Hmm, I figured I'd revisit Eddy's little cryptogram here since I made a few mistakes in my initial analysis. Probably my biggest was I analysed all of the text given, even though only the letters were enciphered. (The spacing and punctuation threw my analysis off). So, I went and stripped that stuff out and tried again, just to see if I'd get better results.
Anyways, first lets see how it was probably done.
It seems a Mono Alphabetic Single Substitution Cipher was applied to the plaintext with the following (partial) key: "lusc ygdi kamnfb rvtopw he". Note that I have left spaces in it where certain letters could not be determined. The reason for that is simply that they weren't ever used, so there is no information on them. Than and you can assign them to be anything and it'll work.
After that, the letters were cyclically shifted based on their position (ignoring spacing and punctuation). I used the following code to undo it, and then the result is subject to the same analysis as any plain old mono alphabetic single substitution cipher. (I really need an abbreviation for that, don't I?)
Dim i As Long
Dim shift As Long
Dim asciiCode As Long
For i = 1 To Len(strText)
asciiCode = Asc(Mid$(strText, i, 1))
If asciiCode >= 65 And asciiCode <= 90 Then
asciiCode = (asciiCode - 65 - shift) Mod 26
shift = shift + 1
If asciiCode < 0 Then asciiCode = asciiCode + 26
Mid$(strText, i, 1) = Chr$(asciiCode + 65)
End If
Next i
Note that the shift is only updated for alphabetic characters.
So in all, the result is a Poly Alphabetic Single Substitution Cipher, with 26 alphabets. (Just cyclical shifts of the same one).
Anyways, when I tried to resolve the number of alphabets again (assuming poly alphabetic encipherment), I found a fairly large spike in probability at 26 alphabets. It still only suggested that about 30% of the alphabets represented mono alphabetically enciphered text, so I may have missed this. But then, the next highest was about 7%, and I was kinda expecting 26 to begin with from Eddy's early description. But of course, I'd already figured it out by the time I ran this test properly, so I guess none of this really matters.
Btw, the test was just a simple statistics measure of the amount of variation in the characters used. In random text, you'd expect abotu equal usage of all letters, but in English text, you'd expect some characters to appear much more frequently than others, like the letter "e".
So, now that I've stopped being dumb about analysing the whole thing like it was encrypted, maybe I'll actually get somewhere on Eddy's new challenge. :)