>This is a message to all, but also to Michel.
>
>The text about the twit filter reads: The twit filter allows you to not see the messages created by the following members when reading the new messages.
>
>IMO, the way it is now built, this is a troublesome, fallible feature.
>
>1) It implies that in case someone, let's say Joe Doe, has set a twit filter, for let's say Hans Gans, he has no way to know whether he sees all messages of a thread and whether he has knowledge of all relevant information. This can cause him to react to others in an inappropriate manner or based on wrong information.
>
>2) There is no feature in effect that tells the twit-filtered person, Hans Gans, that he is twit-filtered by Joe Doe. It may happen that Hans Gans reacts on a message written by Joe Doe, does not get a reply and wonders why that is not done. It may well have been a message that took a lot of effort to write.
>
>The solution is to implement a notification system. The twit-filtered person must have the possibility to see that he has been put in a twit-filter and who has activated that twit-filter. And a comment should accompany the activation of the twit-filtering.
>
>Also, there must be some way for the twit-filtered person for some discussion. It may well be the result of some misunderstanding.

I agree with your idea of a notification. That seems to make perfect sense. However, on your last point, what would be the point of filtering someone out if it just means you have to get into a discussion with him/her about it. What would be the rules on the discussion? Does it mean that the filter never actually takes effect?

Personally, I've never twitted anyone, and I never intend to. Seems to me like a petty and childish way to handle a situation. But if someone wants to, I don't think he should have to get into a long involved discussion about it.