In the past I have expressed some dissatisfaction with using the *term*, "Postmodernism," because of difficulty in pinning down who or what is or is not postmodern. However, it isn't all that much more ambiguous than such terms as Augustan, neo-classical (literary, not econ), romantic, classical, realist, modernist, *sturm und drang* (accurate Ger?), renaissance, baroque, roccoco, aristotelian, platonic (my favorite all purpose turn for what I don't like), etc. etc. etc. These terms are almost always used inaccurately because there is no accurate use of them -- and hence one could argue that they are always accurate because they take on whatever meaning they are given in a particular context.
So perhaps we should let each other use whatever labels each one chooses, and respond to the substance rather than the label -- or accept the ad hoc definition of the label and simply argue that it isn't applicable to a particular person (oneself or some specific writer, etc.).
For a year or so I have chosen to be chary in my use of the term "post-modern," but I think with only a reasonable allowance for sloppiness (such as we would extend to a literary historian's casual use of "Augustan," it can be used as a placemarker in someone's discourse.
Carrol