I agree with this, and it highlights an inconsistency.

I liken this to what happens to regular geometry once you apply it to a non-planar cases. We're always taught that a triangle has 180 degrees, but in non-Euclidean geometry a triangle could have 270 degrees. Runners, who are used to the geometry of their particular sport feel the need to apply their language to swimming, but I have to challenge the appropriateness of this. If you come from the "triangle always has 180 degrees" background, it is foolish to reject the notion that a triangle couldn't have more than 180 degrees based simply on the idea that triangles always had 180 degrees; when there is evidence that triangles have 270 degrees.

QED swimmers are spherical and runners are flat.

This is meant to be humorous, but also to highlight the flaws in many of your arguments. Just because A implies B in one instance does not mean that the same conclusion can be drawn in another instance, particularly if substantive examples can be provided that show that the two instances are not analogous. I reject the majority of runners' arguments about track laps vs. swimming laps on this basis.

I do appreciate those of you who have made a serious attempt at arguing/settling this issue--it is a fascinating topic indeed.