And having read up on the subject, you know now that that’s wrong; the glass was thicker at the bottom because that’s the way the already thicker on one side glass piece was oriented. 
Most glass contains other compounds besides just silicon dioxide, so I consider it a mixture. So I guess the question is if pure silicate glass exhibits the same amorphous, deformable properties.
Powers &8^]
A solution to what?
A glass of the amber liquid is often a good solution.
No, the amber liquid is tree sap. It’s not called amber until after it’s hardened. Into an amorphous solid, naturally.
I’m not sure what you’ve been drinking, but I’m sticking with my tipple.
Lumpy, I’m not site how that is a response to me, but one of those threads you cite says lead will deform over time more than glass will.
By that definition, steel is mixture, so I guess my statement is flawed.
Lead is definitely a crystalline (or multicrystalline) solid. It’s just very weak. Weak enough in fact that its own weight will deform it. But that doesn’t mean that lead doesn’t require a minimum force to deform. Maybe on the Moon pieces of lead will be fine, whereas gold would probably self-deform under Jupiter’s gravity.
That seems to be a technical distinction of no practical import: a “true” solid doesn’t have suger on it’s oatmeal.
Since any /actual/ solid will have defects, the lines between a “glass” (consisting entirely of defects) and a metal (multi-crystaline, with defects), and a perfect single crystal with no surfaces (a theoretical construct approachable but unprovable) seem at least blurred.