I didnt choose them to inhibit my web experience - and the filters they employed broke noscript for me. It rendered some aspects of the site unusable. That is serious hijacking IMO.
Removing the adverts from Noscript would have been easy to do: fix the ABP flaw. Instead he decided to insert content into the ABP plugin via Easylist that targetted and destroyed the site. That was both a deliberate attack and a breaking of the trust I put in ABP.
Sure Giorgio also made the same mistake: but he apologised and retracted the updates and, in the heat of anger, I can forgive him. If the ABP team write a similar apology I will forgive them too. But it seems they dont plan too: which is disgusting.
Easylist2 has nothing to apologise for. If anything, staunchly defending the integrity of their list was a good thing.
When asked by the ABP author to implement domain-specific rules against NoScript's site, the correct response from EasyList ought to have been to point out that it wasn't their problem to fix.
Had ABP just fixed the bug, NoScript's ads would have disappeared but the rest of the site wouldn't have broken, and although the NoScript developer might have been pissed at his loss of revenue stream, the problem wouldn't have necessarily escalated -- there wouldn't have been the clear gloves-off challenge that implementing a specific rule targeting NoScript's ads represented.
There's a lot of overreacting and general stupidity in the whole chain of events (and good reasons why maybe you shouldn't push 'emergency' releases except after a few hours of calm consideration), the core of the problem was someone looking for a lazy way to avoid fixing a software bug.