I don't think pointing out numerous inaccuracies from technical experts is nit picking. Your larger point may be true, I have no idea, but Charles was pointing out real misstatements about the JVM.
As I'm reading it, Nutter is blatantly misstating what the Dart guys say in order to create most of those "inaccuracies". For instance, he summarizes the Dart article as saying "2. JVM does not let you do what Java cannot do" and "3. A bytecode VM can't support all possible language features".
Where do the Dart guys say that? The entire Dart article is clearly about biases and limitations to _optimizations_ and not about what a language can or cannot do in the sense of Turing completeness. Nutter is creating a bunch of straw men here.
He also decides to ignore all but one of the examples the Dart guys give. They talk about unsigned math, tail call elimination, restartable conditions, continuations, and static/dynamic typing (I would add structured value types). He only responds to dynamic typing because that's where he might actually have a point.
Restartable conditions don't require any VM support that isn't also needed for normal exceptions. Even in CL implementations they're simply built on top of the normal non-local control flow construct (throw/catch) and dynamically scoped variables. And the latter are easy to implement in terms of try-finally even if not supported natively.
The tricky bit with restartable conditions is that you need to support them everywhere, or they're pretty useless. So they aren't going to be very interesting in a multi-language environment like the JVM even if they're easy to implement.
I don't think pointing out numerous inaccuracies from technical experts is nit picking. Your larger point may be true, I have no idea, but Charles was pointing out real misstatements about the JVM.