AJ's trolling 101: Never, ever actually respond to the argument at hand, just attack the arguer. Rinse and repeat thousands of times.
Next up: I don't like Smisek because I'm chabad.
Still waiting to hear if you've read through FT. I'm sure they'd love a troll there and their vitriol makes mine look weak, so you should be able to keep posting and patting yourself on your back until you're sore. Except their the mods suspend trolls in minutes, while for reasons beyong me I've let you continue trolling here (without a single positive contribution that I can think of) for reasons even I'm not entirely sure of.
So you want a response to your "argument"?
If you'd read what I've written you'd see your "argument" can't even be called that. Let's follow the conversation:
1. Smisek gets fired/leaves
2. DDF rejoices at the great evil (in your words: villain) that has been banished from United.
3. AJ points out that (while he himself is quite happy he's gone) Smisek wasn't an evil villain trying to steal your points. He was trying to do his job of increasing United's bottom line. Whether you agree with him or not is no reflection whatsoever on his personal character (he may be one of the 36 hidden tzadikim) and so the gloating is a bit out of hand. AJ reminds people to take a step back and realize your actually
hating a man for his business decisions he made that you don't agree with.
5. Coralsnake voices his opinion that I'm wrong. All good until now.
6. Dan accuses me of trolling, threatens, and implies that I feel or said that his decisions "weren't a disaster". (Of course, I said nothing of the sort, merely that his business decisions aren't cause to hate him).
7. End of story
I think I'm being quite rational, but that's my opinion only. It's still a perfectly legit way of looking at things.