There was and is no vitriol. If you're concerned about their internet points I didn't waste any effort downvoting (either you or them), just understood the temptation and thought they might appreciate a direct answer to their question.
Unless you have a link to an earlier or original version of the article, his revision could easily refer to the footnote that comes long after the quoted section. However assuming you can't provide any such proof, I'll still take your word, and far greater interest in twitter, for it and assume he altered or added the quoted text. As it reads now, it only looks like dresseme's merely repeated the article, which would still explain why people might be inclined to downvote them, had they had the opportunity to read the original (which would be obvious wouldn't it?).
I never claimed Tony's had experience in 'trailer houses', let alone as much as user dresseme, whoever they are, but that doesn't explain why and how 'tailer experience' might be particularly relevant against his points, beyond changing the subject and stating 'well he's not an authority'. If he made some egregiously obvious 'trailer' error, dresseme have just stated it directly instead of being coy. That can still leave one doubting whether dresseme knows anything more about him, and what he knows, than since he posted, and why it might still be premature to judge that he's
most likely wrong
Their post seems motivated to unnecessarily defend the film, which isn't being attacked, by discrediting Tony. Tony doesn't seem particularly interested in it (he doesn't mention anything about the trailers past the 18 second mark), and is apparently suspending judgment (a quite reasonable position) until it's released, whereas the interesting points of the article are only minor criticisms of a smidgen of a version of one version of a trailer compared to another, to illustrate his ruminations concerning comedy and editing techniques. For example
The international one is tighter - I'm guessing - because they were trying to make a shorter trailer. So they quickened the pacing and changed things up.
This is hardly amazing analysis. Almost any random person off the street could come to the same conclusion. You just have to look at (gasp) how long they are!
This seems a particularly low bar to demonstrate interest and expertise. Don't mistake me, I'm not criticizing or judging dresseme for one very quick offhand post. I'm willing to bet they are quite a nice person and good at whatever it is they do, but it still leaves a great deal of room for people to doubt that they know as much of any worth or interest about the subject (namely tone, timing, comedy and editing trailers).
Said doubts also suggests yours seems a similarly unnecessary heroic defense. Until dresseme demonstrates some pertinent experience and competence of their own for comparison, with say a more detailed and interesting analytical post to follow up their first. Who can't be bothered to browse the submission histories of every random person claiming authority.
For example suggesting how the differences in trailers might be explained due to interesting 'trailer' differences between the UK vs the US, or giving particular actresses more exposure in certain markets, language issues, sponsorship and so on, any real minutiae of interest that might reveal prowess and take the articles theme in other interesting directions. That would be nice. As it is, if they or you simply claim something trite like 'studio interference' or executive meddling with the final product, well, that's again nothing more than what inexperienced Tonys article already surmises, hardly beyond the layman.