[moe]

Count me in on that theory (another member from the peanut gallery!).

The whole story just sounded so contrived from the start and didn't play out much better.

I mean, we know 37signals and reality are not best friends, but just throwing away 220k/yr in nearly passive income if it doesn't sell for the desired price, seemed a little far out there to begin with...

With that kind of money at stake I'd have expected at least a little more enthusiasm in the flippa-auction from their end. No least given how much DHH likes to bash the VC-gambling - how does that jive with playing russian roulette on a product raking in that kind of money, for no plausible reason?

My pet theory is similar to yours; I think they simply had a buyer from the start, and offered to throw in some "37signals original flavor media spin" as a bonus.

Whichever the truth is, it obviously worked out for them.

[jasonfried]

So you know the truth, we didn't have a buyer from the start. We didn't know if anyone would buy it. We'd never met or heard of the eventual buyers.

We tried to sell Sortfolio a year earlier and nothing came through. We decided to try again this time with a deadline and a public price.

This deal materialized because the buyers were interested in what we were selling, we liked their enthusiasm for the product, and we reached an agreement. The deal came together towards the end of the deadline.

It would have been a lot easier and less stressful for all involved had we had the buyer up front. We of course would have taken the up front easy way had it presented itself.

[moe]

Sorry, I still have trouble believing you. Partly because I don't believe the premise of just not giving a shit about $220k in passive income.

And partly because this all snaps together way too snug. Short of the fortuitous hero riding into the sunset as the exit-credits scroll by. On his Louis Vuitton designer-pony.

But it doesn't matter what I believe. You're the guys with the sportscars.

[tptacek]

At grave risk of sounding even more patronizing than I usually do, let me try to help you with something:

HN people spend a lot of time arguing with each other, often about nonsense or trivia (hey, myself included). In those arguments, it is very normal to say "I have trouble believing X is true" or "I have a hard time believing Y". And while it's not the most polite way to express disagreement, it's more annoying than rude. (It is in fact a cardinal example of what my spouse Erin would say makes disagreeing with me annoying).

It is on the other hand incredibly rude to respond to someone who just made a categorical statement about something material ("We did not have a buyer from the beginning of the sale of Sortfolio", for instance) with the words "I have trouble believing you". Unbelievably rude. I think it might even be more rude than directly saying "I think you're a liar", since it's so recklessly casual.

Noticing this, I quickly searched over my old comments, horrified that I might have made the same error, perhaps even repeatedly. It is the kind of obnoxiousness to which I am prone. I am very relieved that I was not quickly able to come up with a comment here where I casually called someone else a liar.

[moe]

Thanks for your comment.

Honestly, I just wrote what I had on my mind that moment, without much meta-thinking. You are probably right, in hindsight should at least have phrased it less direct.

However, without disregarding your concern: Should I refrain from posting at all when what I have to say boils down to "I don't believe your story"?

Would you also have reacted to a politely phrased comment saying the same thing?

[leif]

Yes, you should.

It is not anyone's job to cure you of your misconceptions. "Prove it!" are the two most ignorant and wasteful words we have. When someone actually involved with a situation tries to assuage your irrational fears anyway, and all you have to say is "I don't believe you, even though I have nothing pertinent to offer except the speculation I rode in on," you're being stubborn, ignorant, and an ass. If you have something to add, some tangible counter, then by all means, offer it up for review. But otherwise, you should remain silent or gracious.

For the record, I disclaim any interest in this actual story, beyond the fact that people are getting so damn riled up about it. The metastory is riveting.

[katabatic]

> Should I refrain from posting at all when what I have to say boils down to "I don't believe your story"?

Yes, that's exactly what you should. That sort of comment contributes exactly nothing to the discussion.

[bmelton]

I think the easiest tack is to stop assuming that people are liars until they've exhibited behavior that would cast them as such.

Not everybody here is the biggest fan of DHH or the 37Signals crew. That's perfectly fine. I don't know anybody here that would consider anything they've done as untruthful or as deliberately misleading. At the most critical extreme, you could maybe consider some of their sales copy as overzealous, but that's a far cry from outright dishonesty.

That said, you're of course welcome to say whatever you feel. However, I agree with Thomas that it is bad form. Different wording may well have helped the situation.

Finally, sometimes we post what's on our mind. I know that I'm guilty of it, and there are a ton of posts that I'd love to take back, either because I reacted inappropriately or made myself look stupid. Happens to the best of us.

[asto]

When the maintainers are uninterested in their website, it makes more sense to sell something when it's making revenues of 200k+ than wait till it's in shambles and worthless.

Also, you never know if they needed the sale proceeds to pay for something. Maybe some ambitious project that requires a high upfront capital cost.

Too many things that are unknown to us to just call them liars.