You can have a lot of vulnerabilities without necessarily having working exploits to them, so it matters if it's just a lot of vulnerabilities without a lot of exploits.
Assume the original message said "exploits" in place of "vulnerabilities". The point stands, independent of pedantic terminology corrections.
The correction is valid. It would be better if people used the right term. It's ok to correct. But it would be better if it were in addition to discussion of the actual point, not instead of it.
(And the phrase "catastrophic vulnerabilities" is pretty obviously talking about exploits anyway.)
But we've had both. Soooo?