My point was, shaman is the safer pick from the healer pool. Not saying Holy Paladin or even a protection Paladin cant heal and manage dispells during the fight, or dungeon as a whole, it can be done - what I am saying is that Shaman is just the safer pick in this situation - as all they do is drop the totem.
That said and mentioned, I fail to see your point and how it adds to the conversation beyond ‘I can do it’. No one has or are going to dispute that. Yet, I would argue picking a Holy Paladin would be a bigger risk than bringing a Restoration Shaman for that dungeon - if that is what you are on about.
- Paladin is melee bound, as such in NL is more a handicap than in most other dungeons. Especially if you plan to bring double melee DPS.
Rather just bring a ranged healer to place pools, avoid avalances in melee and in general just being less in the way of melee crew.
Now shaman does the same job you do, only is; less in the way to cause accidents, handles mechanics more easily (so even a worse shaman player, can do the same job more reliantly) and bring’s a better toolkit overall: free ranged interupt, purge, totem, heroism and so on. Things that PuGs usually struggle to balance out in the overall kit.
Is it personally a gamebreaker for me? No, not at all. I have picked paladin healers for NL.
Can I see how this will make some second guess the risk of picking a Paladin over a Shaman? Yes, I can understand and respect that.
If risk is reduced by a percentage point alone, it is logical to do in itself. We could argue if it makes sense or is worth it in the overall situation, but - I do understand the core idea of what is going on in that head. I doubt it is undermining his chances of completing the key in time.
So to sum it up, I still don’t think the guy who was picky was acting stupid. In a PuG world he was only behaving quite logically. Best tool for the job, to minimise risks of things going wrong.