It seems you have not yet become able to forgive yourself
for what rubbish you wrote about the Gleipnir, the first time you learned about it.
(Or had you tied it, too, like all the other knots in the Universe,
but you had not found it worth your stature ? 
)
Yes, I had discovered it --though an "it" if articulated in
detail can challenge exactly what was known(!)-- for myself
prior to Geoffrey Dahm's presentation to us, here;
and, yes, I had found it wanting (tied as a relatively
large-material (vs. object) binder in a form with the
crossing point of the
turNip against the object,
the center point of it all away. And that wasn't rubbish,
but a simple statement of fact (albeit one of a limited
region of application, and one that left me without urge
to further explore). --and it was of behavior just again
seen, in fiddling; though, currently, around a soft-feel
chair arm w/plastic surface, the structure is holding well.
--not so well as your version to turn the
turNip "upside
down", crossing point
away from object surface, which
enables better movement and removes some bit of
surface contact/friction near the nipping turn!
Now, that 2nd (whichever --to "Misc.") site-page you link to
(old Layhands material) presents the
Gleipnir in a too
cursory manner, and hides the "ugly" (you would say) fact
of asymmetry of the crossing of parts on the away side
of the tied-to board (?); I frankly doubt that that particular
shown set-up --rope & board-- would yield a good binding,
vis-a-vis friction. (But I suppose the less convex/rounded
the object is, the less benefit there is to your orienting the
crossing point away from it --if there's slight pressure at
the point, there's slight benefit from avoiding it.)
But this IGKT thread was started by a post to lambast one
*stalked* knot --somebody wants banished from the universe!--
and anything on which it is found,
and I don't think that there was a more *private* note to the
site maintainers remarking at a wonderful knot that should
(also) see their lighted day. So, what was the point?
(And, FIY, Grog has I think maintained resistance to my
rearranged
"Highwayman's Hitch" --while accepting the
promulgated mythical knot's danger--, despite some defence
of it by me, though I had to accept that with some conditions,
it was also not so attractive looking. (My rearrangement put
the force of the S.Part upon the "frame" directly and so no
the "toggle"/slip-bight only indirectly, vs. the original's direct
bearing upon the toggel, which could capsize it and pull it
through the frame.)
BTW (& FYI-2), the other day, in a walk around the area, I stopped
to re-tie a bound bundle of for-trash small branches in the common
fibrillated polyethylene binding cord in a
Gleipnir, for my own
satisfaction; it held well (but maybe I tied off the ends --after all,
such bundles might be subject to some compression and loss of
nip-holding tension!).
And I also discovered the
gnat h. or quite similar,
there being an appeal to tucking through that initial
half-hitch, but I don't much use it,
and do use what I think we agree is favorable : the simple,
"minimal
timber-hitch-like orientation of what w/o object
is an
overhand" --often, that, though it takes care to
ensure that the tail gets nipped back around the object.
--dl*
====
