No, no--didn't see it as a slam to him or his memory at all. I've just always found the stuff in his monographs to seem pretty workable in real world situations. Those that I've tried have gone ok (and those that haven't gone ok I figure the fault is mine, not the material) and those that I haven't tried I can only speculate whether or not they might play. There doesn't seem to be too much "magic magazine" type filler (Genii being the exception, naturally) or convoluted procedural variation for its own sake. So much of the magic I read causes me to simply roll my eyes and move on; I rarely find myself doing it with Waters' stuff (except for that thing with the big clunky box of artifacts in 'New Thoughts For Old'.)
What you had to say, Paul, was very charitable compared to things I've heard about Waters in the past. Years ago another magician, himself a very successful pro, said to me "My God! You don't want to be a Tom Waters, do you?" when I told him that I enjoyed writing about magic more than I did performing it (although I was doing both at the time.) Interestingly enough several of his friends, also in the higher circles of magicdom and thus breathing the same rarefied air, also used the same expression concerning Mr. Waters (ever notice how the guys who would never dream of using stolen lines in their acts use the stock quotes and responses of their other 'famous' friends in their everyday speech instead of, you know, just talking?) But after reading the bulk of T.A.'s output in M,M&M I realize I should have answered: Yeah. I do. I think I'd like that a lot.