If you want to stand by your opinion, can you please substantiate it with something other than opinion?
Here's a quick version (from the 2011 NEC), there's no point in reprising all the points of our prior discussion:
250.118(8) lists "Armor of Type AC cable as provided in 320.108" as a type of EGC. Two reasons that BX cable armor without a bonding strip fails to qualify:
(A) 320.108 says "Type AC cable shall provide an adequate path for fault current as required by 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4) to act as an equipment grounding conductor." In the typical case of a grounded system, 250.4(A)(5) applies and refers to "a low-impedance circuit facilitating the operation of the overcurrent device". We know that old BX cable armor without a bonding strip does not meet this requirement, so it does not meet 320.108 and thus fails to qualify under 250.118(8). [For an ungrounded system, 250.4(B)(4) applies and leads to a similar conclusion.]
(B) Moreover, the current NEC doesn't even recognize old BX cable as Type AC cable. 320.100 is incorporated into the definition of type AC cable, and it says "Type AC cable shall have an armor of flexible metal tape and shall have an internal bonding strip of copper or aluminum in intimate contact with the armor for its entire length." Older BX cable without such a bonding strip is no longer considered type AC cable, regardless of what prior codes may or may not have referred to it as.
Cheers, Wayne