[snip]Is there a pecking order to this?
In theory yes, but not necessarily. The overall attractiveness of the stone will have a stronger effect.
I just wondered if anyone had any input on if one is better than the other or more valuable than the other.... of course all other things considered - but just like a vivid usually costs more then an intense does the base of green usually cost more then the diamond with a base of gray?
Again, yes but - not least because the "green" portion in chameleons is inextricably associated with grey, because of the origin of the green colouring (hydrogen inclusions), which is different from that typically encountered in pure green diamonds. So, a more intense green will also be significantly darker because of more grey associated with it, and that may well cause the diamond to be less attractive overall.
chameleons also exhibit strong white and strong Yellow florescence... Is one worse than the other???
In what sense "worse"? Fluorescence is not "bad"
per se, and in chameleons it is pretty much unavoidable because of the characteristics of the diamond that give rise to the colour change effect.
Also I had read that they have found Chameleon diamonds in the Argyle mine.... Does anyone know if this is true?

[snip]
This would surprise me quite a bit - Argyle diamonds are Type II (no nitrogen), while chameleons must contain nitrogen to show the "yellow" part of the colour change. It is not impossible - and there may well be other mechanisms to obtain a colour change than the greenish/yellow one - but it would be surprising.
If you are interested, here is a good presentation on chameleon diamonds, the origin of the colour change and all:
http://gsa.confex.co...ngredirect.cgi/id/14it's a 15 minute Webex recording well worth watching/listening to.