  In this paper, we affirm our earlier findings of evidence for a limit to
human lifespan. In particular, we assess the analyses in extreme value theory
(EVT) performed by Rootz\'en and Zholud. We find that their criticisms of our
work are unfounded and that their analyses are contradicted by several other
papers using EVT. Furthermore, we find that even if we completely accept the
conclusions about late-life human mortality reached by Rootz\'en and Zholud,
their results do not actually contradict the findings presented in our original
paper: whether unbounded or not, human lifespan is unlikely to greatly exceed
120 years, and the improbability of longer survival---whether it is exactly
zero or merely astronomically small---acts as a de facto limit. In order to
eliminate the confusion surrounding the issue, we propose the adoption of the
term "limit" to denote the age at which the chance of survival is exactly zero
and the term "effective limit" to denote the age at which the change of
survival falls below a given threshold. Once this distinction is made, it can
be demonstrated that the final result of Rootz\'en and Zholud is essentially a
recapitulation of the main conclusion of our paper. Ultimately, much of the
controversy surrounding the issue of a limit to human lifespan can be avoided
by carefully reading the literature and applying statistics to practical human
scales.
