So we've got two dimensions to describe programming languages, power and
expressiveness:
                                  ^
                                  |expressiveness
         Rivka's 'lisp'           X Lisp
            |                     |
       X    X    X            X   |
     ini files  SQL     simply    |
                        typed λ   |
                                  X Assembly
----------------------------------|------------------->
     power                Turing-computable     Hypercomputability
                                  |
                                  X Turing Machines
                                  |
                                  X Malbolge

(OK, so they're not really entirely independent: a less powerful
language can't express a computation a more powerful language can. But
you get the idea)

By saying there's no point in saying that a language is turing-complete,
you're telling me there's no point in noting that you can't write a
programme in an ini file, or no point in telling Rivka that the language
they describe isn't any kind of general programming language.

Sometimes also it's a surprise that a language is turing complete,
because this isn't always intentional. HTML5 and CSS3 have recently been
shown to be Turing complete, for example.  

Also, discovering that the lambda calculus, recursive functions, and
Turing machines (and all sorts of other computation apparatus) compute
the same set of functions was regarded as a fundamental discovery
(maybe *the* fundamental discovery) of computer science.

So just because there are turing-complete languages that aren't useful
doesn't mean that it's a pointless thing to say.  I'm not sure why you'd
even say that.

( Do you take this attitude to everything in life? There's no point in
saying a material conducts electricity, because some materials that
conduct electricity aren't useful as electrical components? )