It's clear from the way you write the history that you perspective on the situation is different to mine. It's unlikely we can change that through discussion.

From my POV.
-"1) Secret soft-fork" - this was a defensive, temporary and reversible action, if the right discussion had happened here everything that followed could have been avoided. In my opinion the response that followed then proved that this initial action was in fact the correct thing to do.

Unfortunately this initial action had to be done in secret or the result would have been able to be nullified.

I think the way the 'airdrop' is being handled is not necessarily the best cause of action. My current thoughts are the ninja-mined stake should be moved to a code-driven development fund. All other accounts should receive their funds. I agree it should not be called an 'airdrop'.