Re: Through Etymology To Truth

1

muah

What parts of the internets is that from?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTom | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
2

I thought it was "mwah." And the villainous laugh takes many forms, as anybody who has seen The Wild Bunch could tell you.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
3

I spell both with a "mw" as well.


Posted by: Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
4

Questo รจ il bacio di Tosca!

(I should just write a macro for this comment.)


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
5

Mwahahaha or muahaha are both acceptable, but the fake kiss is mwah.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
6

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
7

Drymala, you think can just parachute in to disagree with me every six months, or what?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
8

6: Yeah, newsflash: people on the internet can't spell.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
9

"Mwah" is less ambiguous about the intended pronunciation, since it makes it clear that it's one syllable.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
10

Is this related to Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss?

Or is it really a coded message about the bpl?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
11

8: Mini-newsflash rejoinder: yes, choosing 'muah' is clueless, but understandable from ogged.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
12

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


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
13

Joe D!


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
14

"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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
15

the webcam


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
16

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.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
17

Also, there is no standardization of any kind for the evil-genius laugh. Often it's "bwa-ha-ha!"


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
18

17 is on crack.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
19

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
20

Ned's point in 19 generalizes.

Men are evil, but ben is boisterous and possibly mocking.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
21

so ogged's living in 1993, now?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
22

11: Fair enough.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
23

boisterous is boisterous and possibly mocking, whereas moisterous is evil.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
24

14: mwah-dib!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
25

(Although by then, it was already old hat.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
26

Neither the post in 21 nor the post in 25 is making ogged's point, SEK.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
27

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
28

Labialized labia don't necessarily make a sound, teo.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
29

24 - Note the Revered Mother Gaius Helen Mwahahahaiam.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
30

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.)


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
31

Labialized labia don't necessarily make a sound, teo.

But if they did...


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
32

I don't think "contend" works like that, SEK.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
33

30: yeah it goes back to the late 80s at least.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
34

some google counts:
mwahaha - 824K
muahaha - 1,660K
bwahaha - 794K
buahaha - 595K

Agree that 'm' has a more villainous overtone.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
35

I don't think "contend" works like that, SEK.

So you say. But then again, you say a lot of things, don't you?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
36

Agree that 'm' has a more villainous overtone.

Or so the bullahs would have you believe.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
37

two of the funniest blogs i read are in my language
and the bloggers when want to show that they laugh mockingly write kkkk


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
38

Unfogged's blogroll needs an update. It should link to the two blogs mentioned in 37, among other changes.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
39

but you won't understand and i can't translate :(
alas of course


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
40

Personally, I spell it kekeke. N00bs.


Posted by: Tom | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
41

but it might lead to other mongolians showing up in the unfogged comments. a valid goal in itself.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
42

it has nothing to do with the korean spelling
e is redundant in my opinion


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
43

41 ok, i'll tell them may be


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
44

Unfogged's blogroll needs an update. It should link to the two blogs mentioned in 37...

...including Sifu's!


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
45

The blogroll does not need an update.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
46

I don't see mine on it.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
47

SEK has me confused now. Do I have a secret blog that's not on the blogroll?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
48

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
49

People who were on the blogroll before the existence of the rule are grandfathered in.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
50

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
51

The blogroll is an artifactual record, not a tool for your amusement.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
52

49: they just have to live with snippy mouseover text.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
53

Actually I'd been surprised that EoTAW hadn't been adeed; guess I know why now.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
54

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
55

wow, noone wants us around here, how pity
well, i won't tell them then


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
56

Actually I'd been surprised that EoTAW hadn't been added.

ogged's racist?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
57

Well, at least remove Decembrist, since he's been a regular writer at the American PRospect blog for some time now.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
58

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
59

EotAW doesn't even have a blogroll.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
60

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?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
61

EotAW doesn't even have a blogroll.

They don't know how to make one. For months their comments were on the wrong posts.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
62

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.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
63

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.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
64

UNfosgdged

Um...


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
65

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.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:36 PM
horizontal rule
66

64: Okay, fine, Umfosgdged.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:39 PM
horizontal rule
67

That's more like it.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
68

SEK doesn't need to appear on anyone's blogroll, because he is one of blogdom's most tireless self-promoters.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 6:16 PM
horizontal rule
69

he is one of blogdom's most tireless self-promoters.

I include a link in each and every comment I post.

Word.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
70

No, you don't. For instance, there isn't one in comment 69.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
71

HERE

HERE


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 6:51 PM
horizontal rule
72

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 6:52 PM
horizontal rule
73

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.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
74

(And because I thought SEK might be referring to the link in his signature.)


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:05 PM
horizontal rule
75

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
76

I deleted something?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
77

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?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
78

What the hell are you people talking about?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:20 PM
horizontal rule
79

Do I have a secret blog that's not on the blogroll?

Yes. Yes, you do. It's very good.


Posted by: Zippy | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
80

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.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
81

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
82

I'm sorry. I'll try to be more on your level.

SEK, thou art a fool!


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
83

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?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
84

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?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:27 PM
horizontal rule
85

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.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
86

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?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
87

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?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
88

Perhaps the number 69 itself was the joke, and SEK was a mere passive participant.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
89

88: Then it wouldn't have been 69, would it?


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 8:06 PM
horizontal rule
90

Although, really, after this, the western world should have just retired that joke.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
91

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.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 02-28-08 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
92

re: 91

Surely 'muahahahah' is more often accompanied by the twirling of mustachios, or the beetling of brows?


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 02-29-08 1:23 AM
horizontal rule
93

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.




Posted by: Amit | Link to this comment | 02-29-08 5:23 AM
horizontal rule
94

Surely 'muahahahah' is more often accompanied by the twirling of mustachios, or the beetling of brows?

Hands, mustachios, brows: the triangle of evil.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 02-29-08 8:38 AM
horizontal rule