Also, if you really want to tilt at windmills, Turing complete is a weaker statement than Turing equivalent, so he isn't wrong.
A language L is complete for a complexity class C if it is in C and all languages in C can be reduced to L. "Turing" is not a complexity class, so "Turing Complete" is nonsense. And if it did mean something, it would probably refer to a recursive language to which all other recursive languages could be reduced.
"Turing Equivalent" is something a programming language can be and doesn't have much to do with complexity theory.
Good thing that complexity theory isn't the only part of CS that uses the notion of completeness. Turing (aka recursively enumerable functions) is a computability class, and it makes sense to talk about models of computation complete for that class.