I'm with Hillbilly
Civility isn't an end, it's sometimes a means to one.
That being said, I don't think confrontation is an end either. At times, it's an unavoidable means to an end (or to avoid one).
Civility or Confrontation, neither is to be embraced for it's own sake.
I admire a passionate advocate for their position, even if I disagree with their point of view. For that I can respect their willingness to put themselves on the line.
I hold in some contempt those who seek to in a backhanded way impose their point of view, or minimally constrain others from presenting theirs, in the name of "civility".
I don't believe that was the intent here, but I can see where some might seize upon the opportunity.
There are those that require confrontation. That confrontation needs to be forceful. Our editorial pages and letters to the editor are filled with content by passionate advocates for one point of view or another. Their tone isn't always pristine, their grammar perfect, or their language appropriate. But at least they care enough to get off of their posteriors and express themselves. They are willing to fight for their cause.
I fear we do much harm in the name of civility. Civility cannot be imposed. It has to be embraced willingly. Oh sure, THR members can be tossed. This is not a 1st Amendment protected zone...it's private "etherspace". We post at the pleasure of our host, and need to abide by his rules. But civility still won't be imposed...constraint of freedom of expression will be.
The High Road has an identity that it seeks to maintain. That I can respect. But it's identity is twofold. The same High Road also carries with it a passionate motto of Molon Labe (a decidedly "uncivil" retort to an aggressive tyrant).
Most world views carry with them a message of balance. Whether overt or covert. Well understood in some cases...in others, practictioners attempt to emphasize the "Yin" over the "Yang" or "Yang" over "Yin" depending on their bias (by way of example).
THR has promoted a view which might be described as "Defiant Civility". Let's respect that within reasonable parameters, passionate debate will sometimes be seen by some members as being uncivil. By others, reasonable requests to "tone it down" will be misconstrued as appeasement.
Make no mistake, we are in a figurative fight to the death for values we share in common. Too much civility and there won't be any need for THR. Too little and we disparage the values we claim to hold dear.
If you are constantly using filter workarounds to express yourselves, maybe you need to focus your passion more "eloquently". If you are constantly disgusted by impassioned debate, maybe you need to re-read the Molon Labe reference material by the heritage forum that spawned THR.
http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm
Attempting to practice "Defiant Civility" one post at a time...
CZ52'