* "but I'm not sure...", "I think that..." - these are weasel words that weren't there before and which change the meaning of the sentences. If the commit message is wrong, in the context of right and wrong of Linux kernel development, saying so is not Linus stating his opinion. The context of right and wrong might be based on Linus's opinions, but that's a different thing.
* the rewritten version loses the point about unclear standards language not being an argument, even though this is mentioned multiple times in the original. Perhaps because it often comes up as a rebuttal attempt, as indicated by "Don't tell me...".
* The conclusion of the original e-mail, i.e. its main takeaway, is that standards should be questioned. The rewritten version ends with "what are your other arguments?". In fact, the explicit point being made - that the standard should not be seen as an infallible resource - is now only implicitly present.
That said, I agree that profanity, name-calling and direct attacks are unnecessary and that the e-mail would be better off without it. But the author of the blog post also promotes changing clear and direct language to weak statements, which I do not agree with.