>>>>And you are so entitled. What you are not necessarily entitled to do is to dictate how everybody else should use the system. I have nobody in my twit filter and likely never will, but should I so choose, I expect not to be deprived of that right just because you don't like it.
>>>
>>>I'm not saying I insist on my opinion. But according to survey results there was ~5 people difference in favor of leaving the filter and most of the people had no opinion. If we apply the same logic we applied to banned members case we would see, that by the majority we want the removal of the filter.
>>
>>Ah, see, you got it wrong. In the survey, with respect to banned members, the minority won.
>>
>
>So why the same logic can not be applied in this case? The minority (~5 people less) were in favor of removal.
>
>>>Add here about 1000+ people who didn't vote.
>>
>>I suspect most people simply don't care about the twit filter. In all honesty, I don't care about it myself, but I don't think it's fair to take away something that people use regardless of majority/minority opinions. There is no requirement to use it, so those who don't like it don't have to use it.
>>
>>Those who don't like to be twitted simply need to grow thicker skin. I have no idea if anyone has ever twitted me (not that I'd blame them), but neither do I care one way or the other.
>
>Well, may be there is a bunch of people who do care. Do they all have to grow thicker skin?

Yes. People here have the right to tune out other people. I think it's foolish, but they have that right. If you want to take away that right, I think you'll have to come up with something a lot more convincing than you have so far.

When my phone rings, and I see on the display who it is, I have a choice to answer or not answer. Would you take away that right also, and have the phone company abolish 'call display' because it might hurt your feelings some day?