Using this line of reasoning can help to justify ‘irregardless’ as a word. An illogical double-negative of a word, but a word nonetheless. Use it all you want…I’m just gonna jam the fingers of my left hand into my left ear and call you an asshole behind your back.

from Merriam-Webster (excessive quotation marks are theirs):

“Combustible” and “incombustible” are opposites, but “flammable” and “inflammable” are synonyms. Why? The “in-” of “incombustible” is a common prefix meaning “not,” whereas the “in-” of “inflammable” means “in” or “into.” Dating back to 1605, “inflammable” descends from the Latin inflammare (“to inflame”), combining the in- prefix with flammare (“to flame”). “Flammable” also comes from flammare, but didn’t enter English until 1813. In the early 20th century, firefighters worried that people might think “inflammable” meant “not able to catch fire,” so they adopted “flammable” and “nonflammable” as official safety labels and encouraged their use to prevent confusion. In general use, “flammable” is now the preferred termed for describing things that can catch fire, but “inflammable” is still occasionally used as well.

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

So @Limey, I consider that you have blundered. In a blizzard. Blimey!