I'm not going to explain every REC. But to help you understand.....
REC should be for on-topic relevant discussion. (One may or may not AGRee with the position of the comments. The REC is because it is relevant, regardless. If the REC system was used that way, readers would know to not assume the RECer agrees or disagrees, unless they reply post comments about agreeing/disagreeing.)
When I was talking about one-sided, I was talking in context of RECers, not the poster. Of course many participants have a biased viewpoint, and post one-sided comments. That doesn't make those comments invalid, or not REC worthy. The point is that RECers should not consider the side as a factor in giving a REC (because that would be AGRee), but objectively REC relevant posts regardless of side, even when the comment is on the opposite side from the RECer's own viewpoint. (And that is most important in overall posts RECed, not just a single post REC decision.) That is how you help busy readers see all relevant posts and reach their own conclusions about what is the correct side of the investment analysis.
Regarding the abuse in this specific case, as always (and I explained this long ago) I have to weigh the balance of relevant on-topic comments versus abusive words....and in this case the former (which could spur further useful discussion) far outweighs the latter (which is mild and non-specific).