I don't think Chuck was objecting to divergence or disagreements in opinions or matters of substance in any way. Rather, Chuck was remarking on an elevated level of rhetoric and potentially offensive expression apparent on the list. This tends to cloud rather than clarify areas of substantive disagreement, and to slow down rather than speed up the process of moving toward consensus.
My father used to refer to this as "generating more heat than light." In my view, we should strive to disagree without being disagreeable, and seek to understand other views rather than to dismiss than out of hand (e.g., because an email response doesn't come back fast enough to suit). That doesn't mean we have to treat each other with kid gloves; rather, there is a balance to be struck. It's Chuck's role to notice when we are out of balance, and to restore that balance. I fully support Chuck's intervention, both in substance and in timing.
Greg