I'd disagree that you read it correctly. That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say, because the question doesn't define 'style' with any degree of precision.
For some time bothering me question whether the personal style of photography can be a limiting factor.Sometimes you don't photograph because of moral or ethical principles and that is OK.Do you sometimes not record a shot because it does not fit your style?What would you choose:a good photograph that doesn't fit your style or not to take photo (assuming that will be published)?
It alludes to marketing/selling images. In that context, being known for a 'style' is generally a good thing (see Blansky's comment), so long as you don't get so stuck in it you become "the tree guy" (or "the colored gels painting-with-light guy" or "the pink bunny rabbit somewhere in the photo guy"). Which as Blansky pointed out, is just a marketing gimmick anyway. Defined your way, it's impossible to NOT photograph in your 'style', so there was no purpose to the question. Every photo is taken in your own 'style' - I don't think you can take a photo in someone else's style. You can certainly imitate others' techniques, but you can't stop seeing with your own eyes.
I took my cue in my original answer from the comment about not taking a photo for moral or ethical reasons - i.e. the proverbial "I saw this homeless guy lying in a pool of his own vomit, and it would have been a powerful statement image about the social decline of America today, but I didn't take it because it would be exploitative". But the follow-up I read as something akin to: you're out documenting a protest march and see a really cool antique motorcycle that could make it on the cover of Biker magazine. Do you take the photo of the bike?
Ultimately the answer to that is - it's up to you. But I wouldn't put it in any kind of ethical/moral context. 'Style' doesn't have morality.