Oh? Then why don't they say anything in their posts that disagrees with my view on the subject? (Hint: You're replying to the first comment I made in this thread, so the idea that I used the words "concurrent" or "parallel" in any particular way, much less wrongly, is objectively incorrect.)

Your post described only a possible manifestation of concurrency, and attempted to define that as what concurrency is in some sort of opposition to "parallel".

I suspect we're actually in agreement that ideally "concurrent" would be a description of capability and "parallel" a manifestation of that capability, but the fact is you're never going to get everyone to agree on (or remember) that[1]. So, again, new words are needed.

[1] Edit: I just found the later post of yours where you said this:

"I like to imagine that concurrent processes, concur (agree) on how they should share the time slices of the CPU, and parallel processes don't ever give a damn about each other, cause each has its own core, and like parallel lines, they never meet."

So, yet another novel definition of "concurrent". And yet you think other people are wrong. Heh.