For the most part I like your comments, Russ, but sometimes...."meh" and this is not because of the comment itself, but because I often don't see your point, either.
I understand your perception, but through the glass or as a reflection, isn't it the implied imagery which is more important than the reflection (or not)? How does this become a problem?
In some ways it is like your Friedlander shot. Should anyone worry that he shot almost everything from a somewhat oblique angle and rarely dead straight on, or should we understand that you were not copying his work, merely imitating the style? Had you not titled it in the style of Friedlander, how many people would have recognized his style in your work? More importantly, does it really matter? I liked it for the image quality and tonal range. I found the image to be a bit more cluttered than I would normally like, but using your reference to Friedlander I at least understood the intent.
In many ways this is something I find a bit quirky about this part of the forum and this is to everyone. There seems to be an over amount of second guessing, worrying over stuff which has not cause for worry, criticizing merely for the sake of having a differing opinion rather than simply enjoying what someone else's eye recorded and commenting thusly. I spent hours and hours of my life comparing and contrasting photographic styles to students and while I think it is important to be aware of those who have come before us, I don't let it permeate everything I do. There are always influences but I would rather what I do be a reflection of my developing style than to basque in the glory of someone else's. That is their accollade and mine to perhaps someday earn.
Still, there is much to learn, so I will continue to be a part as long as I am allowed.