From here on in, I'm going to coin the term "Hybrid Theory" which is my cute catchphrase to describe a phonological stance somewhere between the Traditional Theory and the Glottalic Theory concerning the interpretation of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) phonology. I still maintain, no doubt because I have a stubborn streak, that what are called "plain voiced stops" (Traditional Theory) or "ejectives" (Glottalic Theory) are better conceived of as phonemes that are in some way merely derivatives of ejectives, thereby showing the inherited traits of ejectives while explaining why ejectives are not featured whatsoever in the languages that sprang from PIE.
A recent comment by Phoenix concerning Proto-Balto-Slavic has left me pondering incessantly about something for the past few days now: Does Winter's Law prove conclusively that PIE had ejective stops and even disprove my Hybrid Theory stance?
The standard description of Winter's Law by Mr. Winter himself was that in Balto-Slavic, vowels had somehow lengthened before PIE plain voiced *d but did not lengthen before voiced aspirated *dʰ. Frederik Kortlandt expanded further on this by infusing it with the Glottalic Theory according to which PIE's ejectives became "implosive" in all dialects save Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Tocharian. His reinterpretation of Winter's Law was that the implosives somehow developed a glottal stop segment preceding a plain voiced stop. It was the glottal stop element that supposedly lengthened the preceding vowel and caused acute (i.e. rising) tonal accent. It is afterall to be expected for voiceless codas to produce such tones as we see in, say, Middle Chinese and other budding tonal languages. In light of this, I was about to admit my inability in find an alternative to this account. If *d were "half-voiced" as I claim, it cannot produce the required rising tone since the presence of voice produces low acoustic pitch. In a coda, we then would expect either low level or falling tones to result, not rising ones. It seemed as though I had my pants down around my ankles. I was even prepared to give myself a beating for being so daft all this time.
Enter Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, a very informed individual who has been participating on forums for a decade. He apparently commented two years ago on sci.lang debunking the Glottalic Theory interpretation of Winter's Law in a single paragraph. If I understand his point correctly, he's saying that a phonetic trigger wasn't the cause of acute tones at all. Miguel claims that Toshihiro Shintani discovered that it was merely the pretonic nature of Winter's Law itself that provoked Latvian's Brechton (the German name for "broken tone"). I presume he's indirectly citing Shintani, On Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic (1985). Add to this, Oswald Szemerenyi's negative comments about Kortlandt's theory. Recently in the turn of the century, Rick Derksen pulled no punches and told it like it was: "The sound law that is generally referred to as Winter’s law can by no means be regarded as well-established. Its reception has ranged from almost unreserved acceptance to categorical rejection."
Oh dear lord, what do we do now? What's the answer and who do we have to kill to get it?
(Continued in Winter's Law in Balto-Slavic, "Hybrid Theory" and phonation - Part 2 ...)
 Remarks on Winter's law. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 11: Dutch Contributions to the 10th International Congress of Slavists: Linguistics (1988), p.387-396 (see pdf).
 Miguel Carrasquer, sci.lang - Re: Indo-European Typology and Sanskrit Phonology (21 Feb 2006) (see link).
 Szemerenyi, Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics (1999), p.153 (see link).
 Derksen, On the reception of Winter’s law, Baltistica 37 (1) (2002), p.5-13 (see pdf).
(Jan 19/08) I corrected the year of Shintani's first publication of On Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic. I stated "1988" but it should be "1985" apparently, as cited in one of Kortlandt's online pdfs. I cite the full reference in Part 2.