Yes, that's how I read it too. Infallibility being the main thing that makes it fundamentalist, in my view. Fundamentalist does have a pejorative connotation, but I've listened, read, discussed. Not all 4 of the Baha'is here, but some truly remind me of 'discussions' (they're not really discussions at at all, just preaching) I've had with fundamentalist Christians. So although you may beg to differ, I will still use proselytizing, and fundamentalist in describing Baha'i. I also feel totally free to use 'infallibility' to describe a Baha'i belief. Like I said before, one side in a discussion does not get to determine the vocabulary. Of course you're free to avoid these terms.
I'm careful in my use of the word fundamentalist. I would apply it to some faith adherents of some religions and how they view their religion and the religions of others. I would never say that Christianity or Islam are fundamentalist religions but some of their adherents most definitely. In fact if I were to call Christianity fundamentalist, then I would be exhibiting fundamentalist behaviour in needlessly assigning a derogatory term to an entire religion and to some degree all their adherents would be guilty by association. So fundamentalism behaviour as well as clinging dogmatically to particular beliefs and can involve using distortions of language and the beliefs of others to denigrate and dismiss their faiths. As I realise we can all be fundamentalist in our approach to belief, whether Abrahamic, Dharmic, or atheistic, that realisation is empowering. It means I can recognise within my self attitudes and behaviours that are fundamentalist in nature. If I imagine that I am free from such tendencies, then I have simply become a captive of my ego and passions.