Full Article Attached MS Remedy Poll Now Up

Friday March 5th, 1999

We received a great response to our call for remedies to Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Thanks to all who participated! We at first thought that choosing 10 remedies from the many we received would be impossible, but we found that many fell into one of about 8 or nine categories. So, we decided to abstract those categories out and use their basic ideas for our poll. Some of the choices may not be clear from the sentence provided. For that reason, we have provided a brief summary of the choices available. Just click "Full Article" below.

#5 Re: Irregardless nonsense

by mozineAdmin

Saturday March 6th, 1999 2:26 PM

You are replying to this message

To those of you who think that "irregardless" is not a word, I refer you to


and Merriam-Webster's site:


Please look at the etymology of the word.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), defines it as "a blend of irrespective and regardless".

Whether you like the word or not, there it is. It's in common use, and there's even an Irregardless Cafe in Raleigh, NC


The University of Victoria states that there is no such word, but who really gives a damn what they think?


Many style guides warn against its usage, and curiously I see no indication that any have used the etymology to create a more precise definition for the word.

I personally don't consider "irregardless" a double negative. Rather, I feel that the dual-negativity in "irregardless" acts as a reinforcement instead of a cancellation. Redundant, maybe, but I'm not too concerned. It's interesting to note that some style guides call it a double-negative, and others a redundancy. The word has been in use since 1912, and you would think there would be some consensus on the word's usage.

Jack Lynch's style guide states that "irregardless" is not a word to use in respectable company. Need I say more? :)