My source is the English language... ...Just the mere fact that you posted the above paper-thin "source" makes you look like you're grasping at straws and makes your argument weaker, not stronger.
I was asked for a source for the definition. I provided a source for the definition.
Personally, I find the ICAO definition to be pretty strong source material but I understand why its easily dismissed. As I said, most US GA Pilots are unlikely to ever have to deal with ICAO, so I know the "international" doesn't command the respect the FAA does, especially since, despite recent efforts, the FAA does still deviate from ICAO in many places.
So no clutching at straws, just providing the additional supporting source information I found during my search efforts to find a more unimpeachable, less dismiss-able source than ICAO i.e. the FAA in an effort to show more than 1 source in the face of your initial response which was full of snarky, snooty, holier-than-thou, dont care what anyone else says or thinks, if the US/FAA says it aint so it aint so attitude that to me basically amounted a name calling for no other reason than because you disagree with ICAO and think I'm stupid for agreeing with ICAO instead of your much more learned opinion using your own interpretation of the plain language.
So my additional sources such as the AOPA or AIM are admittedly much weaker but are at least still third party sources. Given these other sources were similarly dismissed by you, its clear no amount of anecdotal/experiential evidence I could offer of personal experience in the way I was trained to treat a "full stop" by my CFI's in TX or the way "full stop" is treated by my CFI's in PA or the way I've heard "full stop" used by planes in the pattern, even at non-towered airports, is going to make a difference...
Personally, I find your own source, or lack thereof in preference of your own "plain language" interpretation, to be the weaker argument. I agree and acknowledge that a "full stop" could be defined as you've indicated but there are plenty of interpretations out there refuting the plain language interpretations of other FAR's and plenty of people have had their ticket violated over seemingly far smaller things and questionable semantics that I wouldn't rely on the plain language text.
I mean if my published sources are "paper-thin" what does that say about your complete lack of a published source
The reality is that if you're right and I'm wrong, the only thing my interpretation is costing me is time and a little bit of money (I can do 6 full stop, taxi backs with a go-around in about an hour of Hobbs in a Citabria and that's following all of the noise abatement procedures which requires I fly 3 miles upwind). If I'm right and you're wrong, well chances are fairly high you aren't going to get caught given any inspector is going to take your log book entries at face value and you seem increasingly unlikely to encounter a ramp check at any time at a small airport let alone a time where your stop-and-go's might matter and be witnessed by an inspector and determined insufficient for the purposes of currency.
Again, different context. ATC lingo carries special meaning because they care about what you're going to do after you land. If you request a full stop landing, what else would you do? Park the airplane on the runway and leave it there? Meanwhile, if ATC clears you to land, you better not perform a touch-and-go, as you would be in violation of your clearance. Yet, a touch-and-go is a type of landing. That's why you're allowed to perform touch-and-goes to fulfill FAR 61 landing requirements unless they specify full stop.
Using your own logic, the FARs would not even need to specify "full stop" since you aren't allowed to do a touch-and-go if ATC only clears you for a landing! So that would mean, in accordance with your interpretation, the word "landing" requires a full stop. So why do the FARs sometimes specify full stop and sometimes not? Alas, your argument has fallen apart.
These 2 paragraphs are completely contradictory of each other and seem to even validate my point... If ATC clears you only for landing, you are cleared to land and expected to clear the runway where directed and yes, you better not perform a touch-and-go, stop-and-go or otherwise linger on the runway. Unless a stop-and-go or touch-and-go is requested and approved, the default behavior expected is that you land and clear the runway... In other words you dont need to specify a "full stop" if ATC only clears you to land; its redundant.
The only time you need to specify a full stop is when ATC offers you the option, which gives you the option to decide what you want to do whether it be full stop AKA stop and vacate, stop and go or touch and go... You wouldn't tell them you're going to "full-stop" and the perform a stop-and-go as that would violate the amended clearance they are likely to give you once you say full stop and Tower doesn't really care what you do once you're clear of their runway, at that point you become ground control's problem but they do want to know what you are going to do after you land only because they want to know how you are going to vacate their runway and if it involves taking off again, such as in a touch-and-go or stop-and-go, what your intentions are once airborne. Telling them you plan to make a "full stop, taxi back" isn't really necessary though at smaller airports they may issue you a taxi clearance without switching over to ground while at a larger airport with larger planes it may result in a faster insertion into the line-up as telling them this will be a full stop with taxi back when first switching over to tower while still be vectored on a 3 mile final can save you several minutes of idling on the ground as they can immediately begin working on opening a hole in the lineup to get you back out.
As to the regulations there is only 1 experience requirement (at least for the 3 primary certificates of PPL, IRA and CPL) where the landings must be to a full stop and they must be at a tower controlled airport and that's 61.109a(5)iii. All other full stop landings can be performed at an uncontrolled field where you always have "the option" to perform a touch-and-go, stop-and-go or stop-and-taxi-back, so yes specifying "full-stop" is necessary for those other numerous instances where no tower is present and a full-stop landing is required.
It is still necessary even in the case of 61.109a(5)ii as you are unable to request or accept "the option" from ATC even if offered and perform anything other than a full stop and still get credit for it... The question of whether a stop-and-go is acceptable may still be debatable but 61.109a(5)iii is the only place in your PPL training (or anywhere else for that matter) that you would conceivably have to talk to ground control and that's only if you use the definition of "full-stop" as being a taxi back, all other requirements could conceivably be completed at uncontrolled airports without ground control or at a controlled airport via touch-and-go's or stop-and-go's without ever having to leave the runway via a taxiway and talk to ground. In that regard, it would make sense that the FAA wants you to have experience talking to ground control in which case a stop-and-go wont cut it.
The only other experience regulation that says anything about a tower is 61.129a(4)ii and it only specifies that the landings must be at night at an airport with an operating control tower... Therefore you can request and accept any clearance that results in a landing after a flight in the traffic pattern.
As to currency landings, 61.57a(1)ii says nothing about it being a towered airport and only requires the landings to be to a full-stop if in a tailwheel otherwise touch-and-go's are permitted and 61.57b(1) also similarly says nothing about it begin a towered airport and requires the landings be at night and to a full-stop regardless of landing gear configuration. Both of which again need to specify full-stop since you always have "the option" at an uncontrolled field.
Did I say stop n go? I meant to say landings
