Jamin Hubner, a member of the AOMIN blogging team, is involved in a debate regarding the definition of KJV only. He notes:
Dr. White identifies at least 5 kinds of King-James Only advocates p. 23-28):
1. "I Like the KJV Best"
2. "The Textual Argument" - Group A (Majority Text advocates), Group B (TR Advocates) Group C (others)
3. "Received Text Only" - TR is inspired or is inerrant by providence of God.
4. Inspired KJV Group - KJV itself is inspired and inerrant (some would also affirm inspiration and inerrancy of TR, and thus also hold to group 3); KJV Alone = Word of God Alone
5. "The KJV as New Revelation" - God re-inspired the AV 1611 text rendering it in English language (thus, Hebrew and Greek texts should actually be changed to reflect KJV readings) (link)
However, as a counter-point, I should be noted that James White also says the following:
One group that would strongly reject the term KJV Only but believe that the Greek texts used by the KJV translators are superior to those used by modern translations would be the Majority Text advocates. (White. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Bethany House, 2009 P. 24)
King James Onlyism is to be distinguished from the scholarly defense of either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Priority Theory. (p73)
This is of interest to me because I like the arguments in favor of the Majority Text but I have never considered myself KJV Only. It would seem wrong to call me KJV only, given I use other translations. I just think a normal transmission of the text would naturally yield a majority text. Why lump me in with people who think the KJV itself is inspired?
I hope that Robinson/Pierpont's work will one day be expanded to include a broader range if not all Greek manuscripts. This would provided a better foundation for translating than is available today.