I understand your sentiment. However, it's not without precedent. If you're of the preterist perspective at all, you probably accept the alternate reading of Daniel 9:27, simply because it's possible and does a lot better job making sense of the eschatology.I must say that I am weary and kind of find it suspect when someone feels the need to make statements like...Well it COULD mean this. The only reason people make statements like this is because the plain meaning of a statement doesn't fit within the pale of their view.
For partial preterists who see much of prophecy fulfilled in AD 70, but also the references to the second coming as future (for some good reasons), this passage in 2 Thess. is pretty much the only major obstacle*. If it's the only major problem passage (I realize that that statement won't go unchallenged, but...) then it makes sense to analyze the Greek there for all the possibilities.
Again, I do feel the force of this reasoning as well, and have some agreement with it, but the fact is that Chrsitians have gained tremendous relief from these passages in the midst of suffering for thousands of years. And of course, , other than possibly Rev. 20 there is nothing in the NT indicating that the coming had to wait thousands of years. It's imminence made it a subject of hope. (gee, I'm practically sounding like a futurist now!)How would the coming of the Lord some thousands of years off in the future give those living in the first century any kind of relief from the very real persecution from which they were suffering?
* It appears to be the only passage that unambigiously states that the return of Christ is synonymous with the events of AD 70.