Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You might be more convincing if you had an argument at all. But you don't. And everytime your flawed statements are debunked you just try and spin. Sitting and spinning must be a specialty of yours.
Nope just understanding whats printed in a comic book, it's a skill you should pick up. Why do you guys care so much whether I believe you or not?
Originally posted by StarhawkUnderstanding what's printed in the comic. Irony. Elaborate on what was meant by what was printed in the comic in 1986 by itself using no other sources for the word "omega" that occur after it's publication.
Nope just understanding whats printed in a comic book, it's a skill you should pick up. Why do you guys care so much whether I believe you or not?
Oh yay, we've gotten to the "Why do I care part..." of the D@vextantclipsochardsquawk show. I don't care what you think. But if you're going to try and disseminate false information I'll debunk it.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Just check the 198 files, she should be in there and it will have her class in there.
Originally posted by Starhawk
That still does not retcon her privous identification. So show me something from marvel that says the sentinel did not mean Omega as in class. That is the only thing I will accept.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Nope just understanding whats printed in a comic book, it's a skill you should pick up. Why do you guys care so much whether I believe you or not?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Understanding what's printed in the comic. Irony. Elaborate on what was meant by what was printed in the comic in 1986 by itself using no other sources for the word "omega" that occur after it's publication.Oh yay, we've gotten to the "Why do I care part..." of the D@vextantclipsochardsquawk show. I don't care what you think. But if you're going to try and disseminate false information I'll debunk it.
All you have to do is show me something where Marvel states that her identification as an Omega is no longer valid. Other then that it's just your opinions, assumptions, and interpretations, which mean nothing to me.
Originally posted by StarhawkShe was never identified as an Omega mutant. Ergo Marvel does not have to state that her "identification as an Omega is no longer valid." One cannot state that something that never happened is no longer valid. A writer cannot use source material from 15 years in the future unless they can displace themselves in time. 😐
All you have to do is show me something where Marvel states that her identification as an Omega is no longer valid. Other then that it's just your opinions, assumptions, and interpretations, which mean nothing to me.
Use only the 1986 comic and publications prior.
What does the term "Class Omega Contact" mean?
Originally posted by StarhawkA writer cannot refer to source material that occurs 15 years subsequent to their publication. Self-explanatory. You think that Chris Claremont can bend the space-time continuum. You must actually be insane. Self-explanatory.
Self-explanitory. Your NOT goign to convince me accept with what I have asked, not now, not 100 pages from now. I've told you what I will accept as proof and that's it.
And Starhawk, the character, has absolutely no claim whatsoever. At all. None. Zilch. Zip. To the term Omega mutant.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So a writer in 1986 can use a word in 1986 to refer to a definition made by a different writer in 2001, 15 years in the future. haermm
And you know the second writer didn't use the term with the same meaning as the first writer how. Perhaps his use of the term Omega originated from that classification of Rachel.
Your NOT going to convince me accept with what I have asked, not now, not 100 pages from now. I've told you what I will accept as proof and that's it.
Originally posted by StarhawkYour inner "Richards" is showing.
And you know the second writer didn't use the term with the same meaning as the first writer how. Perhaps his use of the term Omega originated from that classification of Rachel.Your NOT going to convince me accept with what I have asked, not now, not 100 pages from now. I've told you what I will accept as proof and that's it.
Originally posted by StarhawkIrony. Negative proof. Fallacy. Provide proof positive of your claim that Fabian Nicieza was doing so in 2001. Otherwise you're basing it on nothing more than your opinion and logical fallacy.
And you know the second writer didn't use the term with the same meaning as the first writer how. Perhaps his use of the term Omega originated from that classification of Rachel.
Provide proof positive that Rachel has been labelled an Omega as Fabian Nicieza described in 2001.
Provide proof positive that Starhawk has been labelled an Omega as Fabian Nicieza described in 2001.
Originally posted by StarhawkYip-yap. Yippity yap. Yap. Yap.
Your NOT going to convince me accept with what I have asked, not now, not 100 pages from now. I've told you what I will accept as proof and that's it.