Because I do not want his charm to detract from the rest of it. (charisma > sexism) == wrong.
I'd say that the type of (charisma > sexism) is boolean -- maybe fuzzy boolean given the fuzzy quality of the operands -- not right|wrong.
In any case you're entitled to your opinion; the problem is that you did some blatantly unfair editing there. If someone says "Steve is an asshole, but I have to admit he's a great CEO", you're not supposed to quote only the first sentence, no matter how much you think being an asshole is a bad thing.
You don't get it. You are treating the original article like a Bible. In my opinion, the original article is the one which did the blatantly unfair editing; it bended over backwards to make the man look good by sandwiching the sexism carefully between the praises.
What I did could be constituted as wrong only if I was quoting Feynman and then cut off the last part, for example.
I'd say that the type of (charisma > sexism) is boolean -- maybe fuzzy boolean given the fuzzy quality of the operands -- not right|wrong.
In any case you're entitled to your opinion; the problem is that you did some blatantly unfair editing there. If someone says "Steve is an asshole, but I have to admit he's a great CEO", you're not supposed to quote only the first sentence, no matter how much you think being an asshole is a bad thing.