Well then, Paul Graham is right. That is a provincial spelling of "dynamic typing".
Incidentally, I don't think variants in the Hindley-Milner sense of the word get nearly enough love from hackers. And, in fact, they do correspond to dynamic typing.
data Dyn = I Integer | S String | D Double | F Dyn -> Dyn | ...
And now you can use your statically typed language as a dynamically typed one.
For example, I can define...
(+) :: Dyn -> Dyn -> Dyn
(+) (I x) (I y) = I (x + y) -- integer addition
(+) (S x) (S y) = S (x ++ y) -- string concat
The one difficulty is emulating objects, because we would not have good syntax for arbitrary method calls. We could take a Smalltalk-like or Erlang-like approach, where the object takes message... the message being of type Dyn.
We should really look at dynamically typed languages as subsets of statically typed languages. In other words, they are not untyped, they are unityped. In other words, statically typed, but with exactly one type. This is the relationship between typed and untyped lambda calculus (untyped lambda calculus is actually typed, where every term has type Mu X. X -> X)
Of course, I'm just being pernickety, but that's how I am :)