>>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!

I would never do that, don't worry. I let you know immediatelly by other means <g>

Seriously, as I said, I can be angry at any person for a very limited time. A day at most. After that I forgive him/her.

I'm still trying to figure out the reason for the twit. I was told it has nothing to do with me personally. But this being the case, it makes it even harder to bear.

Since I found this problem, I was in a very low spirit. I failed an important job interview (which I would probably fail anyway), I can not think of anything else. Getting over it will take 3 months at least. It may take longer...