Okay, so, just like how the idea of there being "7 continents" is virtually meaningless under Plate Tectonics, so too do the traditional states of matter no longer apply under new understandings of astrophysics, high- and low- temperature physics, and advanced materials science. Consider: what most people think of as "solid" is really just "crystalline": repeating structures of atoms bound together in a lattice which act as a rigid body. However, glass is not crystalline. Shouldn't "glass" be a different state of matter, since it operates under some of the properties of solids, and some of the properties of liquids?Also, solids can flow, even crystalline solids (consider the mantle, or dislocation creep). Also, what about when salt dissolves into water, and the ions dissociate? Does "aqueous" count as a state of matter? How about what happens when you go above the curie temperature of a magnet? That phase transition completely changes the physical state of the material, and in a way that is arguably much more profound than going between the phases of minerals, such as between Andalusite and Kyanite.

How about superconductors? Fermionic condensates are in a unique state, and are composed of matter, but are distinct from bose-einstein condensates.

Neutronium is another excellent case. Neutron stars are made of matter, but they act closer to a single, multiple-mile-wide atomic nucleus, rather than just a bunch of neutrons. Degenerate matter is definitely its own thing.

So, the point is: the very idea of "states of matter " is only useful for certain problems, but breaks down quickly upon advanced inspection. My guess would be that the original commenter is presumably counting "aqueous" as a state of matter, but really, once you get any further than "plasma, gas, liquid, solid", the categorical breakdown stops making sense, since you get too many exceptions.

Solid

Liquid

Gas

Plasma (normal)

Bose-Einstein Condensate

Quark-gluon plasma

Time crystals

Bafflement ;P