Heresy is in the eye of the beholder. Your church defines it in a way that favors its interpretation and everyone else defines it according to their beleif. You think your position is the right one and we are heretics and I happen to think you and your's are heretics. So who is right, only God knows. But this I do know, there will be no excuse at the judgment seat "but that is what the church taught".
No, heresy is a theological word. That it has crept into common parlance is irrelevant. The issue on this thread was theological. We were asked whether we consider you non-free-willers to be heretics. You asked us what we believe about heresy. Do us the common courtesy of letting us define heresy for ourselves. You can define it for yourself and we won't bug you. But if you ask us whether we consider non-free-willers heretics but insist that you get to define the terms, you are arrogant.
This definition of heresy goes back to the very earliest days of the Church. Calvin agreed with it. Luther agreed with it. All Protestant churches that still have canon law and rules about beliefs still accept this definition. I anticipated your silly response and that's why I mentioned in passing that Charles Finney was tried for heresy under this definition by the very high Calvinist fathers the non-free-willers venerate--the Princeton Old School Calvinists whose legacy was taken up by Hodge and Warfield.
Do you get that, blue-duncan? This definition of heresy which you dismiss as being merely Catholic special pleading was the definition of heresy held by B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary. It is the universal theological definition of heresy. Webster's dictionary simply gives a non-technical, common-parlance definition that is irrelevant to a discussion of what heresy means for the Church.