You don't even understand anything, let alone point anything out.
A post can be part, or ALL, one-sided comments, and it merits a REC if it is relevant on-topic comments. REC has NOTHING to do with AGReeing with any or all comments. REC simply means the post is relevant and (in comparison to other posts) worthy of being read by those not reading everything, ......as always, in the opinion of the RECer.
I could REC two different posts, from two different posters, one of which is completely one-sided positive-mvis, and the other of which is completely one-sided negative-mvis, if both are on-topic and not dominated by abuse. I could also REC a balanced post, with positive and negative comments, if we ever get one here.
If/when IV adds an AGRee function, I will decide whether I want to give AGR's to indicate that I agree with some or all of the comments (and maybe the viewpoint) expressed in the post.
I understand that many folks use (IMO, misuse) the REC function to signal posts where they agree with the comments, or generally agree with the poster. I do NOT use REC that way. Why ? Because as an objective balanced evaluator of mvis, I don't think misusing REC to promote one side of the debate, is valuable. Promoting the reading, and discussion, of both/all sides is valuable. Promoting relevant comments (regardless of side) is valuable.
Regarding the specific post/example, yes I would agree that post was all one-sided positive. That is not surprising. He is positive-mvis. Some others are negative-mvis, and many of their posts are all one-sided negative. As often, the "answer" probably lies somewhere between. RECing posts from both sides, allows readers to see comments from both sides, and determine their own "answers".
Time to move on.