>>>>>>Ok, then. Let me ask straight out. How long is long enough? How much moping over it is enough moping? Is there never a point where the person (Naomi, if you like) should simply say, "Ok, I guess that's how it's going to be", and just get on with life?
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see what the future brings if we all do this: Each time a member here 'complains' about someone, we first and for all show some empathy and we might even agree this someone behaves like a b#$%&d. And only afterwards we give some mild advice. We might assume there's a lack in the set of skills, a partially wrong knowledge of the real world and/or a misconception about what's just and unjust.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe we'd conclude eventually that Naomi too 'moped' less and less overtime.
>>>>
>>>>An there lies exactly what I was talking about earlier - the cultural (I assume) difference where you feel this person owes anything to Naomi. It's not anti-social behavior, it's not being mean and targeting her maliciously. Something made this person feel uncomfortable conversing with Naomi - where is the line that dictates where he owes Naomi an explanation?
>>>
>>>If I'd not reply to this message, you'd perhaps start speculating about the reason or the cause. But you'd for sure do that, if I'd add you to my twit filter and you'd find out only much later. Perhaps this is a better one: If Tracy or Mike would twit you. Or an even better one: If Mike would twit Tracy. And all without any explanation. Afterall, we owe nobody anything ever. Never?
>>
>>If you'd twit me, I could care less. Not trying to be combative, just speaking the truth. If Tracy or Mike would twit me, I would question it initially. If I receive no answer, I would go on with my life and not whine about it for months. I consider them friends in the internet realm, but I treat them differently than friends in my real-life realm.
>>
>>>I'm not suggesting here that we always owe others any explanation. But someone who does not give an explanation should not feel offended if that implies that others start to think negatively about him/her. We might also speculate that this someone has a lack in the set of skills, a partially wrong knowledge of the real world and/or a misconception about what's just and unjust.
>>
>>Or you could consider that the reasons of this person is none of your damn business and quit parading around trying to act priviledged. I twitted Naomi, and it's none of your business why. If you question my intentions, my "lack in the set of skills", or my real world knowledge than you are just being petty and a baby. Why do you feel the need to analyze everything? Why can't you settle with "the reasons are none of my business" and just stop?
>
>Was I talking about you twitting Naomi? No. But apart from that, if 'the reasons are none of my business' then it's also none of your business if you're perceived as a b#$%#$d. If you do not want to explain, then do not feel offended if people start to speculate. But you'll likely care less.
>
>BTW, I do not want to know why you twitted Naomi. I don't care. I'm merely interested in the removal of the twit mechanism.

Peter, I was using that as an example. If you are truly only interested in the removal of the twit filter, I would suggest you to present your case to Michel directly instead of grandstanding in the public domain. However, I think you're intentions run deeper than that (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=white+knight+syndrome).