Curious?

I just have to comment on this.
After I had finishd my previous post, I used the "spellchecker" to ensure I hadn't made any spelling boo-boos.
It highlighted one word which surprised me.
Blogger spellcheck does not recognise blog as a word.  You'd think it would, or would you?

Perhaps this is a good idea?

This story is on the web news today.
I think it may be a good idea. Some people are too lazy to spell correctly.
There are at least three colleagues who work where I do constantly spell "bear" wrong. They send out whole staff e-mails asking the whole staff to "bare with" them. I think we might get into trouble if we follow the literal translation of that particular "bare".
That is not the only word that is repeatedly muddled, the many variations of to, which and there are other victims of poor spellers.
Also many people put too much trust in spellcheckers, which are often set to US English.

A bit of a mistake!

Here is a very good reason NEVER to trust the spellchecker on a PC. :)
Surely human proof readers should be used to spot mistakes like the one in the story. The article implies that human proof readers have been used, but reliance on final proof reading has been left with the PC.
A spellchecker only checks the spelling of the words, and the grammar. What it doesn't check is if the word is the correct one, PCs don't think for themselves. Just try it.
If you put in "it was reigning cats and dogs" the spellchecker would not query it as all the words are spelt correctly, but the wrong word has been used.