>>>>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!
>>
>>
>>Let's just say we disagree and leave it at that. In ordinary human affairs none of us is obligated to talk to people we don't want to talk to. Why should the UT be different?
>
>Let's indeed agree to disagree. Because it is my opinion that in ordinary human affairs it is quite impolite to not react to a person who wants attention.

You are 100% right. There have to be limits though. Not every person is reasonable or polite.