Timeline for Providing explicit examples in potentially subjective cases
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 29, 2016 at 21:48 | comment | added | user18072 | @ff524 meta.academia.stackexchange.com/a/3558/18072 updated with this proposal. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 at 21:39 | comment | added | ff524 Mod | @djechlin It's not clear to me what you're suggesting (or if you even are suggesting something) in that comment. Perhaps you can start a new meta question to discuss that suggestion(?) further. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 at 21:38 | comment | added | user18072 | Add a "subjective-examples" tag to lend the OP (or an editor) a tiny bit of authority in saying, for the OP to go in more detail would be nonconstructive? | |
| Mar 7, 2014 at 21:30 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed typo
|
| Mar 7, 2014 at 19:50 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | Thanks and I think I get your point. Mine are: 1. "It's offensive" has no agreed upon standard (for example, I do know in person people who would use "indubitably demeaning and hostile towards women" for any peer-reviewed paper (e.g. in neurobiology or evolutionary biology) not supporting their beliefs). 2. A clear question delegates idle discussions to some answers (e.g. this one, which can be downvoted), instead of making them prevalent everywhere. | |
| Mar 7, 2014 at 19:38 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 167 characters in body
|
| Mar 7, 2014 at 19:14 | history | answered | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |