Just a few additional suggestions:
a) We may be easily tempted to look at ourselves as enlightened Prophets and regard this board as our personal pulpit. It would be better if we avoided to fall into such temptation.
b) Instead, we could try to see this forum primarily as a good and large network of people from different regions and backgrounds that may provide us easy and first-hand acess to data and facts we could hardly find otherwise. Such an unique network may indeed fulfill its goals if we simply treat nicely its (generally unknown) members. After all, they deserve to be nicely treated: they are, at the very least, our free collaborators... Even if they say something we vehemently disagree, their statements may serve at least as a sign that some wrong things are indeed thought or made somewhere. For the purposes of a webforum, this may be enough.
c) Such a good and seemingly free data-sourcing opportunity has actually a cost. Most of times, we would do well if we refrained to disclose our personal interpretation of the facts exposed here, or our moral or theological valuation of such facts, especially if our conclusions are likely to offend other posters' fundamental beliefs, religious or otherwise. If the disclosure of such interpretations and valuations is perceived by us as a part of our religious duty -- as it may well be -- so they would be better divulged in personal websites or blogs. But not here. In a personal website, nobody is expected to find but the personal views of its owner, outrageous (to some) as they may be; those ones who do not want to know of them simply may choose not to visit it. But in a public forum, the most important feature is the network itself and the multiple data-sourcing opportunities it offers, not the personal views of this or that member, no matter how smart they are. If such a network is to work, a large amount of concessions and pacience is required from all members without exception.
In the long run, personal sites tend to receive as much attention as they deserve. But forum posters, specially in the short run, tend to receive as much attention as they post, regardless of their intrinsical merits. This inherent unfairness is likely to attract mediocre posters who would not receive any attention otherwise.
d) The statements I've just made do not must to be always true -- and they indeed are not. Useful and enlightening controversies do exist. But they are scanter than we are usually prone to admit when we were just provoked by somebody and are to engage ourselves in another controversy. Undeniably, most ot the attempts of promoting a good and interesting controversy usually produce nothing but the alienation of some forum members, the harshening of the climate and the consequential reduction of the usefullness of the forum as a data source. Not to mention the further proliferation of already too abundant samples of bad rhetorics and dialectics. The potential benefits of a useful controversy, pondered by its low probability, usually do not meet the costs of a useless controversy, pondered by its high probability.
e) The most important application of the ideas above, in my opinion, is: the bold denounciation of heresies, except when generally regarded as such, would be better made in personal websites. One could naturally employ the data found here to make his case better; but the forum members as a whole, specially when not few of them are likely to disagree with the ideas displayed, generally could and should be spared from the case itself.
EDIT: I must admit that I have not always behaved according to what I've just wrote here. I beg your forgiveness for that.