I know you prefer not to name names, but I think it would benefit a lot of people to be on the lookout for the three owners of that company.
I'm sure there is someone out there, who would create a new throwaway account and reply to this comment, who had a similar experience with the same company, and who would name the company and owner names.
I think he's done the greater service to everyone reading by not naming names. The likelihood that anyone on HN will end up doing business with these three is very unlikely. However, there is a good chance one of us would run into someone employing the same tactics. That's what we should be on the lookout for.
He said he's not going to name names. Let it rest.
It's frustrating that we watch this same argument play out every time someone anonymizes the details of any story. We don't need to litigate this point. If someone says they don't want to reveal details, it's rude to try convincing them to change their mind.
He said he'd prefer not to. There's no harm in my gentle persuasion. If you're getting frustrated at a natural human interaction, maybe you need to step back and figure out a better way to handle that frustration.
Without the names, "being on the lookout" means that you have to look at everyone and think about whether or not they're using similar tactics (i.e. "they could be anyone"). With the names, the first step of "being on the lookout" is checking the known-bad list, which could make you less vigilant with everyone else (i,e. "at least I know this person isn't one of them"). That It would be an irrational mistake to make, but I suspect it would also be a common one.
I'm sure there is someone out there, who would create a new throwaway account and reply to this comment, who had a similar experience with the same company, and who would name the company and owner names.