Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The Omega level classification only applies to mutants and mutant powers I think Mungi. Sorry. 🙁
Facist 🙁
===
For those who are interested, this is who I'm talking about
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d187/A_Flight/w_179_023.jpg
Originally posted by Disappear
just looked up starhawk. he was around in 1975, more than twenty years before the term "omega" even existed. if he's the small-time, bit player it seems he is, and if he hasn't appeared post-x-men forever, how the hell could he possibly be an omega?and i still haven't seen any on-panel evidence of mister immortal being an omega. he's a mutant-esque creature whose genetics make him incapable of dying. what in that makes him an omega, exactly?
and finally, hosting a cosmic being which is the embodiment of life and passion and whatever doesn't temporarily change your genetics, and by corollary, you categorization between alpha and omega.
"if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it still might be a platypus."
At least this guy is attempting research. Yes when Starhawk first came on the scene they had no term for Omegas, just like when Jean Grey who came earlier then him. Starhawk never began to understand his full potential till he entered the white hot room at the end of the Guardians comic and it was reveled to him. The white hot room told him about his power and said only beings of a certain power level can enter and use the white hot room.
Like Psylocke and Jamie Braddock. 🙄
X-Men Forever where the designation of Omega was first coined was published in 2001 - and as far as I'm aware has never been used to refer to any non-616 characters. Morrison's New X-Men where the White Hot Room concept largely began was written in the 2000s. The last appearance of Starhawk, your obscure-character-no-one-cares-about nom de jour, D@vextant, was in the mid-90s as far as I'm aware, Guardians of the Galaxy #62 was published in July 95.
And all the jibber jabber you jibber and jabber on about doesn't make him an Omega. Being stated as an Omega unequivocally on panel makes a character an Omega.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Like Psylocke and Jamie Braddock. 🙄X-Men Forever where the designation of Omega was first coined was published in 2001 - and as far as I'm aware has never been used to refer to any non-616 characters. Morrison's New X-Men where the White Hot Room concept largely began was written in the 2000s. The last appearance of Starhawk, your obscure-character-no-one-cares-about nom de jour, D@vextant, was in the mid-90s as far as I'm aware, Guardians of the Galaxy #62 was published in July 95.
And all the jibber jabber you jibber and jabber on about doesn't make him an Omega. Being stated as an Omega unequivocally on panel makes a character an Omega.
Awwww, that's why I wuv u.
First off grow up.
Jamie Braddock will probably be upgrade to Omega status at some point but while they can enter the White Hot Room, they cannot utilize it the way Starhawk and Phoenix can.
Actually the term Omega has been around longer then that, I believe Nimrod identified Rachel as one back before the late 90's.
And his power level was identified in the Room.
the term was used once, just like the term epsilon-delta. it had no meaning, was never expanded on, and wasn't used again in the same context. nearly two decades later [that story was in the early 80s,] a different writer used the term as a classification of mutant whose characteristics had been set by charles xavier. it's not the same thing. i already pointed that out.
Originally posted by Disappear
mister immortal's an offshoot of mutantkind, classified as "homo supreme" as opposed to homo superior. he's essentially evolved beyond death, but he isn't an omega.also, rachel grey is not an omega mutant. she was labeled an "omega" by a sentinel nearly two decades before the term even had a definition; which was itself written by a different author. to use that as evidence is fallacy, and since she's never had the term applied to her anywhere else, she isn't a confirmed omega.
and i've never even heard of starhawk, and i doubt he's of enough consequence to warrant the labeling.
Originally posted by Disappear
the term was used once, just like the term epsilon-delta. it had no meaning, was never expanded on, and wasn't used again in the same context. nearly two decades later [that story was in the early 80s,] a different writer used the term as a classification of mutant whose characteristics had been set by charles xavier. it's not the same thing. i already pointed that out.
Yes it is. Your opinion that it's not is not valid. Only Marvel comics can say for sure. Do you have any proof from them?
i do enjoy getting quoted
i have the much-flaunted common sense on my side. if you want to explain how a sentinel [being written by one author in the eighties] could possibly be reflecting the scientific findings of charles xavier [a mutant and known anti-sentinel activist, being written by another author in 2001,] i'd love to hear it.
Originally posted by Disappear
i do enjoy getting quotedi have the much-flaunted common sense on my side. if you want to explain how a sentinel [being written by one author in the eighties] could possibly be reflecting the scientific findings of charles xavier [a mutant and known anti-sentinel activist, being written by another author in 2001,] i'd love to hear it.
Common sense being seeing your side of things? I love when ego takes over logic. You want me to say that all identifications of mutants as Omega prior to 2001 are null and void? Show me something from marvel that says it or it's just your opinion.
And manorastroman? Are you drunk? If he had used my name then I would not be able to. Even when people are banned their names and previous names are still taken. Eclipso was those people not me, it's been settled with the mods, your just trolling to start a fight, if you keep it up you'll be reported.
