[93989] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
ATTENTION Seniors: FHA Insured Reverse Mortgage Plans
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reverse Mortgage Planning)
Thu Dec 15 09:28:55 2016
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 08:02:06 -0500
From: "Reverse Mortgage Planning" <reversemortgageplanning.com@mortgaage.us>
Reply-To: "Reverse Mortgage Planning" <reversemortgageplanning.com@mortgaage.us>
To: <mit-talk-mtg@charon.mit.edu>
--4e77f181c6c1e75f7be53813b4e8e6e3
Content-Type: text/plain;
ATTENTION Seniors: FHA Insured Reverse Mortgage Plans
http://mortgaage.us/7MQsj2AciMfYY3woasIMO3YqVm8iJCVi3IJgIfLm03U
ATTENTION Seniors: FHA Insured Reverse Mortgage Plans
Access The Equity In Your Home Without Selling It
FHA Insured Home Loans for Credit Challenged Seniors
http://mortgaage.us/7MQsj2AciMfYY3woasIMO3YqVm8iJCVi3IJgIfLm03U
FHA Insured Mortgages for Credit Challenged Seniors
FHA Insured Reverse Mortgage Plans
http://mortgaage.us/D92BGmtU2vw0S5SHE4zhM37wRwKPbp8OHqRnSykcaZ8
--4e77f181c6c1e75f7be53813b4e8e6e3
Content-Type: text/html;
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div style="margin-left: 600px;"><img src="http://mortgaage.us/f10ba0062768af2210.jpg" /></div>
<center>
<form an="" are="" catch="" external="" information="" method="post" nare="" onsubmit="try {return window.confirm(" return="" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;max-width:510px;background:#ffffff;padding:20px 20px 20px 20px;font:13px Segoe UI Light,sans-serif;color:#666" target="_blank" to="" you=""> <i><span style="color:#000000;">If Image creating problem so,</span> <a href="http://mortgaage.us/7MQsj2AciMfYY3woasIMO3YqVm8iJCVi3IJgIfLm03U">Click here.</a></i>
<h1 style="font-family:arial;font-size:32px;padding:15px 15px 15px 20x;display:block;background: #dc6923;border-bottom:7px solid #5484CC;border-top:7px solid #5484CC"><a href="http://mortgaage.us/7MQsj2AciMfYY3woasIMO3YqVm8iJCVi3IJgIfLm03U" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><b style="font-family:arial;font-size:30px;color: #fff">ATTENTION Seniors: FHA Insured Reverse Mortgage Plans</b></a></h1>
<a href="http://mortgaage.us/7MQsj2AciMfYY3woasIMO3YqVm8iJCVi3IJgIfLm03U" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><img alt=" " src="http://mortgaage.us/0b793b5fc8ecfdd8cd.jpg" style="border: solid 4px #dc6923;" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mortgaage.us/7MQsj2AciMfYY3woasIMO3YqVm8iJCVi3IJgIfLm03U" style="font:24px arial,sans-serif;display:block;text-decoration:none;width:200px;min-height:30px;background:#E26B25;padding:10px;border-radius:5px;color:white;font-weight:bold" target="_blank">Click Here Now</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mortgaage.us/kuLSriTGGuAUOPc8-U1h6iWXVW42a5_AfJxR_9npLQ" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank"><img src="http://mortgaage.us/9dc6f70435fcb6f294.jpg" style="http://mortgaage.us/1d723d41ae4aa776c5.:0 auto" /></a></form>
<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mortgaage.us/D92BGmtU2vw0S5SHE4zhM37wRwKPbp8OHqRnSykcaZ8"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://mortgaage.us/6908f84c91d39a4f24.jpg" /></a></p>
</center>
<div style="margin-left: 600px;"><span id="random" style="color: #FFFFFF; font: Tahoma 4pt; border: 7px;"><img src="http://mortgaage.us/f10ba0062768af2210.jpg" /></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 600px;"><span id="random" style="color: #FFFFFF; font: Tahoma 4pt; border: 7px;"><img src="http://mortgaage.us/f10ba0062768af2210.jpg" /></span></div>
<span id="random" style="color: #FFFFFF; font: Tahoma 4pt; border: 7px;"><!---Articles for traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica are carefully and deliberately written by experts, lending such encyclopedias a reputation for accuracy. Conversely, Wikipedia is often cited for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations. However, a peer review in 2005 of forty-two scientific entries on both Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica by the science journal Nature found few differences in accuracy, and concluded that "the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three." Reagle suggested that while the study reflects "a topical strength of Wikipedia contributors" in science articles, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects." The findings by Nature were disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica, and in response, upletter: I<br />upletters:5: CZBRI<br />upletters:10,50: SSPLWPHLBILTEXDEGPQIGNCEAWCDZOCTWDFKBU<br />
upletters:10,50,, : I, F, S, K, X, W, V, O, P, O, F, F, U<br />he sample size and selection method used in the Nature effort, and suggested a "flawed study design" (in Nature's manual selection of articles, in part or in whole, for comparison), absence of statistical analysis (e.g., of reported confidence intervals), and a lack of study "statistical power" (i.e., owing to small sample size, 42 or 4 x 101 articles compared, vs >105 and >106 set sizes for Britannica and the English Wikipedia, respectively).As a consequence of the open structure, Wikipedia "makes no guarantee of validity" of its content, since no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it. Concerns have been raised by PC World in 2009 regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity, the insertion of false information, vandalism, and similar problems.Economist Tyler Cowen wrote: "If I had to guess whether Wikipedia or the median refereed journal article on economics was more likely to be true, after a not so long think I would opt for Wikipedia." He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal articles and relevant information is omitted from news reports. However, he also cautions that errors are frequently found on Internet sites, and that academics and experts must be vigilant in correcting them.Critics argue that Wikipedia's open nature and a lack of proper sources for most of the information makes it unreliable. Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia may be reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not clear. Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project's utility and status as an encyclopedia.--> </span></body>
</html>
--4e77f181c6c1e75f7be53813b4e8e6e331da40f0--
