Apologist Fodder For Grammatical Relativism?

You've probably seen this clever gobbledegook floating about:

AOCDRNDICG TO RSCHEEARCH AT CMABRIGDE UINERVTISY, IT DSENO'T MTAETR WAHT OERDR THE LTTERES IN A WROD ARE, THE OLNY IPROAMTNT TIHNG IS TAHT THE FRSIT AND LSAT LTTEER BE IN THE RGHIT PCLAE. TIHS IS BCUSEAE THE HUAMN MNID DEOS NOT RAED ERVEY LTETER BY ISTLEF, BUT THE WROD AS A WLOHE. IF YOU CAN RAED TIHS, PSOT IT TO YUOR WLAL. OLNY 55% OF PLEPOE CAN

Although it does work, you can read it and thus is sort of a fascinating little bit of trivia, I've always felt resentment at this paragraph because it seems to offer philosophical fodder to the lazy apologists for bad spelling that always creep out of the internet's woodwork. I know that probably isn't the intention of the person re-posting the paragraph, nor is it the intention of the research (assuming it is real research, but it doesn't especially matter) but it nevertheless has always stuck in my craw.

Maybe what bothers me is that the paragraph promotes the idea that the end justifies the means. Or maybe that what's on the outside is what counts, not the what's inside, the content. It forsakes true integrity for an illusion which our brains are still able to decode. That is often what happens with careless spelling, even with the most vulgar violations of language (i.e. YouTube comments) the painful truth is that often you CAN read it and understand it. But is that what's important? Does the end truly justify the means?

Luckily to spell in this manner would require even more work than it would take for bad spellers to correct their work. (I am not sure what the pattern is, but I think it must be a script you run with a Regular Expressions find\replace—something I regrettably never fully got the hang of) So there's no real danger of people feeling they can somehow relax and only put the first and last letters in the right place when they write; but I can see how it could be trotted out as a "Ha-Ha-You-Suck-For-Correcting-Me" insult by the ignorant-and-proud bad speller.

Each word in the paragraph is spelled wrong, but it becomes a code which can be translated with near-equal speed. Perhaps since there is a more regular pattern to the errors than there are in casual use spelling mistakes our brains are able to more easily apply a "noise correction" filter to the incoming data.

As of yet I have not heard anyone actually use the paragraph as an apology for their own errors, so this may all be wild projection on my part, but it is something I have worried about. The world is full of errors and so it can be painful to see error celebrated with a casual cheeriness in e-mail forwards.