By the way Z, was the subject on this supposed to be "Splendor" of Ra, rather than "Slendor"?? :) (actually I didn't even notice this until having see it several times - well the first letter and last letter of the word are right.................so that means we can see it right, even when spelled wrong!!) :))
Fixed Getting old :P I will zap these posts in a bit But yes spelling is not required for an intelligent mind
Notice to Spelling and Grammar Nazi's... Bet you can't read this!
(http://www.therevival.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/can_you_read_this.png)
I can read it and I'm a spelling Nazi. ;D
Well, not really a Nazi, but I was thinking about sending you a message asking about that thread's title. ;)
Yep, I read it just fine! I probably do read a bit slower with it, but not much.
but I was thinking about sending you a message asking about that thread's title. ;)
yeah...me two... I'm a knitpicin perfect sionist sum daze.. but no Nazi... ~ fix it weasel.!!!!! :P
olde news that.. we can all read it
I learnt a new word for that by asking what's it called.. ;D
it's called T Y P O G L Y C E M I A
Typoglycemia is a neologism given to a purported recent discovery about the cognitive processes behind reading written text. The word appears to be a portmanteau of "typo", as in typographical error, and "hypoglycemia". It is an urban legend/Internet meme that appears to have an element of truth to it.[citation needed]
The legend, propagated by email and message boards, purportedly demonstrates that readers can understand the meaning of words in a sentence even when the interior letters of each word are scrambled. As long as all the necessary letters are present, and the first and last letters remain the same, readers appear to have little trouble reading the text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia
and of course.. tmi....bwhahahahahahahahah
However, the following example based on the same principle, but where all the letters are reversed rather than randomly jumbled, is much more difficult to read:
Original text
"Anidroccg to crad–cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."
Intended message
"According to card-carrying linguistics professionals at an unnamed university in British Columbia, and contrary to the dubious claims of the uncited research, a simple, mechanical inversion of internal characters appears sufficient to confuse the everyday onlooker."
No such research was carried out at Cambridge University.[citation needed] The creation of such email messages started with a letter to the New Scientist magazine from Graham Rawlinson of Nottingham University in which he discusses his Ph.D. thesis, suggesting to keep two first and final letters of each word:
Original text
"In a puiltacibon 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."
Intended message
"In a publication of New Scientist you could randomise all the letters, keeping the first two and last two the same, and readability would hardly be affected. My analysis did not come to much because the theory at the time was for shape and sequence recognition. Saberi's work suggests we may have some powerful parallel processors at work. The reason for this is surely that identifying content by parallel processing speeds up recognition. We only need the first and last two letters to spot changes in meaning."
Quote from: ArMaP on February 14, 2015, 10:10:53 PM
I can read it and I'm a spelling Nazi. ;D
Well, not really a Nazi, but I was thinking about sending you a message asking about that thread's title. ;)
ArMaP, I am a little surprised that a "true" skeptic mind could actually read anything like this. One would think that the skeptic mind's need for straight lines and everything true and in its place to be seen would simply cause it to reject the abnormality of this such like!! :))
Quote from: rdunk on February 14, 2015, 11:49:33 PM
ArMaP, I am a little surprised that a "true" skeptic mind could actually read anything like this. One would think that the skeptic mind's need for straight lines and everything true and in its place to be seen would simply cause it to reject the abnormality of this such like!! :))
Well, that only shows that you have the wrong idea about what a sceptic mind is. :)
In fact, a sceptic mind may even help in a situation in which other people would dismiss that text because they couldn't read it a first or accept it blindly, while a sceptic mind thinks "is that really true? If it is I should be able to read it" and tries to do it.
Also, as someone that did "worked" (it was a voluntary thing) as proofreader for Project Gutenberg, reading texts resulting from OCRed pages, I am used to try to make sense of words with wrong letters.
PS: I think "soundex" works on a similar principle, that the consonants are what we use as references to how the words are read, but it doesn't work in Portuguese, so I never used it. :)
PPS: I use mostly Opera, and it has a spell-checker. Before I sometimes used Word to write without spelling errors. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on February 14, 2015, 10:10:53 PM
Well, not really a Nazi, but I was thinking about sending you a message asking about that thread's title. ;)
You have the Mystical POWER of spell edit :P Use it wisely Grasshopper