Few (I didn't say none) of those arguments pass the smell test.

• OP_RETURN and 40 vs 80 bytes:  If the miners agree with you, you don't have to care what the network relays.  Has Counterparty directly approached miners, to get them to mine 80-byte OP_RETURN transactions?  What was the response?  If the miners agree, great, let's do it.  If the miners don't agree, there is no point supporting it in Bitcoin Core software.
• "core devs are censoring and killing innovation!"   Counterparty is very clearly misusing a feature intended for ECDSA public keys, in a manner that very clearly results in harm to the overall network, short and long term.  Other people/companies/projects are extending the bitcoin protocol and not meeting the same resistance.
• To repeat earlier posts, my criticism is not about counterparty in general, just this ONE CheckMultiSig flaw.  Fix that, and my criticism is gone.
• As Peter Todd has noted, CheckMultiSig has other problems also.  It may go away regardless.

Please do not paint all Counterparty criticism with a broad brush.  My opinions are my own, and in particular I do not agree with all of Luke-Jr's points or point of view.

There are plenty of ways to innovate and extend the bitcoin protocol.  People are doing this every day.

It is always a mistake to base an entire engineering system on a subtle technical quirk that "just happens to work."  Counterparty is stuffing its own data where ECDSA public key data is supposed to go.  That is clearly not the intended use.