You know perfectly well that we are talking about the same thing. You directly replied to a point that was talking about the effort involved in designing a system, saying that he didn't take any time out from Telsa to do that.
All I am saying is that it seems likely that it must have taken some time out from his other activities, especially if he is talking about pulling all nighters just to work on the thing.
This seems so patently obvious that I am not entirely sure why you would even contest the point, let alone then resort to rhetoric above sound argument to try and win it.
You wrote "a plan so convoluted as to involve actually taking time out from running a rocketship business, car company and solar power company". I'm pointing out that he took time out to write a paper; he hasn't taken time out to build anything.
The question of his motives --- which is a sideshow --- would be easier to dispense with if he had actually invested in the proposal.
You stripped the context of ", in order to design a rail network" from that quote.
He has to design the thing to then write a paper on the design. You are saying that he took time out to do that as though it is not what I am saying, however it is in complete agreement with what I stated in the first instance.
All I ever said was that he took time out to design the thing, and the paper on the design is obviously the public part of designing the thing.
You keep coming up with this build nonsense, which I never implied at any point and which you know is a non-point as anyone who has been following this in the slightest, obviously knows that it hasn't been built yet.
And he has invested in the thing, he has invested the time it took to design the thing to the level required to then write the published paper.
All I am saying is that it seems likely that it must have taken some time out from his other activities, especially if he is talking about pulling all nighters just to work on the thing.
This seems so patently obvious that I am not entirely sure why you would even contest the point, let alone then resort to rhetoric above sound argument to try and win it.