The definition of a Mesa is that it is a large hill or a mountin with a flat top and steep sides.

The definition of a Table Mountain is that it is a mountain with a flat stop and steep sides.

Therefore at the most basic level, you are correct, but it doesn't actually tell us anything.

Both these are geomorphological terms that simply describe shape. if you want to get into a meaningful discussion about the nature and origin of the landforms, you need a different vocabulary that describes mechanisms of formation and modification of these features.

That's where Jim Garvin was coming from with his "Mesas are lava domes" argument. He distinguishes a local constructional igneous origin (with minor erosional modification) from the more conventional sedimentary origin where a formerly extensive layer is eroded to leave remnant mesas and buttes.

If you can try to use the right vocabulary and explain your thinking rather than just splattering us with junk quotes, I might understand what you're trying to say.