I know the rest of the verse, however I was remarking on the fact that the author decries omission in the same paragraph he omitted.
Um...what’s posted above is an excerpt of the article. The author quotes the entire verse in the rest of the article, which you can find at the link provided. He presents the truncated verse as truncated, then elaborates on the cause of truncation, and then proceeds into the rest of the un-truncated verse. There’s nothing wrong with the article’s presentation - when you read the un-truncated article.
You’re complaining about truncation in a truncated article about truncation. I need a drink.
The omission of the second half of the verse is a “hook” to get people to read the res of the article.
No need to ascribe any other intent.