You tried to find humour on Planet Xexyl but it seems your American spelling has finally failed you. What you'll find is that many American words that end in -or are attempts to make the spelling match the sound of the word (and also to simplify the language). Take the following list of words, for example:
... and compare them to the following:
The theory is that the words, when pronounced correctly, sound more like the spelling of the first list. But unfortunately, the theory is flawed because the 'sound it out' advice (for determining the spelling of a word) is also flawed. There are many, many words where this is obvious. For instance, ewe is pronounced 'you' (perhaps with a very slight difference that is barely audible?) but you wouldn't know that by the spelling, would you? Of course not - that would be 'you' as I just noted. But yet, I seldom (if ever) hear the above words pronounced with an '-or' sounding like you might hear in words rhyming with 'lore'. Instead, I hear '-er' as if it rhymes with 'her'. The question then, is whether or not Noah Webster (the lexicographer that made many modifications of English to create American) would have been wise to have changed the spelling of the words to be:
Now it is interesting how theatre (or if you want, theater) actually already does this so we could ask why did we spell it theatre or theater? Maybe with the logic both countries should have it as theator? I don't think so but it does show how illogical language can be.
You could also ask whether country should be spelt instead as cuntree because if you were to truly pronounce country as you spell it it would be more like countree (that is say 'count' with the t rolling into tree) or perhaps cowntree (that is the first syllable rhymes with cow followed by the letter n and therefore like crown but without the r). And certainly cuntry (and even cuntree since America likes to have additional spellings), which is both rude and ironic, but it is still how it sounds but the fact of the matter is this:
The only thing that would have been wise is to keep the same fucking spelling and the same fucking words because language is used to communicate and what is communication without words? Now I fully admit that I don't hear every letter (or sound) quite correctly; indeed, I cannot follow what is said on TV or while watching a film unless I have subtitles on. While subtitles aren't perfect, it is a lot better than hearing nonsense because someone is speaking when another is speaking or someone says something at the same time an explosion goes off. Even worse is when the god damned background music is too loud in the background relative to the volume of everything else! So there is the chance I'm simply not hearing the words properly, but I don't think it is really relevant one way or another: The reality of the situation is that basing the spelling of words by how they sound is stupid idea to begin with! Many words sound very different from what you might expect from the spelling (as I highlight above when discussing 'country' versus 'cuntry' or even 'cuntree').
It is also worth considering that some 'words' have different spellings, each with their own meanings. These are called homonyms (although homophone might be more specific in this case). A good example: night and knight. Which is correct? That would depend on the context of the word, and context is only possible when you have more than the word itself. Otherwise, if I answer a question with the word 'Night' it would sound the exact same as 'Knight' and unless the question has enough context (and as long as I'm not answering in deliberately confusing way - beyond the obvious ambiguity already present with homonyms), it would be a guess as to which word I meant.
With all of this in mind, perhaps you should try humour.xexyl.net instead? Good luck to you in your future spelling endeavours (another example, you see); there are indeed many difficult situations caused by Americanisms (by which I simply mean American English).