Change in Moderation?

Greetings all,I am all for open-ness and free speech etc.
I applaud the patience of many posters here,
I commend the moderators here as fair and polite.But,
the tone of this site is dropping with all these fundie rants - from Pyramid numerology to time-travellers to prophesy to miracles - lately we've had almost every crackpot theory known to man.What next ?
A detailed discussion of a perpetual motion machine which can square the circle AND count the number of angels on it ?Frankly,
I think its time these loony rants were stopped at post 1, instead of having the board haemorrhage for 600+ posts about whether Santa Claus exists or some-such cods-wallop.Iasion

Greetings all,Over in this post -
EvC Forum: The Origins of Christianity
a discussion ensued in which -
DC85 asked for info,
whatever replied with a sermon,
Admin warned whatever,
I strongly agreed with Admin,
entwine disagreed,and now, on with the saga ...entwine : "Ban yourself, you closed-minded person (sorry don't know your sex). As I said, I believe it was a good faith (but entirely too expansive) response to a question."Firstly, I am sorry if my blunt-ness put you off. I recognise you think you are defending free-speech, I commend you for expressing your disagreement politely.Now,
consider the OP - a request for information about "The Origins of Christianity"
but
whatever's post did NOT say anything about origins,
whatever's link did NOT mention origins of Christianity,
whatever did NOT say why he thought it was relevant to origins.Instead,
he preached about prophesy and quoted slabs of irrelevant scripture."I doubt you even looked at the link that was given."
Wrong.
I checked the link.
I know the document.
I have a copy of my own.
It is completely irrelevent."At first I too thought it was a biblical reference, but its not. I was ready to trash it as another bible thumping rampage, but its not. Its some other book thumping rampage. It is surely not a biblical reference."You seem to think the issue is whether it is a bible passage or not,
but
Admin's warning was not about it being a bible passage,
my post did not touch on it being a bible passage.The issue is NOT whether it is from the bible,
the issue IS whether the post is ON TOPIC - it's not.That's twice you read incorrectly - first you got the name wrong, then you mis-understood the issue. Perhaps more careful checking before you post would be helpful.Iasion

Greetings Lam,Thanks for your response :-)Maybe I was a bit harsh, but lately there seems to have been an awful lot of crackpot posts.Now,
I'm all for different views and open-minded-ness etc.
but I think there are certain precedents of knowledge which do not need to be re-visited.Yes,
we need to hear varying opinions,
but no,
the debate about creationism e.g. is over.Considering the range of posters here,
I don't think this board could ever get boring,
even if all the creationists faded away :-)Iasion