1. Some coins have much higher network hashrate (difficulty) thus can't be as realistically attacked by someone with BCX's level of alleged resources.
As you have said before, BCX doens't really matter. If there is a vulnerability, and BCX doesn't exploit it, someone else may, and probably will. I find hash rate attacks uninteresting and by now they should be well understood by all cryptocoin participants (if not, then caveat emptor applies).
2. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have ring signatures which make the block chain untracable and thus make it implausible (or very difficult) to do manual repair by segregating the stolen coinbase and double-spent traces from the transactions you'd like to keep.
So you are talking about blacklisting. Because otherwise there is no manual repair. One fork wins, the other fork loses.
3. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have throw away 20% of the timestamp information upon difficulty adjustment. I know you think the vulnerability I have broad-sketched above is not sufficiently detailed to warrant any concern, but nevertheless this is a risk that doesn't exist in other coins.
More vague uncertainty and doubt without some sort of positive statement.
4. BCX killed Auroracoin
This is disputed, but again you are personalizing the issue with respect to BCX. I don't.
Thus from my perspective at least, it gives the appearance you are still doing FUD control and refusing to be open-minded, rational, and objective. And this is the cultural problem of Monero.
Again personalizing. I disagree with your characterizations but they don't really matter.
Show some actual work, shut up, or continue to FUD. There is no fourth way.
Scala, math, pseudocode, even precise English that doesn't rely on phrases such as "it might be possible to" or "it can't be proven that this isn't a flaw." Or a simple precise example of a set of actions that can be taken by an attacker to accomplish something. It doesn't matter which.
You actually did this in describing the existence of stronger-than-MRL-0001 deanonymation attack (though not its scope and practical effect). Since then you have contributed no substantive information to this thread, just repeated over and over again the same vague warnings about time warps, simultaneous equations, entanglement and similarly ill-defined and underdefined notions.
Or to borrow one of your favorite quotes, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." I don't even ask for actual code, just specifics.