“Unearned” personal attacks is your qualifyer, how convenient. I sense a trend with you where you and you alone decide what is relevant, what is “unearned” and what is earned. The most laughable was your “unbiased” (yes I am being sarcastic here and no sarcasm doesn’t qualify as an ad hominem attack) research in determining there were 9 attacks by PC users compared to 1 attack by a Mac user. You chose to determine what was mild, what was moderate and was was severe. I’d probably question your judgment in every case.
I laid out my criteria.
" I noted comments in three categories: mild, moderate, and insulting. Those which I deemed "mild" were those in which a platform advocate made reasoned commentary about their preferred platform and compared it to the subject platform. Those that commented denigrating the subject platform with ignorant or outdated mis-information, I deemed "moderate". Finally, comments attacking or denigrating the users of the subject platform, I deemed "Insulting". These judgments were subjective on my part... but I attempted to be totally fair."What is so difficult about that?
Commenting on the platforms and comparisons are legitimate forms of discussion. It might be invading the thread, but it is not insulting to anyone, but is probably a matter of opinion open to rational discussion, but not offensive to anyone. That's a mild intrusion. The key here is intruding for the purpose of discussing your preferred platform or related topic to the one the thread is about.
Extending the comments to falsehoods, arguing using out-dated data that has been repeatedly rebutted, ignorant claims of problems with the platform you don't have intimate knowledge about, or blatant attacks on the inanimate platform, OS, or any of its software, is ruder but still only moderate because no one can be hurt. Such claims can be looked at as an opportunity to educate those saying them in the true facts so long as one provides proper sources and does not just counter with another opinion. Inanimate objects, software, lines of code, have no feelings or emotions to hurt. The key here is intruding to attack the platform under discussion... or to trumpet your platform while irrationally denigrating the opposing platform.
However, when the intrusion involves personal or group insults, slurs, slander, and innuendo—and not discussion of the subject matter—merely because the attack party is using something else than the attacker or because the attacker disagrees with them, feelings get hurt, people are offended, and emotions are raised, resulting in counter attacks and heightened animosity. Such attacks are not probative of anything about the platform and are not even an opportunity for education about the true facts. They are said to hurt, intended to belittle, and offered to denigrate persons or whole groups with the intent to call into question the validity of information and opinions presented by those being attacked. Such ad hominem attacks prove NOTHING about the truthfulness of the information or the validity of the opinions. Those ad hominem attacks and slurs are insulting to people and therefore is severe. The key here is the intrusion is about attacking people one disagrees with.