I didn't say that you said all ambigusweeties are quantum relationships. I was verbally describing how I see the set of relationships using Jay's terms. When you said "not seeing the difference," I heard it as "the two are synonymous." Sounds like I "heard" that wrong. For me (and I believe for Jay) the two terms are not synonymous. The set of all quantum relationships is included in the set of all ambigusweeties, which is contained within the set of all relationships. I'm suspecting that we are actually in agreement, and that this would all be easier if I remembered how to use set notation properly.

I think one thing I'm seeing here is the success of your/his term. Now that you've "released it into the wild," it's doing a bit of changing and mutating in different environments.