>>>>>>>>>Uh huh, nice try. I have a bridge for sale.... cheap....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't understand what you were trying to say to me, but I guess it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You said you just found the message from Ed and just posted it without any ulterior motive. I am saying that's ridiculous, you knew exactly what you're doing when you posted it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting interpretation. What she actually said was ...so I brought it up as related to the topic. The fact that the opinion on the twit filter that Ed's post expresses is diametrically opposed to Naomi's makes it it difficult for me to see why you'd be impugning her motives.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think she did it as a way of saying, "Ok, even Ed agrees with almost everyone else regarding the Twit Filter. Since I have always had great respect for Ed, Peter and I must be wrong and I'm going to stop arguing and whining about it." I'm with John on this one; seems quite clear to me.
>>>>
>>>>I wish you'd ALL stop freakin whining about it.
>>>>
>>>>It's just a bickering match.
>>>
>>>This has been an interesting thread. My thought is that a twit filter is a form of the restriction of freedom of speech and it should be removed.
>>
>>If it affected more than the one person who chooses to use it, then I might agree. But it is a freedom of mine to walk away from the person on the soapbox. I'm not stopping them from shouting and pontificating, I'm just choosing not to hear it myself. Satan. :-D
>
>Correct. We have the freedom to choose to not read the offending posting. But it should be read and assessed. If you choose, no reply is necessary. You may freely ignore a posting. By not replying, logic assumes you agree with the writer and that is something you do not want. We must remember that jewels are sometimes found in an unlikely place. It is the exchange of ideas that fuels progress. Sometimes, from chaos invention is born. If you feel your knowledge is greater than others you should feel obliged to teach and elevate others to your level and not ban them from knowedge. No matter what, our quest for truth and knowledge should never be abandoned.

Are you suggesting I should start reading National Enquirer and People Magazine and that if I don't I'm subverting freedom of speech? I have never used the filter and won't in future for just exactly the reasons you mentioned, but to suggest that if I don't listen to somebody in whom I have come to realise I have no interest, that I'm subverting their freedom of speech is ludicrous. They are free to speak, I am free to ignore and so is everyone else in their own way - even if it includes using the filter.