The only place I see some rhetoric is the second sentence of the first paragraph, the second paragraph, and the first sentence of the second to last. It's tame: it emphasises the exploit being very involved, which is well supported by the rest of the report. Everything else is necessary detail that describes the progression of the exploit from Pinkie Pie's point of view.

Your contributions, on the other hand, are much more content-free, being mostly value judgements against Chrome's PR or the supposed overconfidence of their programmers. And while you do brush on more technical matters, you do so by name-dropping products rather than being informative and describing the relevant security property.