[fc417fc802]

I appreciate your effort to provide an understandable explanation.

That said, in context the original statement was so extremely misrepresentative of the reality that I felt it left the realm of "inaccurate but effective for communication". I certainly didn't see the objections as pedantic.

[K0balt]

A clarification was appropriate because it really did miss the physics, but doubling down on the definition of wave without talking about speed, length, and volume (which is what had confused OP in the first place) was not only suboptimal in teaching useful knowledge to OP, it was also misleading in a way that could (and did, in at least one case of a commenter in this thread) lead to a dangerous misconception about characterising tsunamis.

Perhaps it wasn’t intentionally pedantic, but the way that it was doubled down on later makes me suspect an argument in bad faith, or at least an epic case of missing the opportunity to usefully inform.

I value this site for the general character of people trying to educate more than just troll, and I think it’s important to try to educate trolls as well to understand a more constructive and respectful way to interact here. Ostensibly, we take off our clown shoes and leave them at the door.

OTOH I may have read multiple comments in similar tone that were not all attributed to one poster , giving me a mistaken impression of the intent. In that case, I owe an apology for perhaps overreacting.