I suspect that 411A does not actually understand the term 'contingency fuel' as this term does not feature in FAA fuel calculations but is a JAR-OPS requirement.
If he does then he displays his ignorance.
On the other hand, he is well aware of contingency fuel, however feels that to use it on the ground is
very poor planning on a Commanders part, when said Commander could well have foreseen the expected taxi delays and simply added more taxi fuel to begin with.
Now, if said Commander decides to use his contingency fuel whilst on ground anyway (as a matter of course), and then (speaking long range ops here) finds that due to stronger headwinds and/or lower flight levels being available than planned...and needs to land enroute for refueling, is showing extremely poor judgement and in addition, is subjecting the company to greatly increased expense (additional landing/technical fees, etc)...when he could well have used better judgement in the first place.
In addition, many long range ops are planned to the limit of an allowed flight duty period, and therefore making a tech stop enroute could well place the airline in a rather bad position, crew duty wise...not to mention a great disservice to the paying passengers.
In other words, use your brain, and choose the best alternative.