Graham

I thank you for your explanation, however it has taken how many posts to discover your reasons - that because Gillard slept with a colleague there was an assumption she "slept her way to the top". Whereas, Abbott has (we assume) kept his sex life to non-colleagues.

Everything is now clear.

Not what I said at all Severin. I never said that she slept her way to the top and I don't believe it. Runner's choice of headline no doubt damaged his thread, but that is his problem. I'm amused that according to some if I'd tampered with Runner's heading that would be a sign of lack of bias, but as I didn't that is a sign of bias.

The only reason I alter headlines is if they breach the rules or the law. You either get all of your thread through, or not.

And Severin, if you had bothered to pay attention to the thread you'd know that I said substantially what I have just said back on Thursday last week http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3834#94206.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Who exactly has Julia Gillard hurt?

Mr Emerson's marriage had already broken up
prior to Julia Gillard's relationship with him,
as Celivia has pointed out. Julia
Gillard had nothing to do with the marriage
break up. So I don't understand your reasoning.
And condemnation.

GrahamY

I said:

>> there was an assumption she "slept her way to the top <<

I never claimed you said Julia did sleep her way to the top. However, you did allow a topic go through with just that as a heading.

Graham, we all make mistakes and there is no harm in admitting that we are merely human.

If anything this discussion has revealed that no matter our station in life we are as susceptible to sexual desire as any other person.

In an ideal world, what happens between consenting adults would remain between consenting adults. However, we are far from that ideal world.

GY

You raise an interesting point not really worth a separate topic but it does follow on from what you said.
the question is is impartial to allow erroneous and biased (implications) headlines to be remain unaltered and simply let both sides to fight it out? or is it better to alter the headline to whereby it starts on neutral ground and go from there.
Personally I opt for the latter.

BTW you have asked me to alter a submitted headline in that it appeared biased...I'd observed that the most ferocious attacks were from the conservatives on OLO at the time.

Graham,

I would not expect you to tamper with anyone's headlines, however, I presumed that you may see the need on the odd occasion to request that a headline or the general wording be altered by the person submitting the thread starter, in the interests of accuracy.