Irregardless of the facts....

So while we are talking about people using words that really aren't words, let's discuss irregardless, as in :
Irregardless of what they thought, "irregardless" is NOT a word.

Probably it is a hybrid of irrespective, meaning "in spite of everything" and regardless, which means the same.

This can easily segue our conversation into the descriptive and prescriptive way our language grows. As Xan mentioned in comments from yesterday's discussion about alright, the language is ever changing. A descriptive linguist is concerned about how language is actually spoken and used, while a prescriptive linguist would be more concerned with the rules and codex of grammar and syntax and how it is being used.
So a prescriptive linguist would claim, "No! Irregardless is not a word! It uses a double negative pairing of the prefix Ir-(meaning not) and the suffix -less (meaning, you guessed it, without). " Of course, I am sure that a linguist would explain it much better, but you get the basic idea.
And we all remember about double negatives, right? They cross each other out like some mathematical term. So the saying "We don't need need no education," in the famous Pink Floyd song is really saying they don't need "no education," meaning they need education.
Clear as mud?

Now I do not have an OED (Oxford English Dictionary) to check with, but according to wikipedia, American Heritage (1991), Websters (2004), and Merriam-Webster all recommend to use regardless instead. And since I don't particularly care about irregardless, I guess I will just ditch it.