I read that as:
'cause you know just what they say
Of which, only 'they' was wrong. Doesn't seem that unreadable.
'cause you know just what they say
Of which, only 'they' was wrong. Doesn't seem that unreadable.
To you, maybe not. But my point was that myself (specifically) and many others who aren't as comfortable with the written English language would find that text impossible to parse compared to other human-readable obfuscation techniques.
In my case I am dyslexic. I don't like disclosing that as I try my best not to let it affect me (I don't see it as an excuse, I see it as a weakness I need to try harder at - but that's a digression). If I struggled then I would bet that a lot of others who equally have to work harder at reading would struggle to read that as well.
Again, to you specifically. Different people have differing abilities at reading the English language. What you might find easy others would not. In my case I could not read about 80% of the example text. Which was why I made the point to discuss specific people (like myself) in my example rather than assuming everyone would be able to read that text equally competently (like you are doing).
So your comment would translate to:
>A high, high percentage o--- the translated text is e--- readable. A few edge c--- don't make it unreadable.
Does that make this scheme okay? It's 80% easily readable!