[Olog-hai]

There are real philosophers and pseudo-philosophers.

And doubling down on argumentum ad verecundiam will not make deceptive arguments valid/sound.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Mine is not an argumentum ad verecundiam. I'm merely defining terms. You use the words premise, logical, etc. which have specific meanings to philosophers. Similarly valid is a term used by philosophers to mean a specific thing.

Philosophers have been using valid and sound in the way mentioned at all of the links I pointed you to because it is useful to do so. It is useful to distinguish those arguments that are fallacious due to faulty premises from those that are fallacious due to faulty reasoning.

I don't know why you would want to conflate the two types of philosophical error. It serves no useful purpose.