Uh no. The word "Omega" has to be used to refer to Starhawk in the context established in X-Men Forever in 2001 by Nicieza. If there is no labelling of him as an Omega mutant he isn't one. Providing proof positive of such a reference is on you.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosDoubtful.
petpetWhich comics?
Do you have an argument other than saying that you're right?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Uh no. The word "Omega" has to be used to refer to Starhawk in the context established in X-Men Forever in 2001 by Nicieza. If there is no labelling of him as an Omega mutant he isn't one. Providing proof positive of such a reference is on you.
No it dosen't unless marvel comics says it does.
Originally posted by StarhawkRight... so unless Marvel Comics says that only the mutants that Marvel has specifically labelled Omega mutants post-X-Men Forever on panel are the officially confirmed Omega mutants, Starhawk is an Omega mutant despite no such labelling on panel because... you say so. Yeah that makes sense.
No it dosen't unless marvel comics says it does.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Right... so unless Marvel Comics says that only the mutants that Marvel has labelled Omega mutants on panel are the officially confirmed Omega mutants, Starhawk is an Omega mutant despite no such labelling on panel because you say so. Yeah that makes sense.
Rachel was labeled an Omega Mutant on panel and that has yet to be retconed. And Starhawk is a Mutant and on the power level of Jean Grey Phoenix.
you are just far too eager to fit square pegs into round holes, starhawk. the white hot room was a kabballah-derived concept morrison created in new x-men. any similarities that popped up beforehand are coincidence. if you've read any of morrison's work, you know how much pseudo-science he throws around. that shit came off the top of his head. it wasn't a retcon of one arbitrary scene from decades past.
there are such things as coincidence in comics. there are such things as continuity errors. for example, when x-man began ascending and descending the multiverse, it was laid out as a spiral with earths higher on the spiral being closer to enlightenment and peace and that shit. earth was pretty much dead center. however, when the multiverse was detailed by jahf within the m'kraan crystal, it was like an interconnected web of strings looking something like a star map. and when the multiverse was again detailed by merlin and roma, there was the entire myriad of universes existing within the same confines of space, as if they were all happening in the same place. but they were separated by metaphysical dimensional barriers.
when things are explained using the metaphysical, everything can be right and everything can exist simultaneously without having to be only one thing. each view of the multiverse is correct, but each exists differently. so, while starhawk might have hung out in an afterlife resembling the white hot room, he wasn't in the white hot room, because they white hot room [as a concept] did not exist yet.
your arguments are about as foolproof as a mesh condom, man. you're just misinterpreting shit; and then telling everyone else that they're undoubtedly wrong because you have a piece of paper that supposedly defines everything as you say it is on-panel. that would, of course, need to be a magic piece of paper, because in order to do what you say it does [i.e. prove idiot points] it would need to be an anomaly to the time-space continuum. how else would something written in 1986 pre-emptively [and while without definition] set the precedent for something written fifteen years later?
Originally posted by Starhawk
Rachel was labeled an Omega Mutant on panel and that has yet to be retconed. And Starhawk is a Mutant and on the power level of Jean Grey Phoenix.
Where does it say he's a mutant???
Issn't Half human half artificial human because of his parents?
Can't find any info on him being a mutant.
Originally posted by DisappearThought so.
you are just far too eager to fit square pegs into round holes, starhawk. the white hot room was a kabballah-derived concept morrison created in new x-men. any similarities that popped up beforehand are coincidence. if you've read any of morrison's work, you know how much pseudo-science he throws around. that shit came off the top of his head. it wasn't a retcon of one arbitrary scene from decades past.
i'll believe the first when i see it.
here's the facts about rachel being labelled an omega. she was labelled such in 1986 by a SENTINEL. the man who created the term omega was charles xavier himself. off the page, the term was actually created and defined in 2001. on the page, there is no possible way a sentinel could have had access to xavier's notes and protocols until bastion sweeped the xavier mansion during operation: zero tolerance. OZT occurred post-onslaught, ten years after rachel was labelled such. so, again, unless the comic in which the term omega first appeared is magic and somehow was able to steal terminology from the future, it's IMPOSSIBLE that the term omega [as used in 1986] had the same meaning as when used in 2001.
comic facts. backed up by decades of x-men storylines. care to explain that away?
Retcon: Retroactive continuity or retcon is the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.
From the shit that is Wikipedia but relatively accurate.
Yeah, no retcon has occurred because none needs to.
No new information has been added to the use of the word "omega" in 1986 as it's unrelated, and it hasn't been intentionally changed to mean "Omega mutant" simply because the same word was used. Ergo no retcon has occurred and Rachel is an "omega" in whatever that unelaborated 1986 usage meant, but isn't an Omega mutant - the concept established in 2001.
Go Omega Red. The first Russian Omega mutant as soon as he first appeared in 1992. 🙄
Originally posted by Disappear
i'll believe the first when i see it.here's the facts about rachel being labelled an omega. she was labelled such in 1986 by a SENTINEL. the man who created the term omega was charles xavier himself. off the page, the term was actually created and defined in 2001. on the page, there is no possible way a sentinel could have had access to xavier's notes and protocols until bastion sweeped the xavier mansion during operation: zero tolerance. OZT occurred post-onslaught, ten years after rachel was labelled such. so, again, unless the comic in which the term omega first appeared is magic and somehow was able to steal terminology from the future, it's IMPOSSIBLE that the term omega [as used in 1986] had the same meaning as when used in 2001.
comic facts. backed up by decades of x-men storylines. care to explain that away?
It's not impossible unless Marvel Comics says so, since it is their source material. Your opinion is just that an not factual opinion.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Retcon: Retroactive continuity or retcon is the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.From the shit that is Wikipedia but relatively accurate.
Yeah, no retcon has occurred because none needs to.
No new information has been added to the use of the word "omega" in 1986 as it's unrelated, and it hasn't been intentionally changed to mean "Omega mutant" simply because the same word was used. Ergo no retcon has occurred and Rachel is an "omega" in whatever that unelaborated 1986 usage meant, but isn't an Omega mutant - the concept established in 2001.
Go Omega Red. The first Russian Omega mutant as soon as he first appeared in 1992. 🙄
Grow up,
Omega Red is just his name, When Rachel was referred to as Omega is was a classification not a name. A 10 year old would know the difference.