We should not be too concerned about runner after all few agree with any thing he/she posts.
However some are beneath contempt in bashing anyone for their sex lives.
Any stone will do for SM and indeed a few others Julia will win.

Severin, Squeers,

I can only agree with the sentiment your sentiment while not necessarily Squeers strident verbiage.

I take the point that runner is entitled to his views no matter how extreme they might be. However, there is a world of difference between questioning JG or any public person's morality (lack of emotional judgement) but another thing entirely with border-line LIBELOUS IMPLICATIONS. I must admit that I was surprised by GY's extreme latitude in the wording of the TOPIC especially his stated aim 'to be a family site'.

But the golden rule is clearly at play here " he who has the gold rules" (its GY's site and he can choose to offend if he wishes).
Note. GY is both a self defined Christian (his selective version thereof) and wants a Liberal Govt.
I think the wording of this topic has slipped under his bias but it is his choice

Severin, you're right I wouldn't have approved a thread that claimed that Abbott had slept his way to the top. There's no evidence that he has slept with any of his colleagues, either from him or anyone else. In this case the source of the most recent information is Gillard.

But if you submitted a thread critical of Tony Abbott's personal morality or behaviour and it was within the law and site rules then it would get approved. Many more threads get approved than not. I'd be surprised if you've ever had one knocked back.

I would have thought that if Ms Gillard or her minders read this thread they'd be reasonably happy with it. Hardly anyone agrees with Runner, which would give anyone else wanting to run a similar line pause for thought, and it has given a number of you the opportunity to try to discredit my impartiality. So it has provided opportunities to slant the debate Labor's way.

Graham,

The problem isn't necessarily the thread - it's the title and a sentence in runner's opening spiel. He later apologised for the inference and said that he was wrong to term it so. You said that you didn't think that she slept her way to the top in one of your posts - so why was the title approved?
It is entirely demeaning and stereotypical in that the inference is that she is a vacuous bimbo.

Dear Examinator,

"Squeers strident verbiage"?

My posts are nothing if not economical. I try to make my points as efficiently as possible. Please feel free to edit my verbiage next time so I may learn to be more succinct.
The same with "strident". One is bound to be opinionated on OLO. What's the use of equivocating all over the place in search of fatuous harmony? One of the problems with modern politics is there is too much appeasement and back-sliding.
Yet I don't deny runner or anyone else their entitlement to a point of view. If I thought I could make any headway reasoning with them I'd give it a shot, but in my experience runner, and a few others, are beyond the reach of reason. Such points of view are obsidian, "strident" and often rabid.

GY
To me the key issue is the inappropriateness of the headline in the context of Runners moral opinion, Not your impartiality.
Everyone including me has biases and occasionally one slips under the guard. Which I suggested is what happened here.
I was making the point that YOU have the right to let one through if that is your want.
I merely comment that I was surprised and offered a plausible explanation why, that is all.

I think that anyone expecting you or anyone to be whiter than white is absurd, flying in the face of humanity.

As a contributor to several sites I am comfortable to suggest that by and large you are far and away, better than most. This is clearly self evident by the success of OLO and the range of views expressed.