You state that the other person isn't obligated to respond to you at all; meanwhile, you state that the reasons you feel compelled to respond based on the Three-Pronged Internet Argument Fallacy. You're not the only person for whom this applies. I'd also offer that only responding to you partially is a form of exercising their non-obligation to respond to you at all.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "the answer you want." If by that you mean, the actual answer to the question that I asked, then yes, I'm decidedly forward. If I ask what someone means by x, and they instead give me a paragraph explaining why they don't have time/don't want to answer that question, then I might criticize that, but that person is in no way obligated to respond to me at all, so I don't see how I could really "browbeat" anyone in that sense. I really have no authority to do that even if I wanted to.
You make it sound like I just tackle random people and interrogate them at gunpoint until I hear whatever I want to hear --- the "answer I want" is usually just a simple clarification of something they've already said. I really don't see what the big deal is. If you don't want your comments or beliefs to be criticized or analyzed at all, why do you say them? It's not "pushy" or "bad" to expect someone to actually back up what they are saying. It's my understanding that the entire point of a deeper discussion of different ideas, is that people explain their ideas; you say I'm being too pushy, but to me it's much pushier to simply throw your comments out there and expect them to be taken or left at face value.