Return-path: <54835-93744-396881-13486-llg+2Dboard=lojban.org@mail.grasp.za.com> Envelope-to: llg-board@lojban.org Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 06:19:48 -0700 Received: from [157.52.232.125] (port=55828 helo=giga.grasp.za.com) by d7893716a6e6 with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <54835-93744-396881-13486-llg+2Dboard=lojban.org@mail.grasp.za.com>) id 1oP1uc-001r9k-Kx for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 06:19:48 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=k1; d=grasp.za.com; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Message-ID; i=MosquitoLightBulbs@grasp.za.com; bh=0mvP+uP62C+AWDtegx4N6WXqT58=; b=MaHmeN6hoged1S6NyGb0If89wX0ZyEDXH9PXIngWrCbv4EVRhAPaI63eWEBSLjoiFfXavz7lDKB3 awR5m+foQoUYaj0Qag6u7ulYA8M7x8Cy54/xnK1Uy5wIPeehIKTpJgdJFvQmdQNbaxB0T+5vYtVw nC6fAKYkOUn5DA1MrWA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=k1; d=grasp.za.com; b=b29EhC9WIXeIFY0xcmYt31UL3Yp+gU2LgxCzAP/tx45kUnhq5Mj/AjZVSd/vwcRm/iSZp/Snzvzs OJrqYagjc+od+YtmEkoopK8+E8gkPArRa30Pp9qSuWKuNQi1qObX4ioxc1ST/vqZm0MloSboXhiA JnbvCzJVAD9NWlPVtLQ=; Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="d92d704817fbb9bd46ce116b8e1d2829_16e30_60e51" Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 08:30:54 -0400 From: "Mosquito Light Bulb" Reply-To: "Bug-Free Bliss" Subject: Best Option For Summer To: Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.3 X-Spam_score_int: 3 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "f6db9eef8881", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Best Option For Summer http://grasp.za.com/psmsCM2VhdKZzoOdMmhW8OM2GqQLVM1xCW4iCFAauHCnouJadg http://grasp.za.com/A39dpppYKJ9oCDbn4M-tI0WU5_uI0RL2uKm9uHo9nHmVHtaknQ Content analysis details: (0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5143] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: grasp.za.com] 1.2 URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the ABUSE SURBL blocklist [URIs: grasp.za.com] 2.7 RCVD_IN_PSBL RBL: Received via a relay in PSBL [157.52.232.125 listed in psbl.surriel.com] -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, high trust [157.52.232.125 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST BODY: HTML font color similar or identical to background 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS --d92d704817fbb9bd46ce116b8e1d2829_16e30_60e51 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Best Option For Summer http://grasp.za.com/psmsCM2VhdKZzoOdMmhW8OM2GqQLVM1xCW4iCFAauHCnouJadg http://grasp.za.com/A39dpppYKJ9oCDbn4M-tI0WU5_uI0RL2uKm9uHo9nHmVHtaknQ nfirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased. A team at Stanford University conducted an experiment involving participants who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against it. Each participant read descriptions of two studies: a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the participants were asked whether their opinions had changed. Then, they read a more detailed account of each study's procedure and had to rate whether the research was well-conducted and convincing. In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the participants were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other participants the conclusions were swapped. The participants, whether supporters or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Participants described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways. Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death p --d92d704817fbb9bd46ce116b8e1d2829_16e30_60e51 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Newsletter
 
The perfect portable Bug Bulb that is taking the US by storm



This portable and rechargeable Bug Bulb specially designed for use in gardens, indoor areas, or on camping trips, eating outside with the family, or hosting a barbecue with friends.
 
Enjoy a mosquito-free summer





 
nfirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased. A team at Stanford University conducted an experiment involving participants who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against it. Each participant read descriptions of two studies: a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the participants were asked whether their opinions had changed. Then, they read a more detailed account of each study's procedure and had to rate whether the research was well-conducted and convincing. In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the participants were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other participants the conclusions were swapped. The participants, whether supporters or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Participants described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways. Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death p









--d92d704817fbb9bd46ce116b8e1d2829_16e30_60e51--