In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been entirely correct.  Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a consequence was wrong.  It was a reductio.  (The Copenhagen interpretation had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at the microscopic level.  A simple way to sum up that argument would be the casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its average results over a year of play.  Schrodinger's point was that, if we tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we can force an individual interaction to have macro effects.  The micro world doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.)  The point we're supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave interpretation.

So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this points to any deep mystery.  I think it points to a mistake.