muah
What parts of the internets is that from?
I thought it was "mwah." And the villainous laugh takes many forms, as anybody who has seen The Wild Bunch could tell you.
Questo รจ il bacio di Tosca!
(I should just write a macro for this comment.)
Mwahahaha or muahaha are both acceptable, but the fake kiss is mwah.
mwah 3.7M on Google.
muah 3.5 M in Google.
Muah seems to be the fav on myspace. So ogged's post is easily understandable.
Drymala, you think can just parachute in to disagree with me every six months, or what?
6: Yeah, newsflash: people on the internet can't spell.
"Mwah" is less ambiguous about the intended pronunciation, since it makes it clear that it's one syllable.
Is this related to Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss?
Or is it really a coded message about the bpl?
8: Mini-newsflash rejoinder: yes, choosing 'muah' is clueless, but understandable from ogged.
not the fake kiss
my niece kisses her palm and waives it towards camera, she is 14 mo
and it sounds like uba, u is more like oo, but shorter
"Mwah" is less ambiguous about the intended pronunciation, since it makes it clear that it's one syllable.
The "moo-ah" pronunciation is used frequently throughout Frank Zappa's recorded music, though it signifies neither a kiss nor a laugh.
9: Actually, I think "muah" gets across the quality of people cutely lengthening the "u" part. Like "moo-ah" but not in two distinct syllables.
That said, I think I would use "mwah" reflexively.
Also, there is no standardization of any kind for the evil-genius laugh. Often it's "bwa-ha-ha!"
17: I don't think so.
I never thought about it this way before, but BWAHAHAHA is not necessarily evil, just boisterous and possibly mocking. But with an M instead of a B it is evil.
Ned's point in 19 generalizes.
Men are evil, but ben is boisterous and possibly mocking.
boisterous is boisterous and possibly mocking, whereas moisterous is evil.
(Although by then, it was already old hat.)
Neither the post in 21 nor the post in 25 is making ogged's point, SEK.
This is actually pretty interesting from a phonetic perspective, since the sound in question here is a labialized labial, which is a very uncommon type of sound cross-linguistically.
Labialized labia don't necessarily make a sound, teo.
24 - Note the Revered Mother Gaius Helen Mwahahahaiam.
26: I'm contending the identity of the "we" of whom he speaks, ben. (And thinking it goes back even further, to BBS/warboarding days, but of all the things never to migrate online, somehow most never did.)
Labialized labia don't necessarily make a sound, teo.
But if they did...
I don't think "contend" works like that, SEK.
30: yeah it goes back to the late 80s at least.
some google counts:
mwahaha - 824K
muahaha - 1,660K
bwahaha - 794K
buahaha - 595K
Agree that 'm' has a more villainous overtone.
I don't think "contend" works like that, SEK.
So you say. But then again, you say a lot of things, don't you?
Agree that 'm' has a more villainous overtone.
Or so the bullahs would have you believe.
two of the funniest blogs i read are in my language
and the bloggers when want to show that they laugh mockingly write kkkk
Unfogged's blogroll needs an update. It should link to the two blogs mentioned in 37, among other changes.
but you won't understand and i can't translate :(
alas of course
but it might lead to other mongolians showing up in the unfogged comments. a valid goal in itself.
it has nothing to do with the korean spelling
e is redundant in my opinion
Unfogged's blogroll needs an update. It should link to the two blogs mentioned in 37...
...including Sifu's!
The blogroll does not need an update.
SEK has me confused now. Do I have a secret blog that's not on the blogroll?
We actually had a behind-the-scenes talk about updating the blogroll awhile back in which it transpired that there's a rule of sorts against adding the blog of anyone who comments regularly to it. I'm not so much comprehending of this rule, but given its existence, no one should feel unloved because their blog hasn't been added.
People who were on the blogroll before the existence of the rule are grandfathered in.
Come on, ben. Mark Schmitt hasn't posted anything in five months. "Agenda Bender" has posted six things since August. "Gummi" is "open to invited readers only". And Havrilevsky? Instapundit? No, no, no.
The blogroll is an artifactual record, not a tool for your amusement.
49: they just have to live with snippy mouseover text.
Actually I'd been surprised that EoTAW hadn't been adeed; guess I know why now.
Do I have a secret blog that's not on the blogroll?
Nobody reads my blog! That's me, damn it, I'm the one with the secret blog.
We actually had a behind-the-scenes talk about updating the blogroll awhile back in which it transpired that there's a rule of sorts against adding the blog of anyone who comments regularly to it.
I suppose anyone who wants to reader a regular commenter's blog can just click on their comments? Anyway, I just want my "Official Unfogged Stamp of Approval" shirt to be prescient instead of inscrutable.
wow, noone wants us around here, how pity
well, i won't tell them then
Actually I'd been surprised that EoTAW hadn't been added.
ogged's racist?
Well, at least remove Decembrist, since he's been a regular writer at the American PRospect blog for some time now.
The fact that unfogged's blogroll policy is not up for popular debate is one of the nicest things about this place.
Don't give in, bloggers.
The fact that unfogged's blogroll policy is not up for popular debate is one of the nicest things about this place.
So says the woman without a blogroll anymore. You A-listers are oppressing the little people. You think you can just keep us barefoot, pregnant and unread, don't you?
EotAW doesn't even have a blogroll.
They don't know how to make one. For months their comments were on the wrong posts.
UNfosgdged's blogroll is good because it contains a small number of blogs, such that somebody thinking "maybe I'll look at something new for a change, what other blogs are out there?" is not overwhelmed. Blogrolls are mostly useless anyway, at least as a way for bloggers to get new readers. But ones listing 200 different sites are especially useless.
For months their comments were on the wrong posts.
Did they ever get that fixed? I haven't noticed it lately, but then I never noticed it much when other people were complaining about it either.
60: I feel kind of bad about the no-blogroll thing and have long had the intention of changing it. Also I'm pretty sure I'm not an A-lister any more.
SEK doesn't need to appear on anyone's blogroll, because he is one of blogdom's most tireless self-promoters.
he is one of blogdom's most tireless self-promoters.
I include a link in each and every comment I post.
Word.
No, you don't. For instance, there isn't one in comment 69.
Alright, no more ASCII for me. The first "HERE" indicated the position of the joke relative to the second "HERE," which indicated the location of w-lfs-n's head.
Read yer archives. It's cause I've got such a fine ass.
And because I hew to the principle of charity regarding attempted humor.
(And because I thought SEK might be referring to the link in his signature.)
Because you thought people would've thought you'd missed my lame joke, you deleted half of it?
Let no man ever call you unfair or inequitable.
I thought that's what you said. My lame joke was charitably deleted, because you have such a fine ass. What am I missing here?
What the hell are you people talking about?
Do I have a secret blog that's not on the blogroll?
Yes. Yes, you do. It's very good.
I didn't delete anything. You allege that there was a joke in 69, which went over my head. I say that, if I responded as if there was no joke in 69, that was because there is no way to construe 69 as containing a joke which is remotely humorous or clever, thus the charitable thing to do is assume that you are referring to the link in your signature and not making a joke at all.
I had nothing to do with the cock-ups in 71.
What the hell are you people talking about?
I'm trying to have a conversation with ben and, well, it's par for the course.
I'm sorry. I'll try to be more on your level.
SEK, thou art a fool!
You allege that there was a joke in 69, which went over my head.
No, you see, I was explaining the joke in 69 in 71, but my ASCII arrows and explanatory text disappeared. You missed the joke in 69, not 71, whose lameness was aborted by some ASCII-eating script.
So, wait a second, why were you promoting your fine ass then?
Yes, yes, I understand what happened in 71. It's because you used an unescaped <, I'd wager. But you can't explain the joke in 69 without alleging that there's a joke in 69, can you? And did not your explanation of 71 imply that the joke in 69 had gone over my head? Dost thou not chant strange words?
It's because you used an unescaped
That'd be correct.
But you can't explain the joke in 69 without alleging that there's a joke in 69, can you?
I'm not. I'm alleging your response in 70 indicated you missed the joke in 69.
But you're correct: you actually missed both my joke in 69, then mistook the "joke" in 71 for the actual joke in 69. So when I wrote "you missed the joke in 69, not 71," I was technically incorrect. You missed them both. Thank you for the clarification.
I'm not. I'm alleging your response in 70 indicated you missed the joke in 69.
Ergo ... there is a joke in 69. I'm being trolled, aren't I?
Yes, there was. And it was bad. But you missed it. What is your point, young man, and what does it have to do with your ass?
Perhaps the number 69 itself was the joke, and SEK was a mere passive participant.
88: Then it wouldn't have been 69, would it?
Although, really, after this, the western world should have just retired that joke.
68-87: GET A ROOM.
"Bwa-ha-ha" is always accompanied by a mocking finger-point.
"Mua-ha-ha" is always accompanied by a sinister wringing of the hands.
re: 91
Surely 'muahahahah' is more often accompanied by the twirling of mustachios, or the beetling of brows?
SEK: Is the joke that you have (a) in 69 'agreed' to being such a self-promoter that you include a link to yourself in every comment you post, while (b) mockingly undermining what you have just said, i.e. mockingly rendering the charge false, by failing to include a link to yourself in that very comment?
This reminds me of the famous two-word joke (courtesy of, I think, Jim Holt from Slate) than which none shorter can be devised, viz.:
Pretentious? Moi?
(Or, phonetically, "Pretentious? Mwah?") Note that the two-worder is the obverse to comment 69 in the respect that the idea of the joke is that the speaker is (a) communicating disagreement with the charge of being pretentious while (b) undermining what s/he has communicated by demonstrating the charge to be true in the very act of communicating it.
Surely 'muahahahah' is more often accompanied by the twirling of mustachios, or the beetling of brows?
Hands, mustachios, brows: the triangle of evil.