Oh dear, we seem to have a situation going on here.
OK. Let me revise my initial statement for the sake of clarity – post #29, paragraph 5:
"So OK, one can self-identify as a fundamentalist, but that would still have to be qualified."
And then delete the comment in brackets. It was perhaps a poor example, and has carried us off the point.
To get back to the point:
A fundamentalist anything is readily taken as a pejorative these days, and there are various reasons for that.
I distance myself from those elements, so in describing myself I would use another term rather than 'fundamentalist', even though my theology is generally under the 'ressourcement theologie' that spoke of a 'return to the source'.
'Traditional' is better but still probably leads to erroneous assumptions. In the rather small circles I moved in, 'Trad Catholic' wasused, but understood in its nuances.
Orthodox is another acceptable term, but then people would assume I belong to one of the Patriarchies rather than the RC ... I could push the boat out and say 'Christian Neoplatonist' which is probably nearest the mark, but that leaves most people none the wiser.
So 'fundamentalist' if you will, but language changes, and we can't turn back that particular clock, so we qualify, for clarity, to disassociate ourselves from certain other movements who also identify as 'fundamentalist' as a badge of honour, it would seem, and delight in conflict.
That was my point.