It’s somewhat depressing how much of my article you misunderstand — but hey ho, I will try to address your points:

“UX is about one person, a user? Really? None of my experience designs are about that and no UX with any sort of longevity that I know works like that either.”

Obviously products and services are directed to more than one user — what I mean (and explicitly say) is that we only design with a single user in mind — we don’t design for other people who are indirectly affected by the product. We are designing for the purchaser. I don’t mean for one single person — that requires a serious misreading.

“The author states that UX is defined as interacting with an object, no, no it isn’t, that might be part of a focussed interaction design, but UX is about interacting within an environment”

First, I repeatedly say objects — plural. I am well aware that UX involves multiple touch-points, context and environment. I have made dozens of experience maps in my time as a UXer. I don’t take issue with that — or the idea that it’s about how people feel with relation to a product or service. Complete misreading of my point. I merely say that we think of everything in relation to us — that we our anthropocentric. We don’t think of things on their own terms — just about how we feel. You say as much in your post.