives."

Something about people in glass houses.

Nice deflection.

And I suppose if SeanJohnson had made his comments in the "Men Only" sub-forum, which is only accessible by "men" registered to this fourm, I would tend to agree.  In fact, I do not believe I would have any problem with it.  But he didn't. Instead he chose to make his sophomoric and demeaning comments in a publicly accessible portion of the forum, a portion open to both women and children, which is an opportunity for scandal.  I simply do not believe that to be an acceptable form of behaviour on a forum supposedly committed to traditional Catholicism.  

Moreover, and ironically, that you see no problem with this sort of behaviour is, by all accounts, contrary to the beliefs of the the Protestant cινιℓ ωαr generals you seem to be gaga over.  While, naturally, I never personally met either Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson, I have read enough about each of them to know that if they were present when SeanJohnson made such crude comments within earshot of either women or children, either one of them would've stood up and slapped or pistol-whipped (or both) SeanJohnson for acting so insolent and uncouth.  

BTW, speaking of Robert E. Lee, why would one choose him as an avatar on a forum directed to traditional Catholicism?  By all accounts, Lee was a Protestant Episcopalian, who made no conversion (at least not publicly) to the one true faith.  And while I am by no means in any position to presume God's mercy, Lee most likely died in unrepentant sin outside the Church, and as such, by all objective standards, mostly like did not, nor can not, obtain the Beatific Vision.  In that regard, a very strange selection of an avatar.    

If one is champing at the bit to praise any Confederate General, this would be my selection: Gen P.G.T. Beauregard

Kaz has been a member here a lot longer than you, and has only 20 down votes, so the problem obviously lays with you, and not with him.