Personally I think that what the devs are doing with the hardfork is far worse than what the "thief" did. They've basically turned the blockchain into a kind of toy - monopoly money - by cherry picking what contracts to rub out. Whichever side one takes though, I don't think a blockchain can ever be the same after it's been hardforked for the express purpose of wiping out a piece of history.

What is particularly concerning is this: A smart contract platform like Ethereum has the purpose of bringing together disparate parties in a technology layer that is independent of the blockchain itself. It is not the blockchain's job to take a view on who's a good and who's a bad actor. Nor is it its problem that the DAO was overvalued. By neutralising the events of this particular contract, the developers have transferred the cost from those who took the risk to those who didn't - i.e. they've "socialised" the risk of the DAO investors who should have taken the full hit.

Very bad.

Here's some more thoughts: https://steemit.com/ethereum/@toknormal/the-ethereum-circle-dance-more-conscious-than-it-looks