You have done nothing but use ad hominem attacks. You've already lost the argument son.
What imaginary
argument is it that you speak of, Mr. Got-my-head-so-far-up-my-ass-all-I-can-see-is-my-rib-cage?
The argument is this one: a successful "attack" in crypto is not "criminal" but is "winning". This is why there is nothing criminal about the DAO failure, except to strip the rightful winner of the lottery from his gains by changing the rules.
A successful breaking of AES wouldn't be "criminal" either, but a success of the one finding the trick, and a failure of AES. In crypto, breaking crypto is the normal thing to attempt - otherwise there is no need for crypto.
So the only criminal coin, if any, is ETH, who didn't respect its own engagements, by stripping a winner from its bait.
Now, you can say, that the game is more complex, and that "being able to change the rules at will" is also part of the game. In that case, ETH is not a criminal coin, but an even smarter attack. As crypto is warfare, you can hardly call "the enemy trying to hit you" criminal. But you could consider that "changing the rules of warfare" just as well a tactic.
So in the crypto scene, NOTHING is criminal. It is a battlefield, and may the one that outsmarts and destroys the other best, win.
As such, neither ETC (where someone used the crypto according to the announced rules to make a surprise win), nor ETH (where the surprise attack was to break the block chain) is criminal. Both are ways to rip off the other, which is the goal of this game in the first place.
So, in summary: the DAO hacker outsmarted ethereum/DAO, and was hence a winner (on ethereum/ETC). But ETH outsmarted the DAO hacker, by breaking the block chain. As such, ETH was an even greater winner in this war game, by inventing an even bigger weapon.