Sorry but your plain out wrong. A simple Google search of the term should show you, and anyone else that. There's nothing fluid about your design. No scaleable images, no media queries, nothing that actually changes with a change in the view port. I looked at Dave Gamache(if you’re going to use someone as a reference you should at least spell his name right) as I have never heard of him before (I'm a follower of Chis Coyier and Paul Irish) and what he has is responsive, go back and resize his page, see how it resizes??? Yours does none of that. I can see lots of elements on your page that could benefit from that (that little “this is a slider thing", that doesn’t work too well on a hand held).
QA of web design is what I do as part of my full time job, this just doesn’t pass as what your trying to sell it as. Again I offer you (since you mentioned him) to do a search of Ethan Marcotte favorite responsive web designs, what you have created does NOT fall into that grouping. If you’re more worried about how doing a proper responsive design would hinder some of the graphic elements I again say you don’t get it. It’s about making sites easier for hand held and mobile devices and yes, due to constraints of these devices sometimes some of that has to go away.
You say you bought the book and never read it but gave it to your "programmers"???? Well read the book and get some new programmers, they got it wrong. Please don't come on here and tell people who may be new to the concept of responsive web that what you do is correct, it’s not, and pointing people in the wrong direction with concepts and a site that just plainly, no matter how you may want to define it (because no matter what you might think, there is most certainly a definition of it and while there may be different ideas on HOW, there is no argument over WHAT) does not fall into the category of responsive.
