If you accept that narrow definition at least for the scope of the article, it makes sense.
E.g. in Ruby you can not take the value of anything and get anything but an object (e.g. integers are objects, true is an object, nil is an object), but Ruby is not an OO language by the article's definition because it fails the part about conditionals.
Even though you can do this in Ruby (probably buggy, just threw it together) - it's just not idiomatic and the language has syntactic sugar for "less OO" forms:
def true.ifTrue; yield; true; end
def true.ifFalse; true; end
def false.ifFalse; yield; true; end
def false.ifTrue; false; end
(1 < 5).ifTrue { puts "TRUE!" }.ifFalse { puts "FALSE!" }
# Or:
(1 > 5).ifTrue { puts "TRUE!" }.ifFalse { puts "FALSE!" }