He thinks that Bishop Williamson sits at home and listens to Beethoven all day.

That is what he said on his website.

His forum failed because he and sean are partially mentally unstable, and also very closed minded to new ideas (such as flat earth, but not limited to that.)

This is the crux of the problem.

Samuel, based on where he lives, has got to be at least part Irish. But what I know for sure is that he's big on action and is probably Choleric in temperament (a trait he shares with Sean Johnson, I might add)

Now the action part CAN BE good, when paired with patience. But all too many "action" types are just doing it because that's the only way to satisfy their temperament. They are doing it for purely human reasons -- for example, Fr. Pfeiffer. No one can say he wasn't "getting stuff done" and a man of action. The problem was, he had no patience and was overly attached to his own desires and ambitions. His own ambition got mixed up in his Catholic Action, to the point that he started embracing a fraudulent "bishop" and multiple priests tainted by scandal of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, perversion, etc.

The devil also tempted him (successfully) to attack his fellow priests and even bishops, when they went against his desires and ambition for power. Samuel should take note of this point, and beware for his own soul's sake.

Figuratively speaking, Samuel wants to gather a group of fighters, going from glen to glen, over hill and dale, gathering an army of tall and stout Irishmen bearing pikes, slowly but surely, growing larger by day, culminating in a great and glorious battle to win territory and freedom for the Resistance.

Anything short of this causes him frustration and impatience.

The fact he's also frustrated with +Williamson shows I'm at least in good company.

The fact he's also frustrated with +Williamson shows I'm at least in good company.

Well I don't think we should be frustrated at all with the Bishop.

I don't agree with his thoughts on the Novus Ordo, but that is not something to be frustrated over. At his age we can just let it pass.

What I wish is people would listen to certain of his reflections more often, instead of their own notions.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Are people turning to sedevacantism because of your forum? 

Hardly.  My experience is that once people have chosen their position (R&R, sedevacantist, etc.) they RARELY move but attack the other side tooth and nail.

If a traditional Catholic wants to believe that Francis isn't the pope, then fine. It's not that big a deal. What is a big deal is when they insist that all trads must hold that view, or that they must hold the view that Francis is the Pope, but he doesn't have jurisdiction.

My motivation is to fight the 'dogmatic' sede view, which is growing.  This dogmatic, excessive and self-authoritarian stance is causing division in families, churches and in tradition.  I've known many people who have been denied Holy Communion or banned from hearing mass because they would not hold 'sedevacantism'.  This has been going on for decades, but it is growing in some areas (and Fr Cekada is a big cause).  This type of stuff is supremely uncharitable and sinful (for its uncharity, for its denial of mass/sacraments, and for its schismatic-like "church rules") and the devil loves it.

My motivation is to fight the 'dogmatic' sede view, which is growing.  This dogmatic, excessive and self-authoritarian stance is causing division in families, churches and in tradition.  I've known many people who have been denied Holy Communion or banned from hearing mass because they would not hold 'sedevacantism'.  This has been going on for decades, but it is growing in some areas (and Fr Cekada is a big cause).  This type of stuff is supremely uncharitable and sinful (for its uncharity, for its denial of mass/sacraments, and for its schismatic-like "church rules") and the devil loves it.

Yes, exactly! And yes, the devil loves it. And the sedes are alright with that, apparently. They seem to enjoy the division that they cause. 

Ultimately this will end in the Traditionalist movement becoming home aloners if not some becoming atheists. Home alone has become significant in the Post Falls area and is growing. Divide and then exterminate. The devils venom is doing its job.

I didn't know that home alone has become a significant problem in Post Falls. There must be a general confusion among many there.

I now have to wonder if maybe Bp. Fellay was right when he talked about the risk of schism by staying away from Rome. Not that I'm for reconciliation, but the schismatic mentality is getting stronger among trads, if this forum is any indication.

Many trads don't seem to have the ability anymore to stay with what +ABL wisely taught, since the SSPX changed it's course, and the sedes have infiltrated trad ranks. Between the two factors, it's a sad situation.

Where there is no resistance Mass a Catholic should stay at home.

One has an obligation to attend a valid, licit and moral mass, under pain of hell, regardless of the priest's views (assuming he's a valid priest).  The resistance masses are not the only masses.

This has nothing to do with sedevacantism or liberalism. It is simply catholic moral theology that you cannot attend the Mass of a heretic.

If you're talking about the novus ordo mass, I agree, it's heretical.  Outside of this, you're being extreme.

The SSPX are formally aligned with the conciliar church which makes them modernist heretics.

The SSPX is very close to being 'red lighted' in my opinion, but not yet.  Sunday masses, by and large, still fulfill one's sunday obligation, even if the sermon is full of propaganda and the church is full of sheeple.  Until the sspx formally becomes indult, and outside of marriage masses where the novus ordo "priests" are involved, I would attend if I had to.  The obligation to honor God through a valid and pleasing Mass outweighs any ancillary questionable orthodoxy.