While I completely agree with your argument, I looked up "Irregardless" in the book with all the words in it. It was there. Its definition was one word: regardless.

This post reminds me of a joke I probably heard on PHC.

An English professor was giving a lecture to a group of students when the topic of double negatives came up. He stated that using two negatives did, in fact, changes the context to a positive. Her then went on to say that this did not work with positives. "A double positive never makes a negative," he said.

From the back of the hall, a student could be heard saying, "Yeah... right."

What drives me crazy is "should have went" -or should "of"... past participle vs. past tense - do you say, "I should have was there"? No. You say, "I should have been there"... grrrrr....

I had 2 college science professors that used the word irregardless. To each I discreetly and anonymously left a note on their desks after class explaining the mistake.and why. I didn't hear it used after that but saw the educators eyes scanning the class for possible candidates. I have heard supposably instead of supposedly quite often. How about nuculear instead of nuclear? Poor George W.

You always break words down into there different parts ie ir, re, gard, less. re=do it again, gard= keep safe by standing over something/one, lees= not as much. I don't know what ir means. the word basically means guard it again but not so much as in keep in the bath regardless of where you may have to be or how cold it's getting. regardless means whatever happens your going to do the same thing your doing. not bad for a dyslexic.

Let us start a grammar war, ? First rule, . Do not use abbreviations,