Re: virus: reciprocity

KMO prime (
Sun, 15 Sep 1996 15:21:16 EDT

On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 10:56:07 -0500 (Patricia & John
Crooks) writes:
>>Seems like it shouldn't be too difficult to find some corroboration.
>That goes both ways you know.
No it doesn't. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim.
The standard of evidence is increasingly stringent as the strength of
the claim increases.
You claimed that life spans haven't actually increased and that the
increase is an mathematical illusion created by a significant decrease
in infant mortality. That's a strong claim and quite at odds with my
understanding and with the understanding of people like Vicki Rosenzweig
who wrote:

(This is in the context a discussion about the pressures longer
life-spans put on social security programs)

Well yeah. Retirement age: 65. Usual lifespan at the time: 61. By the
same logic SS should kick in the late 70s or early 80s these days.
Try selling that.

The operating assumption is that people live longer now than they did
when the current federal retirement programs were instituted. You claim
that this assumption is incorrect. That 'is a strong claim. You are
under no compulsion to corroborate what, from you perspective, is 'common
knowledge', but by the same token, we're under no obligation to change
the basic working assumptions of the discussion until you provide that

Take care. -KMO