Do I go to great or exaggerated lengths to avoid Facebook? No. In the 6+ months since I cancelled my account, I have only twice been sent a link or other reference to Facebook. In the month since I have graduated, never. It doesn’t come up in my web search results. It doesn’t come up in blogs I read (other than yours, now). I’ve never been invited to some event by someone that I don’t see in person or talk to on the phone — I wasn’t when I had my account, and I’m not now that I don’t (my email address lingers and is or was still visible on Facebook, btw, which is how I know these things).

In addition, if not visiting a particular website on the Internet is extreme because (per your definition in our discussion) it is an absolute lack of visiting, it is not “exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected”. Of all the sites on the Internet, it is not unusual for anyone to fail to visit a few. I argue for context. The very first definition you cite does, too. Even the second one does: “situated at the farthest possible point from a center”. A “center” must have cultural context, and in the case of the Internet… Well, as I said. *shrug*

You wrote, “Anyway, I did not hold the same connotation for “extreme” as my friend, who took it as an insult and took it to mean, like an extremist or fanatic. In my opinion extreme has very little connotation that should incite emotion.”

How can you use the word “extremist”, and then say that “extreme” has no emotive connotation? Seriously. An extremist is one who goes to an extreme.

Furthermore, I’d question to what degree my lack of use of Facebook is a “conviction” now. It was orignally, yes. But now, why bother visiting? I would have to actively work to do so, and my energy is channeled elsewhere. My lack of visiting is a habit at this point (insofar as it’s a practice at all, which, I suppose, I argued above that it isn’t), and it’s one I don’t mind having.

Getting attacked about that “habit,” however, will bring out the Queen Bee in me. (I wasn’t named “Melissa” for nothing.)

What interested me in our argument was how it seemed that you saw the label of “extreme” as having to do with my actions rather than me, and so not possibly objectionable or needing context. It’s my lack of visiting Facebook that is extreme, not… what, the person doing it? Actions do reflect on the doer, and when you say someone’s actions are extreme (or anything else), you are saying that person is extreme or an extremist.

…Just like you doing responsible (dependable/trusty) things makes you responsible (dependable/trusty). *shrug*

I don’t deny being an extremist in many things. I’m overweight with an ED and a temperamental and obsessive personality. I might even be extreme or unusual with regards to some things about Facebook (i.e., not wanting employers to associate me with that site). But that’s all in context; the context of arbitrarily- and realistically-defined “normality”.

Of course, if you want to argue that it’s perfectly normal and feasible to visit every site on the Internet regularly, go right ahead.