I think that the argument is that even the "common usage of the term" means a lot of different things to a lot of different programmers/computer scientists/etc.

The more interesting question to me is whether there is still something to the ideas that he originally called "object-oriented" that has possibly been lost. The term itself has been overloaded into oblivion, but message communication, vigilant protection of internal state and late binding all the things might still be a good idea.

IMO "objects := algorithms + data structures" has run its course and hasn't succeeded.