Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:47, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

so it's like regardless but stronger?

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:49, Reply)

No, it's like "regardless", but not a word.

( Kroney, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:50, Reply)

stronger for bent spastics with no grasp of English
(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:50, Reply)

I had a grasp of your mum;s tits last night

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:52, Reply)

Doubtful. They're not much of a handful.

(Reverend Fister "a disciplined fuckwit", Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:53, Reply)

i was using my teeth

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:54, Reply)

Same as 'inflammable' then?

( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 15:05, Reply)

No
The words inflammable and flammable both have the same meaning, ‘easily set on fire’. This might seem surprising, given that the prefix in- normally has a negative meaning (as in indirect and insufficient), and so it might be expected that inflammable would mean the opposite of flammable, i.e. ‘not easily set on fire’.
In fact, inflammable is formed using a different Latin prefix in-, which has the meaning ‘into’ and here has the effect of intensifying the meaning of the word in English.
Flammable is a far commoner word than inflammable and carries less risk of confusion.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Tue 25 Jun 2013, 15:07, Reply)