I'm looking at the Smalltalk-72 manual right now and I see e.g. the following: > In Smalltalk, every entity is called an object; every object belongs to a clas

I'm looking at the Smalltalk-72 manual right now and I see e.g. the following: > In Smalltalk, every entity is called an object; every object belongs to a class (which is also an object). Objects can remember things about themselves and can communicate with each other by sending and receiving messages. The class handles this communication for every object which belongs to it; it receives messages and possibly produces a reply, typically a message to send to another object. So far as I can tell, this means that Smalltalk-72 was what-Kay-considers-object-oriented. I'm not sure whether this refutes the claim you're actually making, because apparently you're saying that Kay lies about what he used to think, and maybe e.g. you're saying that what Kay now says about object orientation is not what he used to say, and that in the 1970s he wouldn't have considered Smalltalk object-oriented. Or maybe you're saying that the right way to think about object-orientation is something different from Kay's, and that Smalltalk-72 was not what-you-consider-object-oriented. Or something. Could you maybe be more explicit? Could you give some examples of things that Kay now says he used to think, and explain why you believe he didn't actually think them? Could you explain in what sense you reckon object-orientation was absent in Smalltalk-72 but bolted on later, and why you think that indicates intellectual dishonesty on Kay's part?