This has been an interesting thread, if a bit heated.
I can see why the OP was a bit miffed by their situation. To have someone actively discourage, or at least undermine their situation to deter people from buying their images seemed spiteful.
I can also see why people took exception to Tom's opinion, it may have not been put across in the most diplomatic manner, though I doubt any of us are diplomats.
I think the Butcher analogy was a valid one, although Tom seemed to dismiss it out of hand. When I worked in a department store, it used to irritate me when people would come in, look at the goods and then say it was £'s cheaper on the Internet. I knew that, they didn't need to tell me, but took satisfaction in doing it. :shrug: I wouldn't have appreciated another customer chiming in on the conversion to say it was even cheaper somewhere else. Inform the other customer by all means, but don't do it in front of me.

That situation was different because obviously an Ipod is an Ipod regardless of where you buy, though in that situation the customer service and convenience of getting the goods there and then is what you were paying extra for, whereas each photograph is unique, and each photo has a value to the photographer and the viewer. To some Photographers the value is someone appreciating their work. For Pro's it is up to the photographer(s) to get into a situation where they have a monopoly on the situation, as at football stadiums, or produce images that are markedly better than the average chap in the street could get to justify the value they give the image.
I didn't see any 'threats' btw, but then I could be wrong and not have perceived something as a threat as it was not aimed at me. :shrug: