The whole point here being it is completely disingenuous to claim that more stops of DR are wasted because they can't be used on the screen or on paper.
I've seen him say on numerous occasions that he'd like more dynamic range, and that he appreciates exmor technology. I think pretty much everyone does. Here's an example:
Well, for landscapes, I really want that extra resolution. A low resolution of 12mp really doesn't interest me much, and I was hoping the 5D III would land with 28-32mp. The D800E with 36.3mp and its incredible DR is about as close to the holy grail of landscape photography as I think it can get these days. I'd much prefer if Canon could reciprocate with their own megapixel/DR monster, though.
This kind of night photography is another area where more DR is certainly an enviable trait to have. Your the type who could probably benefit from a full 16 stops of DR with a true 16-bit sensor, even.
There have been times when he's impeached the notion of using DXO's "print DR" values to quote camera specifications, maybe that's what you're referring to?
More DR is better (up to the point that the camera DR exceeds the scene DR, which many of us use lighting, ND filters, etc to achieve), just as more resolution is better. Even if it doesn't make its way to the final format, it gives latitude to workflow.
If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.
You don't honestly think that bit-depth is the only advantage to RAW, do you?