I really didn't want to make an issue out of this, but:
When we speak of Denali and Elbert, we talk about the "summit." Now, we can hardly call the highpoint of connecticut a summit, can we? I can hang out on the trailhead of Elbert and say I've been on the mountain - but not on the summit. That is why I am not thrilled with ridge or slope, because they're not specific enough. However, if we can come to a consensus of what to call it, I would be happy no matter what.
That said, here's my reasoning for calling it a point:
In geometry, a point is a spot without width or length that is defined by an x/y coordinate. In geography, I assumed a point is a spot without length or width that is defined by a latitude/longitude. If this is true, then, in fact, everything is a point! Where you are sitting right now is called a point! There is literally an infinite number of points right in your own footprint! All summits are points, but not all points are summits. Its just that most points aren't named.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but so what? There is little consistency between named features anyway - after all, what is the technical difference between a lake and a pond? a creek and a brook? a street and an avenue? Given that, what is the highpoint in connecticut, besides a point? It is located on a ridge, and on a slope, too - but it is not in itself a ridge or a slope. if you can think of anything to call that specific point anything besides a point (a peg?), please suggest it to me, because I researched it and couldn't find anything.
Now I'm not going to go look for geographic names that are called points - but I have a feeling that if you look for them, you'll find them. Why are they uncommon? Because they are usually unnecessary - most spots on the sides of mountains aren't named. In our own vernacular, however, we have called it a highPOINT - and so I figured, why change it?