From fork-admin@xent.com  Thu Sep 12 21:21:39 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C7E16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:21:39 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:21:39 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CJGPC12159 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:16:25 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id D1C992940A6; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@example.com
Received: from localhost.localdomain (pm1-38.sba1.netlojix.net
    [207.71.218.86]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8A429409A for
    <fork@xent.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dave@localhost) by maltesecat (8.8.7/8.8.7a) id MAA07568;
    Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:22:41 -0700
Message-Id: <200209121922.MAA07568@maltesecat>
To: fork@example.com
Subject: dylsexics of the wrold, untie!
From: Dave Long <dl@silcom.com>
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@example.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:22:40 -0700
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 required=7.0
	tests=AWL,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
	version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 


> (and no it wasnt me even though the spellingis
> oddly familar)

Not that this is news to FoRKs, but:

<http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000393.html>

> ... randomising letters in the middle of words [has] little or no
> effect on the ability of skilled readers to understand the text. This
> is easy to denmtrasote. In a pubiltacion of New Scnieitst you could
> ramdinose all the letetrs, keipeng the first two and last two the same,
> and reibadailty would hadrly be aftcfeed. My ansaylis did not come
> to much beucase the thoery at the time was for shape and senqeuce
> retigcionon.  Saberi's work sugsegts we may have some pofrweul palrlael
> prsooscers at work. The resaon for this is suerly that idnetiyfing
> coentnt by paarllel prseocsing speeds up regnicoiton. We only need
> the first and last two letetrs to spot chganes in meniang.

-Dave