I don't know of any web site whatsoever that doesn't edit out posts that don't meet those criteria. The moderators owe it to the posters to make sure that decorum is maintained and that the website doesn't turn into a Wild West Show.

YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING!!! That is the usual case with you. You are great at asking questions but you never seem to answer any.

What has been proved and clearly demonstrated - yet again - is that poster's have no protection when their contributions in entire threads, are anonymously and routinely 'silently deleted' when these are seen NOT to meet any of the (ever varying) criteria.

And that it is the example set by our 'moderators' who indulge and encourge what you describe as a 'Wild West Show'.

Do you really want me to post some more examples of our 'moderators' methods of what you describe as maintaining 'decorum'? Or are you just happy to post your opinion despite their being no evidence to support it?

What harm would their be in our 'moderators' at least being seen be required to indicate in an editing comment, where they have judge any form of editing to be necessary and for editing comments to be limited to only where some form of imposition has taken place?

Do not our 'moderators' owe this to the posters also?