Personal attacks, which this crosses the line into, are not allowed on HN.

This might be an Appeal to Dehumanization (I just created a new fallacy), but I consider about 75% of the people on HN to be legitimate people. the remaining reek of sockpuppetry. I felt the grandparent was a sockpuppet, and am treating the account as a dataset for future encounters.

I should be more mindful of the fact that there's (potentially) a human being behind the account I'm treating like an astroturfer. I can see why you considered this a personal attack.

If you want to name a new fallacy, name the bias where people are more likely to think someone is astroturfing or a shill when they disagree with them. That's a common one, and it's definitely against the rules on HN to go there without evidence. An opposing opinion is not evidence.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR...

one would assume the Hasty Generalization[1] fallacy would suffice.

When, do you think, does a rhetorical device fall into the realm of propagandizing?

1. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalis...

Propaganda? You're confusing a love for the English language and a little command of rhetoric with something vastly different, chief.

Hell, I don't even use Windows as a primary platform; I'm typing this from a Mac while I'm (quite literally) waiting to meet a guy to sell my Surface Pro 3 that I never use. I'm just not impressed by rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me silliness and knee-jerk, irrational fear. I don't trust Microsoft any more than I trust any company. But I don't rely on the fears of fifteen years ago to evaluate the current state of the world, either.

I think you and I have a vastly different definition of propaganda. I considered your post to be information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, movement, nation, etc. In this case, the cause and movement would be "microsoft is still evil, do not forget." do you disagree that your post fits the definition under these constraints?