They called Intel's old price "pathetic." That's hardly a low level of discourse, and not really tantamount to name calling.

It isn't a particularly insightful comment, I'll acknowledge that, but this response seems like it lowers the quality of the thread more than the comment it is replying to (and arguably breaks the sites rules by suggesting the other poster have ulterior motives for posting what they posted).

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

And:

> Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Yet you assume my comment is referring to one comment and unfairly attacking it?

This entire page is uncharacteristically rife with misinformed comments and people oddly invested in shutting down anyone with anything positive to say about Intel

And:

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't accuse AMD of astroturfing. If anything I literally implied the opposite, an organic reason why there's a movement to emphasize "AMD bad Intel Good".

My point is it's to the detriment of having real discussions about either when they come up on HN.

Or it could be, as people have said many times before and the actual subject of this article confirms, that people were sick of Intel using its near Monopoly in the past to price gouge its customers and slow walk tech improvements.