>>>>>Well, perhaps we can't control them, but we can condemn such people. As I did with Jay Johengen, whom I consider someone who expresses certain anti-social behavior. If he has a problem with that, for example if he now feels offended or insulted, my defense will be that it is anti-social to not communicate with another members here, that way causing stress in this community. Also he oftentimes makes derogative jokes about others here. In my head he's a real @#$%.
>>>>
>>>>Except that you're missing the point. Not communicating does NOT cause stress in the community. Somebody somewhere will be almost always be offended by something somebody else does or says. Nobody else seems stressed by the use or existence of the twit filter. Somehow, you and Naomi have got it into your heads that what a hundred other people think simply doesn't measure up to what the two of you think - to the point where we can never seem able to escape this pointless harangue unless we twit you. I have no intention of twitting you or anyone else, but that's my personal choice. It certainly doesn't mean I'm not sick and tired of hearing about this from the only two people who seem to have a problem with it.
>>>
>>>Your arguments are not sound. For example, you cannot prove that the balance is 2:100. Another example is that you also cannot prove that Naomi and I are the only two who have a problem with the twit filter. But let me focus on your most important invalid argument, that not communicating does not cause stress.
>>
>>Ok, let me rephrase. Only you and Naomi ever complain about it. The silence about it from everyone else on the system is deafening.
>
>Rephrase? Can't see the difference, but that may be my mistake. IMO, your arguments are still not sound.

Frankly, I think they're perfectly sound.

>
>>>
>>>Not communicating does not always, in any case, cause stress, but it certainly can! It does not (that is, no longer) cause stress if both parties have come to an agreement it is better to not communicate (any longer). But if one of both parties wants to talk things over and the other party doesn't want to listen and treats the opponent as air, then this is very, very frustrating for the one who wants to talk. Every shrink and social worker can confirm this.
>>
>>What utter nonsense. If my not talking to someone through the medium of an internet forum causes him stress, then that's on him, not on me. Not communicating does NOT cause stress. The apparent inability to accept that somebody isn't interested in your discourse is what causes you stress. Get over that, and voila! No more stress.
>
>What utter nonsense. I guess that's the disrespective way of saying "Your arguments are not sound". :(
>What follows can hardly be called an attempt to demonstrate the invalidity of my arguments:
>If my not talking to someone through the medium of an internet forum causes him stress, then that's on him, not on me. That may be the case, but it may also be the case that it's on you. It are the other details that will matter here. Conclusion: You cannot hold the thesis that it's (always) 'on him'.

Oh, yes I can. How a person reacts to me is a decision that person makes, not a decision I make. I take responsibility for my own decisions and how I act/react. I expect others to do the same. You can't simply put your decisions on me and say they're my fault.

>Not communicating does NOT cause stress. What's the use of saying that? It's obvious that this is your current opinion/perception, but it is not what shrinks and social workers think.

>The apparent inability to accept that somebody isn't interested in your discourse is what causes you stress. Apparently you admit here that stress can indeed be a consequence?!

Stress is a consequence of the decision you make about how you will react to or deal with other people, not a decision they make for you, and blaming them is not going to make any difference to how you deal in the future.

>Get over that, and voila! No more stress. Ah, dr. Popow speaking. This is not an argument, but merely your advice. A well-meant advice, but a layman's advice nevertheless. All shrinks and social workers know that this type of advice won't be effective in far too many cases.
>

Well, I'm not a shrink. I guess I'm just tired of people refusing to take responsibility for their own decisions and reactions.

>
>>>So-called neutral non-involved others who are nevertheless related to both parties will experience stress too when they see this happen, but they can rely on several tactics to get rid of their personal stress. One tactic is to blame the victim, to think low of that person and even derogate this person, in this case the twitted person. This actually makes the victim even more a victim.
>>
>>The real problem is that some people simply cannot accept that they are responsible for their own actions, reactions, and state of mind, and they find themselves desperately looking for somebody else to blame.
>
>That's the psychological concept of Locus of Control. People vary on an interval scale between Internal and External (locus of control). Internal indicates selfblame, external indicates blame of others. The majority of therapies focus on increasing a client's tendency toward 'internal', not because it is the true perception, but merely because it's much easier for them to change the client than to change the others or even society. Have you perhaps ever been in therapy? You are a clear advocate of an Internal LoC.
>

Nope. Never been, hope never to have to be. I figure that as long as I take responsibility for myself, I won't need it.

>On the other hand, are you really an advocate of internal LoC?? I say this because I notice that you, at the same time, tend to blame Naomi and me. Why's that?!

I only blame you for inundating the rest of us with constant whining. It doesn't stress me out; it doesn't depress me; it doesn't even anger me. It merely makes me tired. And all this because I refuse to use the twit filter. Think of the irony.