Ah-ha! The light comes on...
but I still think one of us is mis-reading the node in question -- either by reading something into it (you) or failing to see a blind spot in leuchuk's understanding of short-circuiting (me).

Quoting what seem to me to be the relevant lines:

"As soon as the script has found the first vowel the script would continue with the next vowel but if the vowel wasn't found it would stop the whole search as it's not interesting whether the other vowels are in the string."

1. Thru "the next vowel" is irrelevant to our disagreement.
2. beginning with "but if..." thru "the whole search" - while your supposition about leuchuk's understanding of the operation of "and-ed ifs" may be accurate, I don't see any strong reason for that supposition. Consider, if you will, this pseudocode paraphrase of the the "but if ...the whole search" component of that clause:

   if (some vowel ! found ) {
       exit;
   }
   [download]

The end of that sentence, "as it's not interesting whether the other vowels are in the string", seems to me to be no more or less than a second restatement of OP's spec -- all five vowels -- attributed by leuchuk at this point to "the script" he's talking about.

I hate to invoke a pro sports rule, but it seems to fit here: if the instant replay fails to show incontrovertible evidence that the call on the field was wrong, the call stands. Stretching the parallel almost to the breaking point, I think you've superimposed a supposition -- possible but unproven, to me -- over the replay.