Maybe we could have a new thread where those who are traumatised by the fact that #1 kept running can air their grief?
This incident was not caused by the failure of an engine to quit. Indeed, the unfolding history of aviation has consistently underlined that engines quitting is a far greater hazard than their not doing so. And that if a power unit is going to refuse to play nice, it really is best it only gets that way when on terra firma.
It's #2 which needs a long sit on the naughty step. #1 did everything that was essential under the circumstances and more than it might have done without system logic allowing for contingencies such as... er... stuff exploding.
