The framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that their fellow citizens' pursuit of personal interest would be bound by self-regulation based on religious belief and ethical principles. John Adams saw with particular clarity that without allegiance to those principles, no government could survive.

"We have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," he wrote in 1798. "Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

quote:


Studies have shown that protracted exposure to stress caused by living in an uncivil environment increases the chances of contracting cardiovascular disease, for example. And the American Psychological Association has estimated that workplace stress (considering absenteeism, loss of productivity, medical expenses and turnover) costs U.S. businesses about $300 billion a year.

quote:


We are the world's trustees – not just of the air we breathe and the water we drink, but of one another's quality of life, contentment and happiness.
Civility is the shape that care takes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage

One person read the article and 3 did not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

lol...

The framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that their fellow citizens' pursuit of personal interest would be bound by self-regulation based on religious belief and ethical principles. John Adams saw with particular clarity that without allegiance to those principles, no government could survive.

"We have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," he wrote in 1798. "Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Try explaining that to some of the posters around here who love to denigrate and belittle anyone who advocates morality or defends those with religious belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Here is a good example:

A mod not long ago warned the list to stick with the topic.  To avoid high jacks.

Yesterday was absolutely intense in politics.

In short- a few disregarded what the mod had told us was policy.

In the end- one thread was pulled.  Maybe more then one.

The mod had made a reasonable request.

yet-  somehow that thread became un-savable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Here is a good example:

A mod not long ago warned the list to stick with the topic.  To avoid high jacks.

Yesterday was absolutely intense in politics.

In short- a few disregarded what the mod had told us was policy.

In the end- one thread was pulled.  Maybe more then one.

The mod had made a reasonable request.

yet-  somehow that thread became un-savable.

I'm just a poster like everyone else, but it is My opinion that unless the thread original is the part that is uncivil or offensive, the entire discussion shouldn't be wiped out.  I have a much higher preference for the Mods temporarily locking a thread, removing offensive posts, and then reopening it when people have gotten the idea that the personal attacks will not be permitted.  A good number of forum regulars are willing to reword a response on a thread if a comment has been pulled if they have been out of line.  This allows them the opportunity to state their position after being corrected.  I believe it is Mod 21 or Mod 16 (or both) who have done this in the past and I think it works very well.