Do you know that... no one cares where Starhawk's from, Starsquawk?
-The term Omega in the context used in this thread was coined in 2001 by Fabian Nicieza in the X-Men Forever limited series.
-There was no prior use of the word with this explicit meaning because the meaning had yet to be attributed to the word.
-The word was used to describe Rachel Summers, but not in this context in 1986 by Chris Claremont.
-No one has shown the word was applied at all to Starhawk during his mid-90s appearances, let alone the word used in the context and meaning given to it in 2001.
-The only thing that can classify a mutant character as an Omega is the unequivocal labelling of a mutant character as an Omega on panel. Neither Chamber nor Storm meet this criterion.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Do you know that... no one cares where Starhawk's from, Starsquawk?-The term Omega in the context used in this thread was coined in 2001 by Fabian Nicieza in the X-Men Forever limited series.
-There was no prior use of the word with this explicit meaning because the meaning had yet to be attributed to the word.
-The word was used to describe Rachel Summers, but not in this context in 1986 by Chris Claremont.
-No one has shown the word was applied at all to Starhawk during his mid-90s appearances, let alone the word used in the context and meaning given to it in 2001.
-The only thing that can classify a mutant character as an Omega is the unequivocal labelling of a mutant character as an Omega on panel. Neither Chamber nor Storm meet this criterion.
Any two year old can throw insults around, you should try using your big boy voice when debating.
Rachel was called an Omega, Marvel has yet to retcon that, so it is fact. Starhawk is a mutant and is on the same powerlevel as Phoenix, also fact.
Unless you have facts stated by Marvel comics, it's only your opinion and irrelevant.
Originally posted by Starhawk
And all your good for is trying to make your opinions fact, which they are not, Only marvel comics themselves can make a ruling on this. Until they do your just trying to make your way of seeing things fact. And Starhawk is not a faux mutant, he is a mutant, he came from a planet in the future where only human mutants lived. And by your logic Franklin is a faux mutant since he also did not come from mutant parents, merely super-powered ones.
you realize this "logic" you're saying that I'M saying would make cyclops, beast, iceman, jean grey, angel, xavier, dazzler, jubilee, rogue, sunfire, magneto, and virtually every other mutant a "faux mutant" as well. i used the term to my own definition [something writers tend to do when reusing words that haven't been heard in nearly two decades] to mean "some mutant i just couldn't give a shit about." i'd tell you to read for context next time, but you've made it clear you can't.
i'm going to try to take everything i read in comics at face value now.
- according to runaways, peter parker is actually BATMAN. that seems like a copyright infringement to me. does DC know that marvel's using their character, and isn't at all making a reference to something he actually isn't? he's ****ing batman!
- piotr rasputin is colossus. thus, piotr rasputin must also be IT, the living colossus. i mean, the word "colossus" couldn't possibly have been used twice to describe two entirely different things, or people.
- there's only ever been one doctor spectrum. he just came from another dimension, wasn't at all created by himself in the 616, and then somehow became a woman. that makes sense.
- et****ingcetera
[/starhawk impression]
Wow you can act like a child and throw a tantrum.
It still doesn't change the fact that marvel has not retconned it, so until they officially do, you have no proof.
One interesting side not, in Guardians they accurately describe Quasars death over half a decade before it happened. Kinda cool that they kept with the storyline.
tantrums usually don't involve smarmy jabs at someone. more often, they're uncoordinated fits of violence and mumbling. pick up a dictionary, and while you've got it, look up the definition of "moot point." it may take you two tries, since they're two separate words. but i'm sure once you piece it together, you'll figure out how it reflects itself in every single thing you try to say.
your entire argument is logical fallacy. it's based entirely on your own definition of a word that had been left forever undefined. and, with that preconceived notion in your head, you decide that anything contrary is inherently wrong. you may also need to look up the definitions for preconceived and inherently, considering you had trouble with tantrum. and, even if you were attempting to argue your point without your bias toward a definition that doesn't exist, your case boils down to "if you're wrong, and i say the opposite of you, i'm right." that's not how it works.
while your point that rachel's classification as an omega [again, made nearly two decades prior to the definition of the word actually existing. made by a sentinel. made only once,] hasn't been overtly retconned, it also hasn't been confirmed. you say we're basing argument off opinion by assuming that omega [2001] does not mean the same as omega [1986,] while you're outright assuming that it DOES. by your own logic, your argument simply cannot hold up. is any of this making sense, or am i just pissing in the wind?
Originally posted by StarhawkIrony.
Any two year old can throw insults around, you should try using your big boy voice when debating.
Originally posted by StarhawkWow, Yip-Yap managed to get something right - there has been no retcon. A retcon being a more recent re-explanation of a past occurrence.
Rachel was called an Omega, Marvel has yet to retcon that, so it is fact. Starhawk is a mutant and is on the same powerlevel as Phoenix, also fact.Unless you have facts stated by Marvel comics, it's only your opinion and irrelevant.
Rachel was called the word "omega" 15 years before the term Omega mutant was coined. The latter did not retcon the one-off past usage of the word "omega." And until she's referred to with the word "omega" in the context of Omega mutants attributed to the word in 2001 then she isn't one.
Oh hooray, we have your less-than-credible biased and functionally retarded view that Starhawk is equal to the Phoenix - the embodiment of all lifeforce in the Universe - stated as "fact." And that Starhawk manipulated the White Hot Room prior to Grant Morrison's New X-Men and other comics that established the concept of the White Hot Room. Regardless of how much I think you're completely full of shit, it doesn't matter because it wouldn't make him an Omega mutant anyway. He hasn't been referred to unequivocally as an Omega mutant on panel, in the context attributed by Fabian Nicieza - the only thing that can make a mutant character an Omega mutant, D@vextantclipsochardsquawk.
Originally posted by Starhawk
My end of this is in print and fact, your is unsubstantiated opinion that is irrelevant.
your "end" is your own notion of what the print means, and is no more relevant or substantiated than any other, considering it's based off YOUR ****ING OPINION. was there any reference made, ever, to rachel being an omega-level mutant after the term got a definition? no. was there any reference made, ever, to sentinels having access to xavier's database of knowledge and terminology during the time rachel was categorized [either in uncanny x-men, or in x-men forever]? no. you haven't got a leg to stand on besides five letters that happen to be in the same order on two pages throughout the whole of comic history. you would be laughed out of any "legal business" you allege you work for.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Again that is just your opinion. Until Marvel releases an official statement on the matter. Until then, they are valid.
actually, the former is NOT valid since it has never been referenced in any context remotely similar to the one under which the term omega was created. and, the latter is NOT valid because it never happened.
Originally posted by StarhawkUh.. no. At the very most Rachel has some claim of validity, at least she has the word. But she still doesn't have any validity. Starhawk has less than none whatsoever, D@vextantclipsochardsquawk.. Zip. Zilch.
Again that is just your opinion. Until Marvel releases an official statement on the matter. Until then, they are valid.