BUT he did in fact imply it, and went on to say he wished the time had been spend on his 410 wish 
. Trying to cover yourself by implying rather than stating your position is usually seen through quite quickly by thinking readers.
No, I quite clearly used the word prioritize, and also stated, at the end and in subsequent post that the effort may have been worthwhile. That the time could've been used for something else and that I'd prefer if it had been is undeniable. That the time was "wasted" is unclear - and I made no call on the matter. That's the distinction that you're missing.
Here's the critical distinction restated: "waste" is a judgment, in this case. Try another example. Was the moonshot a "waste"? THat's a tougher question to answer. There might be an objective answer, but it won't be reached easily - and if you understand that, you'd then understand why I stopped short of using such a charged label.
So, in short, the only implication here is the one you're awarding me. In so doing, you're putting words in my mouth. You're building an evidentiary bridge between what you know and don't know out of thin air - worse, even, with contrary evidence available and in front of your face. Why? That's not something a thinking reader does.
