Timeline for What does "two-way justice" mean?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2013 at 22:05 | history | edited | WendiKidd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added question in title to question body, improved clarity
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 1:03 | vote | accept | Persian Cat | ||
| Feb 17, 2013 at 22:43 | comment | added | Persian Cat | There is a history behind it which has been deleted before. Thanks for your advices but before I argued to know the reason which at first time no body tried to answer me and instead I faced to being frozen,suspended and insulted! Surely everything is not available but in this time people tried to be more tolerate,calm and reasonable in answering so I tried to invest my energy to improve my questions not arguing with them because they corrected their wrong behaviors so now I have corrected myself too!.. A real two-way fairness! :) | |
| Feb 15, 2013 at 9:17 | comment | added | J.R.♦ | Don't try to read too much into the meaning of "too localized" or "not constructive". Those are simply multiple choice options. When someone tells you your question seems too localized, or general reference, instead of arguing with them, invest that energy into improving your question. And don't be insulted – even highly ranked users get questions closed from time to time. No one is lambasting you, they are simply addressing this particular question. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 22:45 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | If you'd linked to a specific instance of someone using the term "two-way justice", and asked what it meant, I'd have probably said it was Too Localised, on the grounds that it's only used 10 times (with conflicting senses) in Google Books. But as I said, if you'd asked for a term to describe what you apparently have in mind, I'd have upvoted StoneyB's mutual respect as the obvious choice, given that there are over 1,000,000 written instances of that in my link. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 15:13 | vote | accept | Persian Cat | ||
| Feb 14, 2013 at 20:34 | |||||
| Feb 14, 2013 at 15:01 | history | edited | avpaderno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Feb 14, 2013 at 14:53 | comment | added | Persian Cat | when you can find it in the internet so this term exists ,although for wider usages or different usages not personal relationships. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 14:49 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | If your question was titled something like Is there a common term for "complete equality in the quality of behaviors and reactions", I wouldn't have a problem. But as it stands, you appear to be asking for the "meaning" of a term which is effectively non-existent, and therefore doesn't have an established meaning. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 14:28 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 14, 2013 at 15:41 | |||||
| Feb 14, 2013 at 14:27 | comment | added | Persian Cat | Thanks for expressing your idea however I disagree with you. I will make a topic in meta to find what constructive question mean to help you make clear some ambiguous terms like this which you use here a lot and it may confuse many non English speakers. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 14:21 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I think this question with its current title is Not Constructive, since two-way justice isn't an established term with a defined meaning. That link finds only 10 written instances in Google Books, within which it's clearly used with several different senses - a judicial system treating different social groups differently, or any arrangement whereby two parties mutually deliver "justice" to the other, for example. | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 13:53 | answer | added | StoneyB on hiatus | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 14, 2013 at 13:05 | history | asked | Persian Cat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |