About 18 months ago I submitted a paper claiming the result previously published by Michael is false.
The first referee used details in Michael's paper to defend Michael's points, trying hard to invalid all of my claims.
The editor rejected my paper and suggests a complete rewriting (reject-and-resubmit).
After rewriting, I emailed Michael and Michael never replied.
I think the first referee's report lacks basic skills and his claims are false. A few experts share the same opinions as mine.
I think the first referee is Michael because the first referee is too familiar with every details of Michael's paper.
I guess I need to mention in the Conflicts of Interest those facts that Michael did not reply and the referee was incompetent; but I don't know if I need to write a long rebuttal including every details.
Question: What is my best action here?
Considering the reports are one-year-old, is it the best action for me to write a reply to that first referee's review?
I usually don't want to harshly criticize someone and I believe that saying harsh words will make the editor think that I am not a decent person.