Now you are saying how other people should identify themselves based on your preferences. However, one can call themselves either monogamous or polyamorous even if they're not in any relationships at all! It's the desire and openness to poly that counts just as much as the practice of it.
Members of the newsgroup alt.polyamory collaborated on a FAQ (frequently asked questions) post that was updated periodically, and included the group's definition of "polyamory". The 1997 version, which has been archived online, contains this definition:
Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even if they are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.
In 1999, Zell-Ravenheart was asked by the editor of the Oxford English Dictionary to provide a definition of the term (which the dictionary had not yet recognized; the words "polyamory, -ous, and -ist" were added to the OED in 2006). On their website, the Ravenhearts shared their submission to the OED, which follows:
The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.
Mercury, my point in my earlier post was simply that what you state is poly isn't something that is agreed upon among every poly person. You described what poly is FOR YOU, and so why lay what works for you on other people and say they are not poly if they're not doing it your way? It would have been cool if you had said "this is what it is for me," but you were making definitive blanket statements about what "poly is" and that the OP wasn't doing it right. What you said had almost attacking tone to it.
Furthermore, I re-read the OP's posts and did not find any statement from him that he only was looking for casual sex. He said that he didn't feel it was necessary to discuss the fact that he has another relationship unless and until his dating goes beyond the casual stage. Clearly he feels that dating has a casual stage before getting serious, and many people do also feel that way. It doesn't mean that's all they want. Methinks your history with that dishonest guy from OKC triggered you and you over-reacted a bit to Wolfwood's posts. And now you seem to be belittling any other opinions on poly that don't match your own. Clearly, a more casual attitude regarding polyamory bugs you and no one's saying you should change your views, just that they don't have to be adopted by anyone else in order to be poly in the manner in which THEY see fit.