I've already retracted the word "legitimate" as being redundant (although I don't see how you can have any fruitful discussion if you're going to ask for the meanings of everyday words like "legitimate". Don't you find such a practice bogs things down?)

Now, can someone please offer a friendly explanation as to why ALL of my comments have attracted negative votes, even though people are still engaging me, and still failing to provide any evidence as to my mortality?

Even my original post, which simply outlines my 2010 prediction, has garnered 4 negative votes. Wasn't I supposed to make a New Year's prediction on this New Year's Predictions thread? Why would a 2010 prediction get any negative votes, or any votes at all, until either it came true or 1/1/11?

Perhaps I should have dispensed with the word "legitimate". In retrospect it was redundant. If evidence is not legitimate, it is not evidence.

Again, I don't know if I am human, in the generally accepted sense. I don't know that I'm going to die. Even if I am a normal human being, however, I can't accept that what has purportedly happened to any other human being must happen to me. Especially, given the fact that I don't know what actually happened to the vast majority of people that were ever born. Far more people have "disappeared" out of my life (after having briefly entered it) than have apparently died (to my satisfaction, evidence-wise). So, for me, individually, the evidence would suggest that most people disappear (go on living elsewhere in the world - out of my ken), rather than die.

Where did anyone get the idea that the preponderance of evidence shows, to the satisfaction of any individual, that most human beings die? Isn't that just hearsay, based on very small evidence samples?

Is it possible that only human beings who maintain close relationships with other human beings die? Could it be that many loners are immortal? Is there any global agency that is matching deaths to births, and investigating all anomalies?