Of course it is!  Robbie wrote:

> I remember muttering that the spell-checker didn't have the word in
> its dictionary; I should have checked the _big_ book.  It might tell
> me to use 'regardless' or 'irrespective'.
>
> Thank you for writing, my friends, for otherwise I wouldn't learn !

Don't be so quick to give it up, Robbie.  The dictionary is a valuable
road map -- to the language we used years ago.  It does not, cannot, and
never will, reflect the actual usage of the language as it is spoken
today.  Most dictionaries still don't define "wicked" as a synonym for
"extremely" despite the fact the word has been used in that sense by an
entire generation, for example.  The usage is not "wrong" it is merely
"non-standard."

While it might be valuable to stick to standard English for formal
presentations, newspaper writing, news writing, and so on (I find it
hard to imagine Peter Jennings reporting a "wicked trade deficit" for
example) the MMD list is a much less formal venue - and the mechanical
music world is full of informal, idiosyncratic people, who have their
own unique and colorful way of expressing themselves.

There's not a one of us who doesn't know what "irregardless" means.
So what if it's a double-negative?  Grammarians have been complaining
about those since some ape-child grunted "ain't not gonna go" and it
is _still_ used as means of emphasis by people in all languages
everywhere.  The idea of the double-negative inverting something is
crucial in math, but that doesn't mean it should mean that in everyday
speech.  That would be like complaining about someone "adding" to
someone else's post because they aren't doing any addition they are
merely "concatenating" words.  It's too pedantic to worry about.

Speak in whatever way you feel can communicate your idea.  Some of the
usages will not last, but some of them will.  I predict you will find
"irregardless" in _some_ dictionary before the next century gets into
double digits.

regards,
Larry Smith