While consistent glomarization is feasible, one must consider the social context of doing such a thing. If you're with close friends or within the rationalist sphere, then your compatriots will understand you. But outside the cult, per se, you need to be careful. Honesty is important, but sometimes, a white lie is better than a truth. For example, if your friend asks you about a question you do not want answer, it's probably more respectful to respond with a non-answer or a joke answer than to say "I will neither confirm nor deny the answer to your question."
Glomarization can be frustrating to deal with. Thus, it's probably better to have a policy of no glomarization than a policy of consistent glomarization. Because consistently glomarizing will offend people not versed in the rationalist sphere, and code-switching will lead to a contradiction of the original premise.
While consistent glomarization is feasible, one must consider the social context of doing such a thing. If you're with close friends or within the rationalist sphere, then your compatriots will understand you. But outside the cult, per se, you need to be careful. Honesty is important, but sometimes, a white lie is better than a truth. For example, if your friend asks you about a question you do not want answer, it's probably more respectful to respond with a non-answer or a joke answer than to say "I will neither confirm nor deny the answer to your question."
Glomarization can be frustrating to deal with. Thus, it's probably better to have a policy of no glomarization than a policy of consistent glomarization. Because consistently glomarizing will offend people not versed in the rationalist sphere, and code-switching will lead to a contradiction of the original premise.