Microsoft Comic Chat, an IRC client from 30 years ago that helped popularize Comic Sans, is going open source | Windows Central 73%

By Zac Bowden63%

7/16/2026, 5:46:51 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 227 faulty-reasoning hits from 202 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.2% and a BS Rank of 73% (4,515 of 16,682 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.90% of the article peer group.

Microsoft's once popular IRC client "Comic Chat" is being open sourced to celebrate its 30th anniversary. 
Those who frequented the world wide web in the 90's will likely remember Comic Chat for being a unique experiment into how IRC chatting could be, featuring graphical avatars that presented chats and chatrooms in comic strip form. 
"Today, we’re excited to announce the open-source release of Microsoft Comic Chat, the chat client that automatically turned conversations within Internet Relay Chat (IRC) into comic panels featuring illustrated characters, speech bubbles, and expressions, and helped introduce the world to a little font called Comic Sans," Microsoft's Scott Hanselman announced in a blog post today. 
Although from the 90s, Comic Chat is still functional as an IRC client today, though most people likely don't use it anymore. 
Still, with the app now being open source, perhaps developers and tinkerers will be more open to breathing life back into the 30 year old app. 
The Comic Chat source code is now public on GitHub for anyone who wants to take a look and compile their own version. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
18.8%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
10.9%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
12.9%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
27.2%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
29.7%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
12.9%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

202 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.