No; the Oct 21st update notes that someone (important) "disagrees", and then the Oct 22nd update takes that disagreement, quotes a particular paragraph from it, concedes a single point (one that is mostly about terminology), and then has a "that said" that in turn disputes the overall conclusion of that disagreement both in this specific aspect and in the general case over the following paragraphs (which all back up his overall position that A vs C is valuable to consider).

In fact, the part being disagreed with on Oct 21st wasn't even the idea that CAP is itself correct, or that "you can't give up partition tolerance", but instead is over the contention that choosing A over C is ever the correct design decision: the argument from Stonebraker is that in real-world systems A is hopeless to obtain anyway as while network partitions do occur, they are far less frequent than "bohrbugs, application errors, human errors and reprovisioning events".