which mutants are omega level?? · Comic Books

Starhawk Restricted

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Wait so you mean a word can be used in two different contexts with different meanings? Shock! Horror! The sky is falling!

Boy, when you find out about opposable thumbs, your world is just going to shatter.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

😐 My sarcasm >>>>> your crappy sarcasm.

The word "omega" is used in two different contexts one time in 1986 with no elaboration by Chris Claremont, and then post-X-Men Forever (2001) with regard to Omega mutants. The distinction is as plain as between using it as a classification and using it as a name.

Starhawk Restricted

No in both cases it referred to the classification of a mutant. Only Marvel comics can states wether or not it was retconned. You cannot.

Disappear Senior Member

Originally posted by Starhawk
It's not impossible unless Marvel Comics says so, since it is their source material. Your opinion is just that an not factual opinion.

marvel DID say so, over several decades of x-men storylines in which xavier had information no-one, particularly in the government [you know, who programmed the sentinels] had access to. xavier protocols, cerebro, information on the "deadly genesis" x-men, and of course, the term omega.

"marvel" isn't some autonomous voice who can just answer your questions. it is a comic company, and its voice is its comics. and this information is straight out of the comics, thus, straight from the horse's mouth. you're creating a double standard saying the term omega, used once out of sync with the current context, counts, but decades of continuity that disprove that doesnt. give up.

Starhawk Restricted

Originally posted by Disappear
marvel DID say so, over several decades of x-men storylines in which xavier had information no-one, particularly in the government [you know, who programmed the sentinels] had access to. xavier protocols, cerebro, information on the "deadly genesis" x-men, and of course, the term omega.
"marvel" isn't some autonomous voice who can just answer your questions. it is a comic company, and its voice is its comics. and this information is straight out of the comics, thus, straight from the horse's mouth. you're creating a double standard saying the term omega, used once out of sync with the current context, counts, but decades of continuity that disprove that doesnt. give up.

No they give interviews in wizard magazine about things such as this and they have not retconned it, so it is still fact.

Disappear Senior Member

wizard magazine is non-canon. author's interviews are non-canon. canon applies only to that which is on the comic page; as you've attempted to point out again and again. letters pages are non-canon. blurbs in TPBs are non-canon. everything outside the comic itself is non-canon. you had your head wrapped tight around that idea just hours ago. where'd that go?

Starhawk Restricted

When people who work for marvel make statements about the source material that is fact. When a character is labeled as an Omega Mutant on panel that is also fact. Your opinions are not. Seems clear to me.

SpunkySmurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Starhawk
When people who work for marvel make statements about the source material that is fact. When a character is labeled as an Omega Mutant on panel that is also fact. Your opinions are not. Seems clear to me.

They could say in an interview that the hulk is purple with pink polka dots... does that make it fact? No.

Sure... but the label doesn't mean anything. According to Marvel (ZOMG! IT MUST BE CANNON!), the title only obtains meaning post XMF (2001). Pre that, they could call themselves whatever they wanted, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing.

Disappear Senior Member

what opinions did i just give? i just gave a wad of evidence from across the decades of x-men history that disproves rachel being officially labeled an omega. you haven't been able to refute it, so you're repeating your lackluster argument again and again.

a writer cannot speak for a character without writing them. THAT is fact. and the only way a writer can write the character in any continuity is IN THE COMIC. FACT AGAIN. an interview about what they meant or what they wanted to do is as useless as interviewing a homeless person about what they'd do to with a million dollars. the ONLY thing that matters is what is written on the page, because the next writer uses the page, and only the page, as the basis for their story. if writer a didn't get his point across, writer b can use whatever definitions and justifications he wants, regardless of where and how often writer a talks about what he meant. THAT is ****ing fact.

the only thing you've proven in your entire attempt at argument here is that you've got this idea in your head, based entirely on a pigheaded, stubborn supposition you made, and that you think everyone who can disprove you is mystically wrong because you say so. good luck being a lawyer. if you're as convincing in the courtroom as you are here, i weep for the people you'll represent.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/whiteroom.htm

The "White Room": An alien dimension created by Eon - the child of Infinity and Eternity.

Not the White Hot Room, a quasi-Kabbalist term used by Grant Morrison in New X-Men, and subsequently in Endsong and the HoM UXM tie-ins, inside the Nexus of realities, housing the Phoenix Consciousness. The term is applied, by some, to two prior instances that I know of involving the Phoenix Jean Grey, UXM #108 where the X-Men enter a city within the M'Kraan Crystal referred to only as "somewhere else" and Classic X-Men #43 when Jean and Death converse outside Death's towers with no use of the term "White Hot Room that I'm aware of.

Further showing how bullshit-based the above supposition about Starhawk by Starsquawk is.

llagrok Restricted

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?

Starhawk, let me simplify it for you.

Bastion erased data = sentinel not being able to get it = sentinel's use of the term wrong.

xmarksthespot CEO, BS Comics

Haven't looked at GLX-Mas yet.

Starhawk Restricted

Originally posted by llagrok
Starhawk, let me simplify it for you.
Bastion erased data = sentinel not being able to get it = sentinel's use of the term wrong.

No actually, if you've read New X-Men, the Nimrod that identified her was actually the one that stryker kidnapped, he had access to allot of info on mutants.

The point is until Marvel it self says either in the comics or in an interview that they retconned the term as it applied to Rachel, then you are just wasting both your time and typing. The only thing I care about in this are facts, not opinions.

Soljer Beware my Power

Originally posted by Starhawk
No actually, if you've read New X-Men, the Nimrod that identified her was actually the one that stryker kidnapped, he had access to allot of info on mutants.
The point is until Marvel it self says either in the comics or in an interview that they retconned the term as it applied to Rachel, then you are just wasting both your time and typing. The only thing I care about in this are facts, not opinions.

There's nothing there to retcon! The term omega didn't HAVE a definition till 2001! Back when the sentinel scanned Rachel, it was just a throw-away word to make the scene look cool!

Starhawk Restricted

You have no proof of that other then your opinion, show me an interview in which someone from marvel says that or a comic that says that.

And you were right about one thing I checked the issue and although the White Hot Room does make allusions to how powerful Starhawk is, they never use the term Omega. So that one I will concede. Although if he isn't, it mystifies me that someone less then an Omega can be more powerful then one.

But the point about Rachel stands until you show printed proof otherwise.

Soljer Beware my Power

Proof? It's common friggin sense!

Starhawk Restricted

Originally posted by Soljer
Proof? It's common friggin sense!

No it's opinion which does not matter to me.

And I ask again about the Starhawk situation, how can an Alpha be stronger then an Omega?

Soljer Beware my Power

Originally posted by Starhawk
No it's opinion which does not matter to me.
And I ask again about the Starhawk situation, how can an Alpha be stronger then an Omega?

Because 'Omega' doesn't mean SHIT about power level. There are plenty of people that can beat Elixer, for example.

It was a throw away term when it was used in reference to Rachel. Anyone with a SHRED of intellect can see that. It's the same thing as people being labeled as "A-1 SHIELD Threats" with no real description of what that means. If, thirty years later, some writer, somewhere, says that being on A-1 level (because, come on, A-1 sounds cool...) means that you have the potential to destroy the omniverse, does that mean Wolverine can suddenly claw through the Living Tribunal?

Well, HEEELLLL no!

Starhawk Restricted

Get over it, unless you have printed proof, your just wasting your time.

Soljer Beware my Power

Originally posted by Starhawk
Get over it, unless you have printed proof, your just wasting your time.

I guess that means you don't have a shred of intellect...

Well, I'll just go ahead and put you on ignore till you join your other dozen socks.