I can't count the times I have seen it written that,
of course, Stuart had his flaws and he would have been
the first to tell you so.

As if – that was disputed
As if – that would end the argument

Example:
For some it is already an impossible flaw to go after a married woman, case closed.

Others are more lenient, maybe because they have had a run-in with similar desires.
And after all, it takes at least two to tango, does it not?
And was it his fault that the guru-bonus played to his advantage and that they could not resist when being favored by their beloved teacher? Theoretically, no. Practically though, it would take a rare being to resist the opportunity, especially among the open-minded.

So far so good. Or not.
Here is what i have issue with:
His elevation of the woman, attributing her with powers of … (insert buzzword of the day)
His degradation of the husband, making him dark, ghoulish, what not …

And the general maligning and denigrating of those who he perceived of as in his way or possibly in his way soon. The libel and slander of those he was best mates with just a minute ago.
We are not talking "flaw". We are talking decency.
We are talking intent, planning, strategy.

You see, there are only decent people and not so decent people.
And you can be flawed and be decent, too. But he was not.
Or rather, only when it suited him.

glamdring