At this point, you're just propping up and tearing down straw men—including your remarks about whether or not italics make an argument "more ironclad": nobody said it did. The italics are a response to your insistence in not engaging in the conversation you're ostensibly talking part in and trying instead to turn it into a different conversation that no one else is.
> $3 or $4 doesn’t sound about right to me
No one asked. You asked, on the other hand, a question about the ripoff comment, and that's the question you got an answer to.
No more attempts at conversational sleights of hand, please.
Yes, I asked a question. You gave your opinion. I said I disagreed with it. You said disagree with what? I said I disagree with your opinion. Repeat… several times now lol.
Here's what you're not getting: nobody asked about that.
You cannot say to someone who doesn't like hot dogs, e.g., "What makes hot dogs gross?" and then when someone explains why, respond, "I disagree." That makes no sense. You asked for the information, they gave it to you, so the only possible way that "I disagree" fits at that place in the conversation is if you're saying that you disagree that that's their reason. To respond "I disagree" in the sense that you don't share their taste is to fundamentally change the subject to try to have a different conversation. And it's not interesting, besides.
People have different tastes. That's expected.
Stating that you personally think it is worth the price—especially in this context, as if it's some kind of retort—is just annoying. It isn't illuminating; that you don't share the same opinion is utterly unsurprising and didn't need saying, and it provides no special insight.
I don’t think italicizing makes the argument more ironclad.
$3 or $4 doesn’t sound about right to me.
To me, the age of something doesn’t necessarily influence its cost. Saying “this book is old so it should be cheap” is something I disagree with.