I definitely could have handled this situation more calmly and strategically. The primary argument of this user was that the original language used in this article was misleading, but instead of communicating it as such, took what is in my opinion an aggressive and hostile approach. This user originally found meaning where there was none, in no revisions of this article did I explicitly claim I had research to support an argument that MEW was void of vulnerability.
My first mistake was not reading his initial comment closely enough, as this could have been mitigated from the start. Basically, I dug myself in a hole by not explicitly claiming that my research is my own and I have a philosophy of personal responsibility instead of claiming "the source code is my research", a response that is suitable only if personal responsibility precedes it.
My second mistake was being reactive as result of a poor emotional state resulting from dealing with an influx of trolls in the EOS Telegram combined with sleep deprivation related to a work contract.
With every bit of feedback this user provided, the language of the article was made more and more concise to address his concerns, resulting in a more comprehensive article on the subject.. So for that, I thank him.
However, this is a new user who is primarily weighted by purchased Steem, is flagrantly abusing Steemit flagging and self-voting for purposes of visibility dominance a.k.a narrative control. While this has practical applications, I do not believe this is one of them. As a community it would be my opinion we should not stand for these various abuses of the system to ensure long-term health of the network. It's of far more value to the network to see me make an ass out of myself, than to allow someone to exercise unchecked flag abuse. Allowing this to go unchecked sets the precedent that this type of behavior is tolerated.