Now, had I read an inherent "Edition x, y, or z sucks and is NOT D&D anymore!" at all - I mean, remotely, I would have easily been right there at your side decrying that crap. However, the guy clearly was talking about naming conventions and the like as games overall changed and evolved, and I found that an interesting observation.
@casual: Ok, I can see the point of "living product" as you're stating it. Not what I focused upon (the arbitrary nature of naming), but I can understand that viewpoint. For myself, I'd rather choose to NOT assume insults if/when there is a better explanation - particularly on edition nonsense because it pointedly leads to nonsense getting blown out of proportion 9/10 times. I don't see this as "bending myself out of shape" so much as "willing to grant the benefit of the doubt" in order to short-circuit needless aggravation.
Its not a question of choosing to find it offensive. I concluded that calling any edition of D&D "not-D&D" in any shape or form is offensive a long time ago. That particular sentiment goes back a long way, and has caused no end of grief. Its automatically offensive, whether people intend it that way or not, and I don't think after all the edition arguing that it can be stated innocently at this point.
As for your question, I think you have to bend yourself out of shape to see it that way. While he didn't use the title, D&D was clearly implied. You could say its merely about the arbitrary nature of names, but that discounts that things change, things get updated, and D&D is a living product. I don't really think you can argue that D&D is a specific point in time as opposed to a living, evolving product, and as such the argument that he was merely talking about naming conventions is weak.