JiNX, I think that people can like or dislike Archer for their own reasons, but your argument is undercut by overstating the evidence.
[Archer’s change of heart re: T’Pol] was too fast. He inexplicably asks T'Pol to remain as his science officer after a single mission (she didn't help out the goodness of her heart, those were her orders) and she inexplicably agrees.
Neither one is inexplicable. Archer learns, during the course of Broken Bow, that T’Pol will not only follow his lead and make the mission work (even thought she thinks it is "foolish"), but she’s smart enough to solve the problem while Archer is unconscious. We see him struggling with his perception of her as he paces in his quarters while dictating his log. He had assumed that she would deep-six the mission the minute she took command, and she shocked him by not doing that. That is the moment he begins to rethink his position on Vulcans.
T’Pol, through the course of Broken Bow has
her perceptions challenged as well. She can see that Archer is a person of courage, who (illogically in her mind) risks his life to save her - and gets shot as a result. She sees him walk into the inner sanctum of the Klingons and present his case, completing his mission. And then she talks with him and he eats crow and promises to work on his attitude. Her change in perception can be based on her up-close and personal interaction (and a challenge to her own preconceptions), as well as her recognition that her logic and discipline (and her scientific knowlege) would be an asset to the ongoing mission.
Not hard to understand any of that.
Yet he would continue to rag on her about her species,
I don’t recall any malicious comments about her (certainly nothing on the level of McCoy versus Spock on TOS). I recall teasing, which I never heard as being offensive, until he lost his sense of humour in Season 3 and stopped joking completely.
give her dirty looks when Vulcans turned up on his radar (as if it was her fault),
Perhaps this is the Rorshact test at work, because those looks always seemed to me to be:
you know something about this that I don’t? And I don’t think it was unjustified, given the fact that T’Pol obviously did receive mail from Vulcan sources, and Archer had asked her not to go behind his back to report on him and his crew. I think it took a while to trust that she wasn’t doing that.
and behave like an ass whenever he was in the room with a Vulcan that wasn't T'Pol. It was strictly "present company excepted."
Right, like the rude reception he gave Ambassador V’Lar, and not being able to keep his temper with Captain Vanik, and torpedoing the Vulcan/Andorian talks, and not feeling the need to investigate or come to the rescue on P’Jem when he realizes that the monks are being held hostage. He gets a bad rap for not liking or trusting the Vulcans, but no credit at all for overcoming his feelings and doing the right thing.
That's not really much of an advancement.
Can’t we even give the guy credit for his progression to Season 4? Gee, tough crowd.
I don't think hate is too strong a word. Watch that first scene between the Vulcans and Archer in Broken Bow.
He’s irritated, highly offended, and aggravated. What he says is as obnoxious as what T’Pol says to him. But you need that scene to contrast with his eating humble pie at the end of the episode.
Watch him in Breaking the Ice.
Where he’s trying mightily to be pleasant to someone who goes out of his way to insult him and his hospitality. And he puts aside his pride (at T’Pol’s and Trip’s urging) to accept help. What’s clear from the episode is that there have been many occurances of Vulcan ships shadowing them and spying on them. Vanik never says anything that isn’t condescending about humans or Enterprise in that whole episode. Even T’Pol looks embarrassed.
Watch him in Fallen Hero.
Call me crazy, but I think the captain is totally justified here, since the Vulcans send his ship on a mission and
never tell him that it’s a hostile situation. He goes in, not on Tactical Alert, has a conversation with someone who then tries to blow him out of the sky, and has to run for his life. If I remember correctly, the aliens’ attack almost breached the hull. He wasn’t ready for that, and it almost cost everyone their lives. And on top of that, when he questions her about it, he gets the old,
Nope, not going to give you any information about why these people are trying to kill you. I’d have dropped the Ambassador off on the nearest available planet. Yet, in the end, he does everything he can to save V’Lar’s life, just because T’Pol asks him to. It’s one of my favorite scene in the whole series, when T’Pol says, "Captain, in all the time I’ve served aboard Enterprise, I’ve never asked you for anything. I’m asking now. Don’t return the Ambassador to Mazar." And, even though she is still keeping information from him at V'Lar's request, he pauses, nods, and says, "Okay."
Watch him every time Forrest mentioned the Vulcans.
Like when Forrest tells him to give up a shuttle and a pilot on a supersecret mission that could very well get that pilot killed? Or when Forrest is waffling about maybe the Vulcans were right and we weren’t ready for space and that they should shut down the Warp project rather than try to solve a technical problem? Or when Forrest doesn’t back him up when Soval calls him a murderer? Or when Forrest thinks the best way to deal with the Xindi is to wait for the next weapon to come and destroy the whole planet?
His reaction to the mere mention of the Vulcans elicits a reaction that cannot be explained by simple "dislike."
Seriously, it’s explained by a lot of things, the least of which is dislike.
Miriel68 said:
the starting point in this discussion seem to be the presumption that the captain must be, if not without blame, at least really nice guy - and you have of course every right to like it this way.
I, on the other hand, do prefer a character with flaws and the fact that neither Archer nor T'Pol come as particularly likeable at first and that they both have to change and to become more mature. I admit, I didn't think much of Archer initially but I came to respect him and like him gradually, which I found far more interesting than being given a perfect hero at once.
I agree. It’s interesting that you’d bring up Malcolm Reynolds from
Firefly, because he’s another flawed captain that I like both in spite of and because of his flaws. I watched all of the episodes in a row (in the order they were intended to be aired) and from the first I thought,
Wow, this guy is kind of a cranky jerk. And by the end of the series, I still thought he was a jerk. He was way more obnoxious to his crew and passengers than Archer ever was. But that was part of his character, and it made him interesting. I feel the same way about Archer: his flaws - and his struggle to overcome them are what make the character interesting.
Sorry about the longwinded post, but I just wanted to address some of the underpinnings of the argument, rather than do a "no, he isn’t/yes, he is" response.
) and it's quite clear that all the representatives of Starfleet are pissed off, but have no gut to tell it openly. Then the Vulcans propose to murder Klaang and sweep away Archer's ethical concern with contemptuous "You have to learn to look beyond your provincial attitudes and volatile nature". Oh, really? I wouldn't go for Archer is he actually DID knock T'Pol to her ass, but he restrained himself, didn't he? And Soval raising his voice when he cannot have his way? Are we talking about a grown man or a colicky baby? 
) 
Of course, everybody is entitled to like or dislike a character: some of us prefer a more human, flawed person, some wish for a more glamorous one, and that's fine. But if we try to discuss it and not just to express our preferencies, wouldn't it be better to make an effort for a non partial point of view?
