>This isn't a workplace. I have no obligation whatsoever to listen to you ramble and have the right to twit you. In the workplace you are expected to work as a team with your co-workers.
>
>Apples and oranges.

Or orangutans at least. :) I've only ever twitted one person. The person agreed that something was better than what they were doing, but still chose not to do it. Then being obnoxious on top of it - IMO of course - was just too much.

I do think though that I would be better to learn to tolerate such a twit, but recognized that I couldn't. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. You can block the channel on some cable boxes. Do the people that own that channel email you after and ask why? ;)

>
>>Take the principle to your household or to your workplace. Suppose you no longer will (want to) hear what certain others are telling you and as a consequence you also don't react to them. Suppose you also have not informed them about this. You'll be in trouble within one day. What's hilarious about that.
>>
>>>Although I haven't used it (yet) the purpose of a filter is to filter, not also to inform of the filtering. If the person wants to inform the twitted person they can do so using various other techniques. I thinks the whole discussion is hilarious.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I understand you're somewhat joking here, but a formal 'you are twitted' PM, with neutral words, is one improvement.
>>>>
>>>>>In fact, I don't think the current twit filter is good enough. To truly be a useful UT feature the twit filter should send a huge email to the twitted person saying something tasteful and appropiate like "YOU'VE BEEN TWITTED DUDE!" or "You'rrrreeee OUTTA HERE " ... gr&d ...
>>>>>
>>>>>