>Peter
>
>>What do you mean, 'don't be ridiculous'?! Putting someone in the twit filter actually is interpreted by the twitted person as being banned. It is like your wife who now refuses to talk to you since that quarrel about being late from work again. This silence can upset people quite a bit. It is a way of communicating anger by not communicating. It makes people feel lonely and abandoned. It is a way of punishing.
>>
>>I do not believe in a so called rational decision to twit someone, comparable to the decision to not follow the threads in the dotnet section. I'm sure twitting (a new word here?) is an offensive, agressive act, born out of anger (right or wrong) or arrogance. If it's not out of anger, but indeed rather the rational act you're suggesting here, then it's a very impolite, unsocial action, in my eyes. This is a community here, remember.
>
>I have twit-filtered one and only one person, ever. I believe that person was being rude, arrogant, ignorant, inflexible, impolite, anti-social, not to mention incorrect in the interpretation of simple terminology - generally stupid. Frankly I wish other boards had it.
>
>I felt I had no choice. Not hearing from that person has been very peaceful.
>
>Before you shoot this feature down, consider the usefulness of it.

"Twit-filtered", okay, so that's the word. :)

Don't worry, I'm not at all on a crusade against the twit-filter. Your usage of the filter sounds okay to me. But I also presume that you do not mind the twit-filtered person to know that you actually have twit-filtered him/her. And that you also do not mind telling that person why you did this. (Actually, you did that part here after all.) And that's what I advocate: Make clear to that person that the filter is in effect and why it is. Or even better: The UT should make that clear to that person. I proposed that the UT adds a comment box at the same spot where the filter is activated. The comment should be visible only to the filtered person, of course.