> whomever that may be.

I think most readers, myself included, read that additional qualifier on "highest bidder" to mean "even if such a bidder is unexpected or unscrupulous". If you meant "unless selling to such a bidder were illegal", then you should have said that. Your words were not only very different from that, but they specifically cover the case you claim not to be endorsing.

To say nothing of the fact that if you're informed enough to have a discussion on the sale of 0 days, it can be assumed you know the market is full of bad actors and state actors, so even if nobody mentioned it upfront, it's a topic that's on the table from the outset, IMO. It's not uncouth to bring up illegal behavior when it's a routine part of what's being discussed. I think it's a bit much that you attack that person's character for making what seems like a pretty sane reading of your post. Especially when it seems the person you're yelling at was right – the thing you said is not the thing you really think.