That quite possibly, some people take the internet far too seriously.

On the opposite end of the scale, you have people who find the need to explain themselves at length... In great detail... Whether you want them to or not.

To actually answer your question, it reflects on the fact that people are constantly questioned by other people about their life choices, because no matter how you choose to live life, someone somewhere is going to disapprove of it. Eventually, it comes to a point where you've had these questions thrown at you constantly, you've heard all the criticism before, and then someone out there makes a flippant remark, not necessarily to judge, but with the intent of questioning your motives, and there is only so much of that a person can take before you want to remove a spleen or two.

Unless your life choices are causing harm to another, you should not have to explain yourself to anyone. It is your life to live how you choose.

i cried reading that internet relationships topic when i read those members words, espacially craig's that hurt the most cause i know he's super nice and it must have been hard for him and supergirl back then. see matt dear you really need to feel for other people, when you say something that makes another person pour out their heart you must respect their feelings. dont talk about something sensitive without considering who'd get hurt in it. i made a negative asian tv topic, an asian person who'd read it might have felt really bad about it, but i kept it away from being hurtful cause i mentioned the good points in asian tv along with the topic that's negative. i stayed fair in my opinion, my heart cant handle hurting another person, you must train your heart to feel for others too matt.

cause when someone says "i dont have to explain myself" or "that's my life" those are the codes a person says to another person to shut them up. no one likes being judged and sometimes it gets so painful that we'd say anything to just make the other person stop. a good person would stop and apologize might even take back what they said. a heartless person would push his words further.

i dont know why you brought these topics back up, i'm guessing it hurt your feelings having everyone against you in those topics i'm sorry you got hurt but you broke hearts first. no one would start a topic to hurt you but you obviously didnt think about others when bringing topics up.

oh and i got hurt in that topic, i see men treat women really bad all the time even i suffered so much.. and still do. i sometimes even hate men to the point i get mean to some family and friends for being males : ( that topic got me so enraged. i want to protect women i dont want them to lose their honor as i did. no one on this forum can understand how i feel about this but they all have the sense to know when i get over protective about an opinion that means step away i'm getting hurt now. you need to be able to read that matt. i hope you understood what i said. or that i said it correctly X___X i'm retyping this so many times cause i'm emotional right now.

Unless your life choices are causing harm to another, you should not have to explain yourself to anyone.

Unless someone insists that Sonic 06 is their favorite Sonic game. In that case there damn well better be an explanation.

A damn good explanation.

Unless someone insists that Sonic 06 is their favorite Sonic game. In that case there damn well better be an explanation.

A damn good explanation.

A perfectly resonable exception to the rule.

Sonic 06 IS my favourite Sonic game!! ^____________________^;;;

I don't think your signature could be any more appropriate, Pach. =D

My signature is more than appropriate for pretty much all of my posts. =O

"i cried reading that internet relationships topic when i read those members words, espacially craig's that hurt the most cause i know he's super nice and it must have been hard for him and supergirl back then." - Mada

That's not what he said, though. He said he didn't have to explain himself, which is true, but is a point in a different direction from yours.

"see matt dear you really need to feel for other people, when you say something that makes another person pour out their heart you must respect their feelings." - Mada

Respect in what sense?

"dont talk about something sensitive without considering who'd get hurt in it." - Mada

Who gets to say what qualifies as a sensitive subject, though? What may seem trivial to one person could be a sensitive subject to another. By what standards do we decide what (or who) to consider insensitive? At what point is it fair to say that if someone cannot be rational in a particular context that is their own problem?

"i made a negative asian tv topic, an asian person who'd read it might have felt really bad about it, but i kept it away from being hurtful cause i mentioned the good points in asian tv along with the topic that's negative." - Mada

"Kept it away" from being hurtful? Aside from the points above, how would you know whether it is going to be hurtful or not?

IIRC you're familiar with the Disney movie version of Hunchback of Notre Dame. From what I've heard, the original book's "Frollo" was actually an archdeacon, but for the movie they made Frollo into a judge instead, and had the archdeacon be a separate character who on a couple occasions actually confronts Frollo about what he does, partly because it was considered offensive to have the priest be the bad guy. When the movie came out, it was considered offensive ANYWAY, because the bad guy was a religious fanatic. Apparently, diluting the "evil priest" theme from the original book was not enough.

This is just an example. The point is, you can't just bend over backwards for those who might get offended, if only because it is often likely that they will just get offended anyway. In the example you refer to, that I described it as "awesome" that people who met on webforums would be a couple IRL, before being called out on "questioning it" is pretty telling about my point.

"i stayed fair in my opinion, my heart cant handle hurting another person, you must train your heart to feel for others too matt." - Mada

I do feel for others (or at least those I would consider good people) to some extent, but I do not think it is a good idea to rely on emotions for self-restraint, if only because that could lead to a distorted idea of when it is or isn't right to hold back. If you can't handle hurting another person, what happens if, due to whatever circumstances, hurting someone is the right thing to do? (Yes it's a tvtropes link, but just look at the real-life section.)

"a good person would stop and apologize might even take back what they said. a heartless person would push his words further." - Mada

You say this as if "good person" and "heartless person" were mutually exclusive. Again, emotions should not be relied upon for moral judgment, if only because they could distort it.

"i dont know why you brought these topics back up, i'm guessing it hurt your feelings having everyone against you in those topics" - Mada

"Hurt" nothing, a wide variety of things that have been said to me here over the years felt hurtful, but among these things, some of them were actually quite called for in hindsight. (Some things True Red said come to mind.) The relevant point is not whether or not they were hurtful, but whether or not they were fair.

"i'm sorry you got hurt but you broke hearts first." - Mada

Who gets to say whose fault it is then, and based on what?

"no one would start a topic to hurt you" - Mada

A questionable assumption, at best. If you take the average of my time on this site, people DID make topics that were just about flat-out insulting me, like some VCP thread making fun of my seal hunt thread, (replacing my posts with BLA BLA BLA or something like that) some Craig post in the SPA involving mixing Metal Gear screenshots with things I "said" (some of them, IIRC, I was misquoted on) etc... you are newer here than I am, so you were given an unrepresentative sample.

"but you obviously didnt think about others when bringing topics up." - Mada

How the hell would you know whether I considered others or not? What makes you so sure?

"oh and i got hurt in that topic, i see men treat women really bad all the time even i suffered so much.. and still do. i sometimes even hate men to the point i get mean to some family and friends for being males" - Mada

If a male saw women treat men really bad all the time, then, would you judge him for hating women, and getting mean to some family and friends for being females?

. . .

Anyway, as for Gyser's posts, the point is, as I mentioned in the OP, I was not claiming that people were obliged to explain themselves. I was simply stating that reference to this is probably overused.

My signature is also more than appropriate for pretty much EVERY post made here! =O

Okay, it looks like I have to defend a post I made five years ago. Awesome. Give me a while to read, think and discuss this with Trish before I come back and post. I will say, though, Matt. It upsets me that you still do not get that you actually managed to anger me in those posts questioning my relationship. Angering me is a massive feat accomplished by a number of people I can count on a single hand, so this is one incident I do recall quite well. Normally I do not remember the things that are dredged out of the past because I don't put a lot of thought into the nonsense I type here--- but that post. I was LIVID. Having you bring it up again is not doing you favors.

Let's see what I can do for a good reply, but let it be known, I am really not happy about this.

Okay. Here it is then. Firstly, let's explain my mindset so you understand why I was angry with you.

One. The thread was regarding the Bristol meet-up for UK forum members, after the event I posted my images on my Livejournal photo album. What you ended up doing was going through the root directory and looking at the other folders, which in itself is not something bad, especially as my link was to the main directory and not the Bristol folder... but then you proceeded to post in the present thread about my personal life where it had no place.

My first reaction to this was. Why the hell are you asking me about my personal life? I may have linked to my photo journal and I don't mind people looking, but you derailed a thread and started asking whether the photos of the first time my wife and I ever met in person were of her and how I took them and related that the experience seems weird to you that someone could visit another forum member with a camera in hand.

My reaction: How the hell is that your business? Did I miss a memo where I had to submit all details of my personal life to anyone who asked on the forum in an unrelated topic where it had no place?

I even typed as much, to not ask these questions or make it public. You simply asked why I didn't react when my close friend mentioned that Trish and I were a couple which is a statement of a public fact and not a prying question about the circumstances of that relationship and added in a "...met on the internet first..." comment at the end of it. To my eyes at the time, the ellipsis made this sound like it was the muttering comment of someone in absolute shock and disbelief of the concept. THAT is what set me off.

Not only did you derail a topic to examine my relationship, but at that time of my life I was getting a LOT of slack for it from people, people I knew and trusted. Many (possibly rightly) believed I was infatuated with the first girl who showed me interest. That she was too young. That neither of us knew what I was doing. But I was invested, I'd seen her and at that time, when I posted that I believed in my relationship and was getting very fatigued with my family and friends being so concerned about it.

Then you, a person of whom I barely am aware of and tolerate at the best of times, you start making comments which may as well say "My goodness, I cannot believe you would date a Mobius Forumer! Online first?! How weird you must look coming to her house with your camera and travelling halfway across the globe."

I can take that kind of thing from my friends, who know the circumstances, who know me, who have a right to question my personal life because they are PART of it. But from you, a person I hold no respect for whatsoever. I WAS ANGRY. How freaking DARE you pry into my life where you have no business to be there. Especially after I explicitly demanded you drop it two times, once subtly and then again outright.

So I simply stone walled you. The reason I said I don't have to explain myself to you is because I had no will or want to do so. You are nobody to me, why SHOULD I? This was my very angry and blunt way of telling you to back off, get out of the thread and let us discuss our fun trip. You may notice the first line was asking Becca to stop replying to you, because I wanted the thread back on it's correct rails and away from me.

Not to mention this was back in my Lackey days when I did not ENJOY being the focus of any talking or threads.

Anyway. To answer your question on why people post that, it basically means "Back off, I don't want to answer your questions." a right that every person has. We have a right to question things of course, but on the same scope we have a right to refuse being questioned.

Also in the other thread, you were being told that Gibson's wife doesn't have to explain how she dressed and it falls under the same principal. How much of an invasion of privacy is it to be asked WHY your closet is the way it is. She's not even a celebrity in her own right, just married to one. Whose right is it to demand answers to such questions. Basically, if you see that as a response to anything, it usually means that you're digging too deep, please stop.

If you continue you'll just look like an ass.

My avatar, minus Buffy's eyeroll, is ALSO most appropriate at describing some people's posts here! =O

I'll leave it you, dear forummers, to figure out which! =D

This thread turned interesting all of a sudden.

I was commenting on how meeting someone from a webforum, let alone forming a relationship...

A (relatively) more recent example was in this thread, when even so much as criticizing provocative attire got a couple responses, again, along the lines of the "they don't have to explain themselves" approach when, again, I wasn't claiming they did.

I think it's the choice of language. The words "let alone" suggest an implicit (or indeed explicit) criticism of the action prefixed by them. Criticising someone's clothing choices is also (not surprisingly) criticism. When people are faced with criticism, they usually expect to defend themselves. They find it implicit in your criticism that you *do* feel that they have to justify their actions to you. However, if they feel that the criticism has come completely out of left field and that the criticiser is not close enough to them to make the criticism, they will tend to respond in the way you have found - basically telling you that your criticism is in their opinion misplaced and is definitely unwelcome and that a new topic of conversation will need to be found pretty damn quick.

You can't necessarily avoid offending people in life, or even hurting them. But you can improve your chances of avoiding doing so (unless you particularly want to) by looking out for linguistic cues like this, both in your own posts and in the responses you get.

DW

Well Craig, for what it's worth, I suppose I should not have derailed the thread like that, but this did not seem to be what your response focused on. Your response focused on how you did not have to explain yourself to others which, while true, (and I have repeatedly acknowledged this) was a very separate point. The point about "personal questions" was closer to that of the "do not have to explain myself" point, but even then, I pretty much stopped with the personal questions after the "don't use this thread to discuss my personal life" post, after which my posts were about trying to explain what I was saying.

As for people giving you flak about your relationship, did anything about me give you reason to believe I was one of them? My response, though implying that this kind of relationship was unusual, was not exactly calling that a bad thing. That you put up a "stone wall" in response only furthered the misunderstanding of what I was really saying, whereas discussing this might actually be going somewhere.

As for rights, again I have repeatedly acknowledged such rights. But just because someone has the right to refuse to do something, does not always mean they should refuse to. Again, it was quite justified in your case. I am just saying it might be worth pointing out that rights can be misused.

EDIT: As for darkwinguk's response, to assume criticism from merely from wording like "let alone," and to equate criticism with the belief that others have to explain themselves, is presumptuous in at least two ways at once. I am inclined to think that if someone is so presumptuous that is their problem. But again, at least now that we are discussing this, it is going somewhere, whereas putting up a stone wall against conversation is not.

He doesn't have to explain himself, Matt.

I don't have to explain myself.

You don't have to explain yourself.

Nobody has to explain themself.

Just drop it.

He doesn't have to explain himself, Matt.

I don't have to explain myself.

You don't have to explain yourself.

Nobody has to explain themself.

Just drop it.

I never said anyone did.

I don't have to explain my previous post

Or this

Or the next

Or the one after that

I don't have to explain my previous post

Or this

Or the next

Or the one after that

But like with my earlier point, criticizing your posts does NOT imply that you are obliged to explain them.

I don't have to explain my previous post

Or this

Or the next

Or the one after that

Matt, you're reading into my motives when I wrote them out plainly. Every thought I had and every reaction. Why did I think you had a bad tone, I wrote why, did you not read it? In fact, that was AS clear as I can possibly get about my mental thought process during the fiasco. I cannot answer any further questions because I have exhausted all possible venues of which to explore how and why things happened.

If you wish to continue your psychological interrogation, feel free to pull out some psychology books and piece apart every word I've ever typed, I wont be there to validate or deny any more. Seeing your response just reminds me why I blocked you and do not respond to your e-mails any longer. Consider this the cut off point, I'm done with you.

Oh for the love of the Purple Tree. I was worried this post would do nothing but stir drama, and I was right.

Kitty, I love you, but your post only added anger where there was only eye rolling and minor irritation. I'm glad you're picking your battles (or choosing not to fight future battles, that works too) but this could have been avoided.

Matt, speaking of battles, this was one of those "answers to questions only you seemed to ask" things. This isn't a discussion, this is bringing up a single point that's not even worth discussing. Your initial question was "does this phrase seem to be overused?" and the answer is, why does it matter?

Come on, you guys. I know you're better than this. **lock**

Matt the point you should learn is that not everything is an internet debate. An inquisitive nature is a strength, but I get the idea you would go up to Titanic victims and ask them to discuss Titanic The Animated Movie. I'm telling you to learn consideration and if not it may come to warnings. To answer your question the way to tell if a request to 'not explain yourself' is appropriate is to think about how private the subject is.