If that's the extent of your definition then it is not at all inconsistent with Einstein's definition of the ether in the lecture I linked to.

>This is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy wherein one redefines the assertion to deal with specific objections.

Imagine using your argument to claim that atoms don't exist because atoms were by definition indivisible structures, and so anyone who argues that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons is just engaged in a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

This might be how people on the Internet argue, but it's not how curious people make genuine advances in science.

Note that your definition of ether never said anything about having a definite state of motion so it's not at all clear what exactly you're looking to criticize to begin with. Einstein isn't claiming that the ether has no motion, just that it's motion adheres to Lorenz invariance.

>One can be generous and say he had an intuition about fields

Claiming that it's generous that Einstein had some kind of intuition about fields is so absurdly laughable that I'm not sure there is much more to even discuss on this matter. How generous you must be to recognize that Albert Einstein had some kind of intuition about fields.

It certainly makes me wonder if people read what they write sometimes before hitting the reply button.