>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't going to post any more on this subject, butyour comment amazes me Grady.
>>>>
>>>>Freedom of speech does not mean the right to force everyone to listen. If I go stand on the corner near your house and begin to speak and you choose to walk away, are you taking away my freedom of speech? No. If you receive snail mail and choose to toss it in the garbage without reading, are you taking away the sender's freedom of speech? No. If you put your phone number on the 'do not call' list to prevent solicitations by phone, are you taking away the solicitor's freedom of speech? No. If you walk into a bookstore are you required to read every book by every author? No. If you choose not to watch one tv channel, are you restricting that channel's freedom of speech? Are you required to open and/or read every single email sent to you? No.
>>>>
>>>>A twit filter is no different. It is only a filter.
>>>>
>>>>How does a twit filter restrict your freedom of speech? It does not. You can post anything you want as long as it does not break one of the forum's rules. You cannot force anyone to read it though.
>>>By giving you the power to shut off others and their opinions. But mostly we have the thread alive again
>>
>>If I had the power to twit you so that others wouldn't be able to see your messages, then I'd agree with you, but not if it's just for me. The filter doesn't gag a person.
>So it is your definition of 'censor' vs my definition lf 'censor'?

I suppose, but I find it difficult to imagine using the word 'censor' when I'm simply choosing what I want to listen to without affecting anyone else's rights to listen to whatever it is.

I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but I don't think of it as 'censoring'. They're available to anyone else who wants them.