Yes I do realise the 'retard' did it on purpose and knew it would cause problems for bitcoiners, but in the assumption that BCH would replace BTC.

But that's even worse than doing it by mistake ...

BCH was claimed to have been created to over come the problem of the UASF.
Once that problem was removed, BCH should have disappeared.
Since it didn't disappear, it means that Bitmain and ViaBTC purposely caused problems for Bitcoin, when they could have simply avoided them with a few lines of code change.
Yes I do know it's only a few lines of code change, I've done it before for testing purposes.

So, what's better?
1) Calling him a 'retard' for making a mistake (not the case) or
2) Lynching him up for risking screwing around with everyone's Bitcoin wallet who runs BCH ...

I worded it as 1), but since it really is 2), when and where's the hanging?