[lmkg]

What's more off-putting is the up-front refusal to use a spellcheck. It means that he's aware he has a problem and refuses to fix it.

If there were more of an explanation, it might endear me to the guy. If he dug into some of the haphazard history of English spelling conventions and refused to adhere to illogical paradigms, I'd give him credit. If he mentioned something from communications theory, I'd give him a pass. But the explicit statement that "my idiosyncrasies are higher priority than your user experience" is not a good statement to make. It's a significantly worse impression than a simple typo, and a stronger one because it's intentional instead of an oversight.

[bmm6o]

Totally with you, though I might not find intentional misspellings as endearing as you. I'll add to your list that I can cut a lot of slack to non-native speakers.

But his situation is even worse than you say: He's aware that he has a problem, and he's also aware of the existence of a virtually effortless, automatic solution to this problem. Even if it only makes his writing 1% clearer, isn't it a free 1%?

If his site were ugly, and he apologized for not being a better designer, then ok, I can understand that. There's a slight barrier to having an aesthetically appealing site. But it's 2009 - what is he composing in that doesn't have automatic spellcheck? The contents of this very text box are being checked for spelling.

(I'll avoid commenting on the phrase "deal with it"; maybe it was funnier in his head.)