Neurosophist

Too true, touche

Perhaps there should be a moderator's oligarchy for situations such as this

I assume your basis for acceptance being the default is because you do not see it as in anyway impacting on any non-consenting adults, unless there should be any other reason...

Is the portrayal of this fellow's impertinence in referring by only the first name also as Miss Rand would have thought of it, a common policy among all objectivist devotees, or only a policy in this forum?

California, while recently becoming a bastion of at least democratic electoral power, was not always associated with liberalism. With such a broad area and such a large portion of the population, many different beliefs are represented in it. For instance, the Governator...

I think the statement made was merely facetious

I second the explicating, refining and bolstering of rules of behavior, they should be on the homepage.

44% of Americans are on medication according to the recent cnn poll.

Ah, looking backward, the work that at once introduced a rudimentary credit card and at the same time said that it would effectively be useless, as there would be so much plenty that no one could dream of using all their capitol.

Perhaps you could actually take it as a threat, but since it is only informing you of some sort of case specific illusory correlation, perhaps you should ask the originator for some more statistically significant data on people who do and do not send on the letter. It is important to be rigorous when attending to probabilities. You could also simply thank the originator for giving you some free scrap paper as well as proving that the postal service is up to snuff.

Why Miss and not Ms.?

It seems noteworthy to point out that non-voluntary is a somewhat rare instance, in that it is difficult to determine whether a person will regain function, 'pull through', or in the long run, some means of retrieving them from their coma will be made available, a la 'awakenings'. Also, it is difficult in cases where you must resort back to the patient's original beliefs, where they are not strictly stated (besides the fact that what one says months or years in advance may not correspond with their thinking in the moments or situation where they become incapable of voicing their choice).

Why even a supreme court?

It seems that without at least some form of posting of the 'rules', you can expect many more of the 'wrong sort of people'.

don't send it