Starchild:
Like you, I would be inclined to credit the role of face-to-face,
ongoing contact that we have. But, oddly, it seems to me that this is
not the whole explanation. I participate in another list--scientific,
rather than political--which has always been incredibly nasty. (I
stopped posting some years ago, and scan only for posts from certain
people.) But this group meets at least annually; the people know each
other personally; and they behave like decent human beings when they are
face-to-face. It does have in common with libertarian lists,
interestingly, being overwhelmingly male, so simple testosterone
poisoning is always a possible explanation. Maybe the difference is as
simple as meeting monthly rather than yearly.
The other factor I've wondered about, in a tentative way, is the role of
certain principals in creating a certain culture on a discussion list.
Many of the original members of this group have set a consistently
beautiful example (I've been as intemperate as anyone), so boorishness
would stand out more. I'm reminded of the model of British scientific
meetings, where the standard procedure (I'm not exaggerating) is to
propose a vote of thanks to the speaker for work she or he has done, and
then proceed to rip the paper to shreds. But the positive regard in our
group feels more genuine than that Britannically superficial civility.
I'm still thinking, and appreciating.