Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro

It is so wired, I had no prboelms reandig it at all.

yuor sotp on :D

Bzrraie

vrey cveelr, smoe wrods wlil ctcah you out tohugh, be crafleul!!

Pnuates

</bandwagon>

It's true - that was very easy to read. :)

It looks no different from quite a few posts on here TBH :D

But true, amazing, even as a furriner I can read it just as fast.

fcuknig hlel its ture!

Dmiaan666

Looked like a regular post to me?

Doh! Too slow....I'll get me coat!

lol, cnat do mcuh wtih lol tohugh!!

myabe mesos uess taht tehcinuqe!!!

BB:)

I wonder if you are dyslexic, you put all the letters in the correct place?

vrey fnnuy.:)

in that case fkcunig psisnig bloclkos teho selmls :D

Si

This is exactly why you can't spot your own typos. When you know what word comes next, you look in even less detail.

waht Ptee?? :confused: Can you tpye taht perroply paesle!


;)

Blluckos !!

LOL :D

I saw that Si ! :eek:

Hadgnabs at dwan ! ;)

interesting (sorry to be boring, but it is ;) )

Yes I could read that fine :confused: :D

tttb

Theo

I was just making sure your awake ;) :D

Si

Aye ! :D

Read that better than normal!

Dazza -- not sure you're getting the concept of "the first and last letter must be correct" :rolleyes:

Dracoro - M8 - I have no idea what youare on about, but I know that your spellchecker is fooked :D

LOL @ FB :D

No, i tinhk he cmomneetd the fsrit time it was pstoed. ;) :rolleyes: ;)

I agree with Chiark.

Les :cool:

Iltnsegnetiry I'm sdutynig tihs crsrootaivnel pnoheenmon at the Dptmnearet of Liuniigctss at Absytrytewh Uivsreitny and my exartrnairdoy doisiervecs waleoetderhlhy cndairotct the picsbeliud fdnngiis rrgdinaeg the rtlvaeie dfuictlify of ialtnstny ttalrisanng steennces. My rsceeerhars deplveeod a cnionevent ctnoiaptorn at hnasoa/tw.nartswdbvweos/utrtep:k./il taht dosnatterems that the hhpsteyios uuiqelny wrtaarns criieltidby if the aoussmpitn that the prreoecandpne of your wrods is not eendetxd is uueniqtolnabse. Aoilegpos for aidnoptg a cdocianorttry vwpiienot but, ttoheliacrley spkeaing, lgitehnneng the words can mnartafucue an iocnuurgons samenttet that is vlrtiauly isbpilechmoenrne.

Or, if you prefer...

Interestingly I'm studying this controversial phenomenon at the Department of Linguistics at Aberystwyth University and my extraordinary discoveries wholeheartedly contradict the publicised findings regarding the relative difficulty of instantly translating sentences. My researchers developed a convenient contraption at http://www.aardvarkbusiness.net/tool that demonstrates that the hypothesis uniquely warrants credibility if the assumption that the preponderance of your words is not extended is unquestionable. Apologies for adopting a contradictory viewpoint but, theoretically speaking, lengthening the words can manufacture an incongruous statement that is virtually incomprehensible. :)

The above is what i got in reply from a mate

[Edited by Avi - 9/24/2003 3:10:28 PM]