"Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" is an
expansion of the
word no, a word which by itself indicates
negation, but which is hereby really, really, really intensified by the introduction of
fifty additional
letters "
o" (for a total of fifty-one, including the naturally occurring first "o"). This happens to be the largest number of added
regular lowercase o's -- that is, naturally, an "o-
string" -- which this noder was able to find (by an industrious search) to have
actually been used in a real and genuine published book, as seen on
Google. The book, by the way, is called "Apeland" and was authored by one
Paul Allen all the way back in
1976.
The full context of use, as available in "
snippet view" (
here, if you doubt) is:
Margaret's soft fur pressed to T.; the father saw the passion of the embrace, the huge shoulders tensed and tight in ardor, the son's bent back as she pressed upon him "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! (...")
Sadly, Google deigns to
reveal no more of the
text in that
selection, and what little there is of it is like "
Jesus Christ what-the-fuckall
sense does that make?!?!" Just going by the
title and that baffling bit of text, I'd guess there's some weird kind of
monkey-
manic bestiality at
play there, hence the
prompt for so
goddamn many o's in the "no." I mean, seriously, what kind of sick, perversion of mind would it take to find pleasure in
an account of a human mating with some ape-like creature? .... Oh. .... Well anyway.
In searching for the longest string of "no" o's, I went to Google's
book search only after concluding that regular Google was flat useless. The
liberal nature of the availability of pouring one's
brain farts onto the
Internet has made it possible for
idiots (or, who knows, they may be
geniuses) to post "no's" with o-strings which far exceed Google's capacity to actually hang onto a length of text as a
search term.
There were, naturally, some itinerant hits for greater o-string lengths, but these were by and large misreadings from books of
statistics which, for whatever
reason, had a table with a
value n for which that particular value yielded naught but naughts for the whole length of the table, as in:
y|00021|00045|00002|00000|00003|00002|00000|00023|00000|00000|....
z|00001|00017|00000|00000|00001|00000|00000|00004|00000|00000|....
n|00000|00000|00000|00000|00000|00000|00000|00000|00000|00000|....
And so forth for however many more rows. There was, by the way, one other
plausible return on an expanded word "no," from "
Satan's
Dark Angles" by one Rick Magers, date uncertain:
Another voice roared across the sky as Satan lunged to grab the bolts of lightning. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Satan screamed as he grabbed one bolt—then another—and another.
Yep, that's fifty-five o's. But, will you look at that, fourteen are done up with garish capitalisation, symbolic of who-knows-what, perhaps a
sticky caps lock key gone unnoticed in the fervor of pumping out the
grand finale to a novel wherein
Satan seeks to prevent
God from destroying the
Earth, after Satan has so successfully brought about
war and
corruption -- apparently to the
surprise and
consternation of the (therefore necessarily non-
omniscient, perhaps really even non-
Creator)
top-
dog deity showcased therein. Still, it's less fun to talk about then the Apeland hit, so there's my reasoning.
Beyond that, even Google is not helpful. Other than a few instances of mistaking lengthy statistical charts for useful negation, it tells me only:
Your search -
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ... - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
For the record, that's
sixty-nine o's before the
ellipsis (though I'm elsewise told the hard limit is 128 characters). No
speculation on how Google arrived at that
cutoff. By comparison, there must be some
irony in the fact that what is quite possibly the most
famous o-string ever vocalised -- that of a newly
minted Darth Vader in learning that he, in his
anger has killed his own
beloved Padme -- appears nowhere in the original script for
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. That writing finds reference only to Vader's 'scream of rage,' and not the lengthy tonal
descending "no" injected into the part by
James Earl Joooooooooooooooones.