So their position is that the base layer of Bitcoin should be for financial transactions only and is an inappropriate place to store arbitrary data.  You don't think that describing that position as "purist" (financial Bitcoin transactions only) is appropriate? 

 I don't think "base layer purist" covers it. Sounds like you're saying they're against second layer solutions, but even with this definition of it, its like you're saying they're okay with taproot assets, which they aren't.