I wouldn't. The length of their stay is far less significant compared to what that character accomplished. And if they killed off Barnabas, their involvement, no matter how short, would be a hugely significant contribution to the storyline.
I guess I'm confused. How can a character who helped bring about the destruction of the central character in a story be considered to have been a character who just fizzled? That would certainly seem to be a character who served a major purpose.
Fill in the blank: "While browsing through Stokes' bookshelf, Joe was scandalized to discover that Stokes owned an obviously often read copy of ________!!"
Complete this phrase: "When he received an urgent request from Maggie that she and Vicki 'really needed' him, Joe hoped one of his greatest fantasies was about to come true - but he was sorely disappointed to learn upon arrival that they only wanted him to..."
Fill in the blank: "Maggie was sick and tired of answering her door only to discover a bunch of local kids screaming '________' as they ran away laughing."
Fill in the blank: "Maggie was shocked when Joe finally confessed to her what the boys at The Tool Shed Bar & Grill had known for quite some time: Joe was a closet ________."
Even though people on DS tend to lie - and lie a lot - when there's really no reason within the storyline to assume otherwise, it's probably best to go with the explanation given as the real story.
Quote
That wasn't good preparation for the real world, was it...?
I suppose we might blame the amnesia for much of Jeff/Peter's erratic (to say the least!!) behavior and many of his outbursts. Though I'm not so sure Peter was entirely nice and reasonable. He had his surly moments in 1796 - though one could probably argue that they were more justified than Jeff/Peter's were.