This is a Title

And then he spelt weiner incorrectly and we all had a good laugh.

I know this doesn't have anything to do with spellchecking but I just thought this place needed a post :)

It's tomorrow, Ev, not tomorow! Sigh. Ev frustrates me sometimes with his spelling. Still I'd give him one kiss if I could ;)

From megnut:

"If you're like me and effected [sic!] by the DSL outage that killed Matt's nameserver and is making it impossible for you to access MetaFilter, you can also be like me and access MetaFilter by its IP address until the DNS issue is resolved: http://209.10.108.201/."

If Meg would replace effected with affected, I think the web would be quite grateful.

Harlan, Harlan, Harlan. Tsk, tsk, tsk!
"Apparenlty, getting hit by that stuff stings. Other objects thrown on stage included women's underwear and beach balls."

Apparently Harlan doesn't spell-check :)

Ev made plenty of spelling mistakes in Status.Blogger.Com. I won't even begin to list them, but I forgive him. He's working hard to keep us happy. But still, he should've taken advantage of the new spellchecker feature in Blogger, especially since he was the one who added that feature.

"Weblography.com - Comming Soon."

This kind of spelling error never fails to amuse me :)

From the brat pack:

"click on one of our name's and learn more about us, bitchin ladies."

Okay, I have a massive grudge against people who don't understand apostrophes. An apostrophe followed by the letter S denotes the possessive. This is a simple concept. Keeping that in mind, the above makes absolutely no sense. What belongs to the subject "our name"? I don't understand! I'm so confused! Ah, maybe the apostrophe that should have followed the N in "bitchin" (since the G was truncated) somehow migrated to the the middle of the word "names." As a minor note, I'm also not sure about the placement of the comma following "us," though it would make sense if the readers were being addressed as "bitchin ladies." Anyhow, other errors abound, but they're all in Silkscreen font, which isn't meant to be legible in large blocks of text, and I don't need any more eyestrain today. This one may be a lost cause, though, seeing as the brats, *ahem* "don't give a flying fuck if you're offended in any way," and apparently whether you like it or not, "you will respect what [the brats] have to say." Oh, and "if you dare mess with one of [the brats], you will suffer the consequences." Really, can we suffer any more?

While the misspelling in the previous entry ("opporating" from megnut) has been corrected, still more nits remain to be picked -- The sentence, "I wonder if I've been operating under that same assumption?" is a statement, not a question, and as such should end in a period. Period.

From megnut:

"I noticed yesterday that all the permalink "dates" have been using a numeric scheme based on the assumption that the year is 2000, not 2001 (e.g. 20000627). I wonder if I've been opporating [sic!] under that same assumption?"

Uh, "opporating"? [Fixed. Mission accomplished.]

Ok, so I didn't find this misspelling in a weblog (and we're supposed to blog only misspellings found in weblogs, but I was the one who made that rule so what the heck), but this has been bugging me for quite some time now: "Forward by Jeffrey Zeldman". Huh? Isn't it supposed to be "Foreword by Jeffrey Zeldman"?