We don't know that it was deferred to Kay. You just assumed that it was.
> To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?"
I apologize. How foolish of me to assume you would notice that I assiduously avoided doing anything other than to refer to you by "you" and to refer to the blog article's author as "the author." Let me rephrase.
As a critic of OOP, my definition of OOP includes inheritance, polymorphism, and classes. An example of a programming language that fits this definition is Java. While my criticisms don't depend on those properties, nevertheless that is the definition that I personally use. Now, based on your comments, I believe your argument is:
as a critic of OOP you are not using the defintion of OOP that I use
That's what I believe your argument is, but I'm interested in your beliefs about your own argument. What do you believe your argument is?