An item going around the web claims that:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are... the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer  be at the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

For a second or two, I thought it was interesting. I immediately realized that words up to three letters would not be altered and was on my way to taking the item seriously (it was presented that way). But my usual skepticism took over, and I tried scrambling a sentence I made up, following the same rules, both those stated and one given by example. Words begin and end with their usual letters, capitalization is preserved, and "the rest can be a total mess". Actually, in the web's example, the words are not rearranged randomly, but sometimes left in an order that makes reading easier. In my example, I mixed up the letters at my evil pleasure, though trying to still leave them pronounceable (For example: uplnbcnnreaouoe is an unpronounceable -- and nearly undecipherable -- legal rearrangement of "unpronouceable". In the hoax, it might have been written "unaproonunceble" so that you could recognize it) .

So here is my meaningful English sentence, scrambled according to the rules. Is it readable? Can you figure it out without using an anagram program?

I was teird and steecennd in Adtasmerm for cemris ctetmoimd three.