I read your original post correctly. This is a situation where a person signed a contract and absolutely performed his job to the best of his ability, to the point where it is universally recognized (by everyone except apparently you) that he absolutely outperformed the expectations that anyone had for him when the contract was signed.
And, most importantly, that contract EXPIRED. He had already completely fulfilled the terms of the contract. For him to express his opinion that the fact that he did outperform his OLD contract meant that he thought he would deserve more money on his next contract isn't some sort of whiner bitching about his poor circumstances. In fact, it was an accurate reflection of what other people felt, as evidenced by the fact that he did, in fact, sign a new contract for even more money than what he was making before.
The fact of the matter is that you spoke without knowing what the situation was. A fact that you have already admitted. And the fact of the matter is that when someone takes a shot at another person without knowing the facts of their situation, that person is the one who is the bully.
What is confusing you is that you think the bully is the person simply speaking the truth, when in fact the bully is the person denigrating another person without knowing all the facts. In other words, you.
Honorable people do not make disparaging comments about someone when they obviously no nothing at all about that person's situation. Pretty much by definition.
