The details do NOT matter because it is no one's business who filters whose messages or why. You are correct that someone may 'twit' (which is nothing more than a filter and it is plain childish, not to mention psychologically disturbing, to even concern yourself about it) someone else for no reason that you can see at all. There may have been no provocation at all. Still, it is every user's priviledge to filter whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Perhaps they just only care to view a few user's posts so they twit everyone else. You cannot force anyone to read your messages anymore than you can force them to read your snail mail. The reason does not matter why and it is no one's business. Whether or not someone wishes to read anyone else's posts is no one's business than their own. This is not a club that anyone was refused membership to. It is an online forum, nothing more. There is no restriction on any person from typing messages. There is only a filter on what messages a person sees and that is customizable.

I could be twitted by half or all of the membership on this forum. I really don't know and I'm not going to concern myself with it.

There is a problem here (as I see it) where some folks may be expecting the forum to be run the way they want it to be. They may be expecting other users to behave the way they want them to. They may be taking things personal that are not personal at all. They may putting too much importance on their participation in the online forum.

Try walking over to a stranger's house and forcing them to open their door and let you in and then force them to listen attentively while you talk to your heart's content about whatever may suit your fancy....

If it really bothers anyone to be filtered so much as it appears it may some - to the extent that much of their day is spent complaining about it online - then something is wrong and should be addressed by professionals. Something has tipped out of balance. It may be one of the reasons why many choose to not participate in this forum anymore.







>>>>>On the contrary. It is illogical to assume the twitted did anything. It is a fallacy. Suppose I twit you right now. Would it be logical to assume that you did anything? Sure, that's how the human mind works. But it's not logical.
>>>>
>>>>I am disagreeing with you. That is my choice. It may be the reason you twit me. We have both done something. It is extremely rare that someone twits someone else without provocation.
>>>
>>>It's not.
>>
>>Naomi - what you're missing is that what provokes someone is personal. And as someone said elsewhere in the thread, a person can be annoying without being rude or insulting. Some people have a lower threshold for annoyance than others, and thus are more likely to twit someone.
>
>Your reasoning is based on the notion that there must be at least some fire if there is smoke. You already admit that some are more sensitive for annoyance. My argument is that some feel annoyed even if there's no valid reason for that at all. They suggest having been provoked even if there was no provocation at all. It's the task of others to form an opinion that is free of prejudice and bias. That can only be done if prepared to do some investigation. The details do matter.