I am not here endorsing Lenin's call for a structured party, but his observations (1904 OSFTSB) about a situation in which
"any individual could pass from one circle to another at his 'own free will', for he was not faced with any formulated expression of the will of the whole. Disputes within the circles were not settled by rules, 'but by a struggle and by threats to resign'".
What can happen on e-mail lists is a public statement of resignation with an implication that the individual will not return. IMO these resignations are powerful messages. They cannot be said to be illegitimate. Without a commitment to a broad forum encompassing a wide range of opinion they can tip the dynamics of lists so that lists diverge in quite separate specialist directions. A less drastic response than resignation is to protest about the offending post and decline to correspond with the author in future.
I think there is generally a high standard of civility on these lists, particularly considering the sharpness of the issues.
We need to build the idea that in terms of individual experience the best thing that can happen to you on an e-mail list is not to meet an intellectual clone, but to meet a serious opponent who will challenge you to look at a question in a different way.
Unfortunately although humour is sometimes friendly, it is especially risky. It privileges one's own cultural beliefs and codes for handling conflict and fraternization. We are divided by a common language. We underestimate the differences in culture.
Chris Burford
London