"rarely if ever post here now due to the mods policy of not allowing criticism of some of the "writers""
There's a difference between criticising a piece and insulting its author. The impression I get is that the former is allowed, and perhaps encouraged to a degree, even when the criticism is quite severe. Ad-hominem attacks, on the other hand are a different matter.
"I just can't decribe them as journalists or reporters, as they far too often push agendas and personal opinions and insult those who do not share their world view) at ElReg"
I suspect you're in a minority there. El Reg has never attempted to hide its agenda. In fact, it's more open in that respect than a lot of the mainstream press. Reg reporters have never attempted to pussy-foot around contentious issues, and they deserve a lot of respect for airing contentious issues that Fleet Street happily ignores.
"Lets face it this is a censorship policy not a moderation policy."
And how do you define the difference? A refusal to post off-topic flames isn't the same thing as censorship. Neither is taking issue with your particular world view. Also, there's a need to maintain a decent signal-to-noise ratio; turning off moderation would push that through the floor. Not everyone wants to read flame wars; they get thoroughly boring after the fourth or fifth time.
"My opinion of the way the Reg handles comment would definately mean this post was rejected."
Well, we can all read it, can't we?