Exactly zero of the 'raging Apple fanboys' that I know go around telling people that they are bad people because they don't use Apple products.

A few Apple fanboys get a bit 'preachy' about how 'awesome' Apple is when they first switch, but I've never seen an Apple fanboy call somebody a bad person as part of that process. Additionally, this desire to 'win souls' quickly wears off, and some never go through it at all.

----

Now, if you were making a sporting analogy and said that the mere existence of people who like Apple somehow causes the supporters of 'the other teams' to get more energetic in support of their team, that would make sense to me. Sports fans need the existence of other sports fans to hate and whip them into a frenzy.

But (sadly) that isn't what you're doing here. You are painting the Apple fans as the bad guys by making all these assertions about their behaviour and character. Essentially, you are saying that they bring it on themselves because of their bad behaviour, and I don't believe that. It doesn't match my observations at all.

-----

Let us examine your claims:

the only news you hear is either "Apple did this"

I dispute this as factually inaccurate. Right now, as I flick to the tab holding the front page, I see the following tally:

msft	2
startup	7
rampant rails fanboyism	1
digital rights	5
linux	1.5
apple	0.5
pop psych	2
world news	1
us news	2
fitness	1
history of the world	1
intel	1

(there was a story title for android and iphone, so I gave them each partial credit).

That's it. 2% of the news. 1/4 of what Microsoft is getting.

Now, when you say "Apple did this" I'm going to assume you mean people bitching about how evil Apple is. E.g. the recent 30% debate. Because all I remember recently about Apple is a bunch of bashing and sledging.

Essentially, you are saying that because you see people bashing Apple so often in the news, that makes you sick of Apple and want to bash them. I cannot say that I see that as a reasonable justification.

Then you say the other side of the news, the pro-Apple side

"I WANT APPLES BABIES"

Now look. I don't know if you've ever seen any Apple ads, but they never do that. They are never garish and over the top. Oh wait, the iPod ads. Well, okay, I'll give you that one.

Now I like understated ads. I liked the Microsoft ads with Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates, I thought they should have continued them. I like the ad where the guy is texting while peeing at the urinal, and then drops the phone and goes to retrieve it and the guy turns to him and says "really?", and the kid throws the ball at his Dad's head because he's texting instead of playing. But here Microsoft is taking a leaf out of Apple's playbook (sic).

For every loud garish Apple ad, I'll see you ten Microsoft party to install Vista ads. You want annoying? There's your culprit right there.

Moreover, I think you got the emphasis wrong, it is more like the two sides of the Apple news coin are like this:

"I WANT APPLE TO DIE IN A FIRE" and "Hey, Apple just put out new MacBook pros"

"you will start to form an overly critical view"

Not critical enough by a large margin. Like I said in the first post, Apple is singled out for unequal treatment. If your view actually was properly critical you'd view each company with equal suspicion.

"because the news seems to always tend towards hype"

But the hysteria end of the hype scale is filled with Apple haters. Where Apple fits on the hype scale is in the 'large corporate announcing a new product' part of the scale. But even there I give Apple better marks than most IT companies, since Apple actually delivers the products they are hyping (except the white iPhone). Most other IT companies make all sorts of breathless announcements and then half the time the product that is going to lead us into the promised land of milk and honey never arrives.

... but they never get called to task for it, or if they do, with only a minuscule fraction of the rage and bile that is directed at Apple.

"And then some people (with the same fanboyish mindset as the fanboys) will start to take it too far, still as a backlash"

Backlash against what though? You've failed to establish the existence of raving Apple fanboys, and my experience completely disagrees with your assertion that the Apple fanboys are just as bad as the Apple bashers.

"You only get raging haters by either spectacular failure of delivery"

If someone says they hate Apple because they had a $mac and one day after the warranty expired it blew up and then Apple screwed them over, that would be fair enough in my book. By all means, bring Apple to task for their real sins, but unless Apple has injured you, do not bash them for imaginary sins, unless you also bash other companies equally. That is all I'm asking.

"OR by having raging fans. People seek to balance by becoming unbalanced."

I just don't see the raging fans. Apple is far too mainstream these days. Maybe back in the 90s with Guy Kawasaki whipping the faithful into a frenzy of religious ecstasy, but that was TWO DECADES AGO. For every Apple raging fanboy you show me, I will give you 100 Apple bashers.

Let's have a look at the comments in the MSFT threads. In the first one, there are only three overt mentions of Apple. One is apparently an IE 8 fanboy bashing n IE 6 fanboy (the mind boggles), and the reference to Apple is an extremely minor point by way of an argument by analogy.

The second is a response to someone who was bashing Apple, and suggesting that because they are taking 30% of subscriptions, they are unfit to serve as a replacement for Microsoft. (In response to someone saying that we should just throw out Microsoft entirely (and not just IE 6)). The overt mention of Apple is someone saying that leaving Microsoft is not the same as going to Apple, because there are other choices.

The third reference is someone disputing that, saying that there are no Linux devices for sale, and that for non-technical people it is just a choice of Microsoft or Apple. (There is a response to that by a Linux fanboy, I know he's a fanboy because he misses the obvious logical retort that most Netbooks run Linux).

Anyway, by my tally in these mentions of Apple there are 3 Microsoft fanboys, 1 Linux fanboy and 0 Apple fanboys.

Hmmmm.... not looking so good for your theory. Perhaps the other thread will prove more fruitful?

There are two overt mentions: I'll quote the first since I can't identify its fanboy classification:

"Microsoft producing new software for Windows XP is like Apple doing the same for OS9."

It is a little fanboyish, since it is kind of inaccurate (a better comparison would be Windows ME vs OS 9 in my view, since Microsoft introduced XP in August 2001 and (according to Wikipedia), Apple introduced OS 9 in 1999 and discontinued development on it in 2002), but never mind that nitpick. So far as I can tell, this is not Apple fanboyism, this is just someone arguing by analogy, like the first example from the first article.

The second quote:

"Anyway, they supported it till IE8 and MS has one of the best track records for backward compatibility(if not the best) in the industry. Just see Apple to see how quickly things are deprecated."

Okay, so here Apple is being shown in a bad light. Microsoft is better than just about everyone at maintaining backwards compatibility. And the person could have said that, but no, they had to slide in a little negative dig at Apple in the process.

Would you call that an example of rampant Apple fanboyism??

I hope not!

You see, this is how things are. Apple fanboys as a general rule stick to their own 'turf' and don't engage in needless nerd-rages across the internet. I'll admit there is probably a low level of baiting and trolling that is going on, but not at a higher level than the last guys snide side remark about Apple.

In fact, this quick survey shows enormously more Linux fanboy trolling than Apple fanboyism.

If anything, it also shows that people are out there actively trying to bait the Apple fanboys, but they aren't biting.

Of course, this is a limited sample, highly inaccurate, blah blah blah, but I think it goes to cast suspicion on your claims of bad behaviour by Apple fanboys.

"People don't like being told that someone else is better then they are"

Apple fanboys don't do this.

"Geeks, therefore, do not like being told that they are a poorer person for making different technology choices."

Apple fanboys don't do this.

I'd happily accuse someone of making a poor technology choice if they go 'all in' with Microsoft technologies, but I wouldn't tell them they are a "poorer person"

"As fanboyism can be quite judgmental"

Apple fanboys don't do this.

"this gets on people's nerves, and they become defensive, lashing out at the "Cause" (being Apple)"

So, despite a complete and total absence of Apple 'fanboys' attacking, it is okay to go on the defensive, and the best defense is a good offense?

Even in trigger happy USA you're still supposed to wait until you're attacked before retaliating with superior force.

"The fanboys feel that their identity is being attacked, and they fight back with equal fervor."

But there aren't any attacks. Oh, I'm not saying that if you go into a thread about Apple you won't see people arguing in Apple's favour, but there it is entirely in appropriate and in context. The very thing you claim, the moral high ground of not lashing out except in defense, is exactly what the Apple fanboys do. The very superiority you claim for Apple bashers is instead the high ground that the Apple fanboys are firmly encamped upon.

It is the Apple bashers who are the clear aggressors, who attack without provocation.