Whoa! We need to back off from the personal attacks.
There are two ways to see this discussion about where GPU's are classified. One view is that performance is the only thing that matters. The other view is that the specs and traditional product slots matter.
Nvidia, with the Kepler family, brought out the (ahem) mid-range part first at the price of the previous generation high end, instead at the price of the previous generation's midrange. (the GTX 580 came out at $500, the GTX 680 came out at $499, GTX 560 Ti was $250) It was a method used to bump the price up on the high end parts. BTW, historically, the mid-range part beats the previous gen high end. 460>285 etc. I'm not even going to get into the problem with the lack of competition coming from the red camp.
Some time ago, I heard that the GPU vendors actually make their money from the low end cards, the sub $100 cards. Now, thanks to better integrated graphics, that market has been eroded. The GTX 750 Ti actually occupies the same product slot as the 8400GS, but they're selling them for $150. The manufacturers had to move the price up on the high end GPU's. I'd love to know the rate of returns for these GPU's. (we recently had someone who said that they RMA'd a GTX 970 because of problems that are Far Cry's fault)
GTX 560 Ti $250(2011) - GTX 680/770 $400(2013) - GTX 980 $550(2014). Now that's inflation.