Got this from a thoughtful friend from my former church ...
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteesr are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro
Posted by sivinkit at September 17, 2003 08:11 AMThis is EXACTLY how Kirsten reads! Mind you, I thought it very fluent 'two'- Us adults think we're a bit too smart sumtimes, huh?!
Posted by: Sigrun at September 17, 2003 05:47 PMSigrun is right. I guess this is why i don't really bother some of the spelling. You want surface stuff of deeper things. Men still concern the form that practise.
Posted by: Frill at September 18, 2003 11:22 AMai yo yo .... but good spelling is easier to read. And a different spelling and punctuation brings out different meaning. For example:
"Nowhere" is different from "Now here." Or "Nowhere!" is different from "Nowhere?". "of" is different from "or". The point proven here is that we look in wholes more than in parts not that "spelling" is not important.
That is why we must look beyond the surface because that's focusing on "parts" and not the whole. That is why an emphasis on "practice" over mere forms is also a more "wholistic" way of looking at life. In this sense, Frill is definately sizzling ... RIGHT.
Posted by: Aiyo at September 18, 2003 06:12 PM