[larrys]

"wild accusations that we were just playing everyone"

You are 100% incorrect as to what I actually did and why. In business what I had suggested as a possibility is not something that would be frowned upon at all. It's the way business is done quite frequently. Do you think games aren't played in business and especially in negotiation? Consequently I wasn't being critical at all according to the way I viewed what you did. I looked at it in a positive way.

I've been negotiating for about 37 years and think about it every day and even as a hobby study the actions of a wide variety of individuals and companies. I don't claim to know what you know about programming or rise to your level of proficiency since it's what you do and I would never challenge you on that. But I do know about negotiating and business.

The "speculation" that I had was based on my experience. I even called it "speculation" and started my statement by saying "I'd love a post on how the price was set". That hardly sounds like it is coming from someone making "wild accusations".

As an aside I don't think that it supports your point to compare your situation to Apple and use the number 200k. Obviously.

[ForrestN]

Err, I think what he means is that you implied that 37Signals was lying, that they pretended not to have a buyer, and to be considering shuttering the site, when in fact they knew that they had a buyer. I can only speak for myself, but if that were proven, I would certainly frown upon it.

I think a lot of 37Signals' brand, and a lot of its relationship with its audience, comes from their transparency and straightforwardness. I think that context also adds to the sensitivity. If it came out that they were lying to the public, it would be detrimental to them for sure.

Not saying DHH answered in the best way possible, or that you did anything "wrong," but you are squirming around the fact that you speculated publicly about them doing something untoward.