I think that a post should be marked to give a continuity
path if you know what I mean. If it isn't possible then fair enough.
Fieldvole

The only way around that is to post an explanatory remark in the message previous to the deleted one, and it gets complicated.
-Joe Offer-

So what is requested IS currently possible.

And what exactly gets complicated is not explained. But the reason why the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not want to do as requested - is as follows.

That being said, I DO insert editorial comments where there is a good reason to - but I don't often see a good reason when it's just deleting nastygrams from BS threads. It's just too tedious a process for the benefit it would provide.
Joe Offer

The main benefit it would provide is to a poster not knowing where their contribution had gone. They would then know if it had or had not been deleted.

Secondly, our forum would be able to see the true nature and current level of imposed censorship. They could then judge the judgement made in their name and be able to express an informed opinion on its proportionality - for the first time..........   

Frankly I do not now care how tedious the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would find this - as this not a concern that should be very high on the list of concerns for our forum. There may be others willing to take his place - who may not judge that finding something tedious was
good enough reason to refuse a simple and basic request, such as this one...........

What all this boils down to is that: The current Chief of the Mudcat cat Editing Team can be seen to set the example of posting abusive personal judgements, call posters offensive names and incite others to follow suit. That he can be seen to place assurances in editing comments that he does not honour, impose special posting restrictions on selected individual posters. And insert editing comments where and when he chooses but refuse to do this when requested.

In fact the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges that he can do now exactly as he wants to with the contributons of others and despite personalising and blaming the whole issue on one individual - still expects to retain some credibilty and for posters to accept that there is no personal bias on his part in any of these actions.   

What it boils down to is that despite what is still politely requested - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team simply does not WANT to do it. Good enough?

You judge. And perhaps by the same harsh standards that other posters are expected to subjected to.