It's consistent with their policy of allowing words to be defined by the way they're used.

It seems to follow the sloppy trend that if something is used often enough, then it's a word. That seems an awfully loose criterion. (Plus, that word really grates on me.)

NO!!!!! Ugh!!!!

I do understand that language evolves. Really, I do! But, bloody hell, that doesn't mean that atrocities like this should be allowed.

Language should evolve to encompass new ideas. "Web," for example, has expanded its meaning beyond physical structures, and even beyond its old metaphorical meaning ("what a tangled web we weave..." ). I'm cool with that (see? The word "cool" has evolved, too.)

But "irregardless" isn't a word to express a new idea. It isn't metaphorical. It's just sloppy.

Because it's now in the dictionary does in no way mean I have to use it. I am far more likely to use 'pandiculation' in everyday speech than that. If they should so much as hint that it should be used, they'll be faced with one fine donnybrook with this lad.

One of a multitude of the things that make death welcome