OK, this isn't the first time I miscommunicated...today.

I was trying to be extra careful with my language and refrain from attacking because the opinion expressed is a minority one around here.

What I was trying to point out is the difference between getting patched up for a longer span than 50-100 years like we do now and getting patched up for 200-1000 or so is smaller than that between living 200-1000 years and living forever. "Forever" is obviously ridiculous because it violates laws of physics and probability.

I was trying to do something less combative than accuse the commenter of either consciously misrepresenting the concept, subconsciously being too irrational to understand it, or letting bias twist his words into falsity.

My point is excellent, however poor at expressing it I am.

Living forever is not what's usually under discussion. "Living indefinitely" would be more accurate.

It really goes to the core of what erniebornheimer said:

Yes, I recognize how wonderful medical science is, but I see a qualitative difference between living longer and living forever.

One reason his comment is so good is that it preempted and squarely responded to anticipated objections. My point is that I think the response to this one relies on a fallacy of equivocation to seem persuasive.