Stratigos was likley referring to the fact that the thread was initially answered by michael_intel purporting to represent Intel. He essentially stated that: Your graphics drivers wont work without them and we are not telling you what they do.
This significantly changed the direction of the thread and led to the expression of frustration by a number of posters along with what were then very valid questions about Intel policy. A cynic might argue that the thread was only closed to try and silence the discussion which had developed and was highly critical of Intel.
It is worth noting that the thread was only answered 8 months later with a post by Diego_Intel.
Given the current climate where revelations about the NSA/GCHQ and thier activities are coming to light; activities which imply that many big names in the technology sector have colluded with the NSA/GCHQ to circumvent, or in some instances engineer encryption mechanisms to be readily compromisable by said authority. It is likley that many people will not take kindly to this initial response from Intel.
Stratigos has quite rightly asked:
Why does intel wish to perpetuate this encroaching culture of control over end user devices?
Which I feel is a very valid question. But then maybe it is against Intel policy to answer this....