>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 itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.
>
>Now the qeutsion is: Deos tihs porof taht we are mroe itelnliegnt tahn the vusial forprxo iptenrreetr?

Now how many times do I have to debunk this? The jumbling is done by a native (you act as one at the moment :), so he doesn't jumble this properly. Try "irnomeptt" instead of "iprmoetnt" (i.e. break the "nt" group which is too common), "urientisvy" instead of "uinervtisy", "rhesreccah" instead of "rscheearch" (break the ch!), "iglennelitt" instead of "itelnliegnt" (break the nt!) and all the supposed "it doesn't matter in which order the characters are" goes out the window. OK, not quite, because the words in English are so short on the average that too many of them are still recognizable no matter which permutation of the inner characters you apply.

This is the third and probably not the last time I'm doing this (three is not any kind of magical number - it's just so in Csiarittinhy and Jiusadm...).