>>Putting someone in your twit filter is actually an act of insulting that person because you call this person a twit. (Repair: Ask Michel to rename it to People Filter.)
>
>The fact that you and maybe 2 other people find it insulting is not a good enough reason for Michel to have to make changes. It's been called a 'twit filter' since the days of bulletin boards long before the U.T. was even a gleam in Michel's eye.

Well, IF the filter system is revised, then why not revise its name also?! It has been observed (recent comments in at least the Dutch media) that profanity is more a problem in this decade then it was in the past. If that's true, then maybe that is caused by our too permissive behavior in the past decades? Perhaps we have tolerated too much word jokes? Perhaps we have to repair now a mistake that was made some 20 years ago?

>>
>>The filtered person has probably no knowledge that a filter is in effect, may continue to react (negatively OR positively) and feel upset because the other person does not react back. (Repair: Ask Michel to enable an individual to have insight in who currently filter him/her.)
>
>I have no objection to that as long as you can assure us that when the person learns of it, they aren't going to harangue the rest of us about it.

What can I say here? I guess you are refering here to what Naomi and I (independently) did when filtered by Jay? Perhaps you call it 'haranguing'. But all I wanted was to express my amazement there. If that's forbidden in each and every case of being filtered, then I disagree here with you.

>>
>>In a discussion involving three or more persons communication will gonna hamper seriously if one of them filters the reactions of one other. (Repair: Ask Michel to enable people to have insight in who currently filters who in that specific thread.)
>
>I doubt there will be any serious hampering because normally when one responds to a post, they also quote the post. The twitter will see the twittee's comments at that point and understand the context. Tough beans for the twitter. It's something he/she will just have to live with, or withdraw from the thread altogether.

As you know, many replies contain only a subset of the text in the replied upon post. Believe me, there has been miscommunication here due to this effect.


>>Putting someone in the filter is currently effective for the whole UT only. Political, religeous or any other type of dispute that leads to filtering will therefore also cause filtering in the technical sections. (Repair: Ask Michel to implement filters per section or even per thread.)
>
>That is why a member must consider very seriously the whole idea of twitting someone. I've never twitted anyone, and can't see myself ever doing so. I may dislike reading someone's posts in chatter, for example, but find some of their posts useful in the technical forums, exactly as you point out. You seemed to object to the whole concept of twitting, but here you propose an idea that might make it much more acceptable to a member to decide to twit someone. I think it should be left as is so that twitting someone remains a very serious decision.

Same as you, I have no history of having filtered someone, and same as you, this is also because I don't want to miss a person's other posts. But this is not the way some others here reason. Do you really believe that people like you and I would often use the more advanced filter system? Perhaps you're right, but you can't be sure.

>>
>>Putting someone in the filter does not prevent that the filtering person continues to make comments that (s)he may be sorry about later. (Repair: Ask Michel for an opt-out button that will make it impossible for the individual to further comment in the thread.)
>
>That sounds a lot like censorship. How would such an opt-out button work.

Nono, not censorship. The opt-out button is presswed by the person himself. It is similar to telling to oneself "Okay, I better leave this room now, for my own and their sake".


>>Or ask Michel to remove the filter entirely and install some serious, qualified and accepted moderators instead.
>
>How much are you willing to pay for membership here?

I think it can be done with no real additional workload for Michel.