Very Funny Peter :o) *G*

Seriously, most message boards allow the ability to filter out or 'block' messages from specific users as well and they do not require any type of explanation. Windows messenger, AIM, Yahoo Messenger, etc. You can also block email addresses and that does not require any type of explanation. I see no need for any type of explanation (or I should say a requirement for one).

A user of this forum could block for many reasons. Even those experienced users may only have a short amount of time to peruse messages and he/she may choose to block all messages from experienced developers so he/she can focus solely on messages posted by new or inexperienced developers who need the most help. No one can really say what a reason for being twitted could be.

Personally, I think that if I am twitted, I should be able to see that the user(s) has essentially blocked me (well filtered out my messages anyway), but no explanation for the reason should be required. If you are not given a message at least stating that the user has elected to block your messages, then you will assume there is a problem with the system and start annoying the owner of the forum. Just as with some messaging programs, if you are blocked, when you attempt to send a message (to a specific user) the system will notify you that the user has blocked your messages. As to just reading messages, there is no reason to have to receive a notice that someone has elected not to read your messages on a forum. That is just plain ridiculous. Someone simply may not want to have to peruse so many messages every day.



>>I could not disagree with you more profoundly. The whole concept of a twit filter -- something I have never used, FWIW -- is that one member has irritated another so seriously that they don't want to deal with them at all. The irritant (the twitted) has no right to demand a hearing or another chance. We are all here "at will" and no member is obligated to put up with the unwanted words of another. If such a process were put in effect it would guarantee the loss of some members.
>>
>>This is an extreme example but it's like requiring a woman who was raped to sit down and talk it over with her rapist.
>
>There is no way you can be sure that the assumption that one member has irritated another so seriously is correct in every case.
>
>About your example:
>
>Suppose Tracy accused me of having raped her verbally, I'd certainly try to talk it over, with her. With who else!
>
>Suppose Naomi only thinks I have insulted her, applies a twit-filter and does not let me know why. How on earth could I then know and try to apologize or whatever!