Everything COSMIC in Marvel - the Hierarchy, Battles, Feats, Q & A , scans galore!

Originally posted by Mr Master
Its all been settled.

Erik and I had a quick discussion over PMs.

Apparently he wasn't wrong, but his info was out of date (honest mistake)

He was using the 2005 Alternate Universes Bio.

I'm using LT's 2006 Bio,
Marvel Universe Update 2007 - #2,
Marvel Universe Handbook - Mighty Avengers Most Wanted Files #1, (2207)
Marvel Universe Handbook - Spiderman Back in Black (2007)

and a slew of On Panel confirmation.

So it appears in 2005,
Marvel did in fact consider the Marvel Reality as being part of Gruenwald's "Omniverse"

That, has evidently changed as of 2006, and ceritfied in several 2007 Bios.

As of 2006 atleast,

Marvel is an official Omniverse with multiple MegaverseS.

I hope we can all go in peace now. 🙂

Like the since been retconned Uncanny X-Men #99 where Storm flew on solar winds.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Other than :

Exactly, and if its not all, then its not omni.
A company can use any word improperly if they want. Doesn't make them accurate, just makes them wrong.
They'd have to include other universes other than just in their company, other wise it isn't all.
In existence. period. This reality, the DC verse, Image, Archie, The Sailor Moon universe, Dragon ball Z, doki doki panic, Mario's universes, Sonic the hedgehog's universes etc etc etc.
If those aren't included, it isn't all.
IOf you exclude the things that take place outside of marvel then it isn't all.
Because ours is a universe. Is it not being included in the "all universes"?
It goes for every other possible reality, not just comic books, but fanfiction universes, video games, movies. You name it.
If they aren't included, it isn't all.
This is quite like the discussion about onmnipotence where people wanted to limit omnipotence (thus making it not omnipotence) and still call it omnipotence. I'm sorry, but you can't limit all and still call it all. if it isn't all, then it isn't all.
You can keep showing me the scans all you want. But I can't help but think of people who use scans of PIS and insist that it happened despite it being pis. Now I'm not saying that it is pis. I'm just saying that simply because it was depicted doesn't make it right.
Did you know that wolverine recently fell into some molten steal and then climbed out without flech on and walked away? Without muscles, without tendons, without carteledge. Just as a skeleton.
Now should I just post that over and over again saying that noone can kill Wolverine?
By adding qualifiers you change the wourd that you'd need to use.
And if it doesn't include All, it ain't all.
Its a subtopic of the main topic is it not?

I can't debate this if you're only stating that,
all my On Panel and Bio evidence is wrong, cause you disagree with it.

As you wish. But I will let go now.

I debate evidence vs evidence.

Btw. I agree on the Wolvy example concerning Wolvy,
but that Wolvy scenerio has nothing to do with what I was posting.

Cool exchange though, thanx for the input.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I can't debate this if you're only stating that,
all my On Panel and Bio evidence is wrong, cause you disagree with it.

My evidence is syntax and rehtoric. How words are used.

Dodeca is twelve. You cannot call some thing that is 13 dodeca. it becomes trideca.

by signifying that the omniverse is limited to something means that it is no longer an omniverse. But more of a mirorominverse.

Originally posted by Mr Master
As you wish. But I will let go now.

I debate evidence vs evidence.

Btw. I agree on the Wolvie example concerning Wolvy,
but that Wolvie scenerio has nothing to do with what I was posting.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Cool exchange though, thanx for the input.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its not that I disagree with it its that words have specific uses and meanings. a "solar wind" has nothing to do with actual wind. but refers to a emmision of radiation and superheated plasma hrown off from the sun.

My evidence is syntax and rehtoric. How words are used.

Dodeca is twelve. You cannot call some thing that is 13 dodeca. it becomes trideca.

I understand that, and using those specific examples you have a point.

But concerning this specific term, "Omniverse"

can you tell me where your getting the definition of Omniverse from?

I'm interested in seeing what source makes your definition so legit.

Originally posted by Creshosk
by signifying that the omniverse is limited to something means that it is no longer an omniverse. But more of a mirorominverse.

But the definition of the Omniverse according to whom?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Other than repeating posting of incomplete or inaccurate scans not really justifying a reasoning?

All my scans concerning Marvel,
come directly from official Marvel handbooks and Bios.

Your argument that supports your point comes from?

Originally posted by Creshosk
No problem. and I hope you weren't offended by my... agressive manner.

You can make your case without being aggressive.

It makes the discussion more enjoyable. 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Master
I understand that, and using those specific examples you have a point.

But concerning this specific term, "Omniverse"

can you tell me where your getting the definition of Omniverse from?

I'm interested in seeing what source makes your definition so legit.

Conjoins to
omniverse: all universes.

Originally posted by Mr Master
But the definition of the Omniverse according to whom?

All my scans concerning Marvel,
come directly from official Marvel handbooks and Bios.

Your argument that supports your point comes from?

Originally posted by Mr Master
You can make your case without being aggressive.

It makes the discussion more enjoyable. 🙂

It seems like you both basically agree on the same thing. Marvel technically uses the word Omniverse incorrectly...so I guess we can all agree that Marvel has a special meaning for the term "Omniverse"....and whenever they use the word "Omniverse" they mean all of the Marvel Companies universes encompassed into one. So maybe it should be refered to as the "Marvel Omniverse" rather then The Omniverse.

I think the term omniverse should be taken the same way the words Adamantium and Vibranium are be taken whenever Marvel uses it on panel.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
It seems like you both basically agree on the same thing. Marvel technically uses the word Omniverse incorrectly...so I guess we can all agree that Marvel has a special meaning for the term "Omniverse"....and whenever they use the word "Omniverse" they mean all of the Marvel Companies universes encompassed into one. So maybe it should be refered to as the "Marvel Omniverse" rather then The Omniverse.

I think the term omniverse should be taken the same way the words Adamantium and Vibranium are be taken whenever Marvel uses it on panel.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Latin.
omni: all
universum : universe

Originally posted by Creshosk
Latin.
omni: all
universum : universe

Conjoins to
omniverse: all universes.

I'm confused here Cresh.

How does this translate to,
all Universes in different comic book companies, the real world ect?

This can easily be subjected to one's own creation of a Reality with multiple Universes.

Instead of saying All of DC's Universes, we can just say DC's Omniverse.
Instead of saying all of Marvel's Universes, we can just say Marvel's Omniverse.

I thought you had a specific official legitimate source,
that related the term "Omniverse"
with all the Universes in Marvel, DC, the real world ect. as a sum.

That doesn't say that though.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Latin and what words actually mean.

I agree.

The word Omni in latin definitely means All.
The word Universum in latin definitely means Universe.

But imo, It doesn't support your point entirely.

I have an analogy of my own now:

The term "Sum" means "the total amount of something that exists"

If I said, "the Sum of my money is $50,000," am I limiting the meaning?
Because surely the "total amount of (money) that exists" is far more than $50,000.

Yet I can use the term because, I'm subjecting it to my personal wealth.

In the same fashion,
while we agree that the term Omniverse means "All Universes"
I don't see why I or You, Marvel or any other person who creates a comic book can't
subject the term to their personal perception.

Especially when the term doesn't specifically constrict itself to one context.
(like the Sun is a Star)

This is why IMO, Marvel, like anyone else,
can subject the term to their personal company.

The meaning hasn't changed, it's just being used in a particular arena.

When Marvel states that they have an Omniverse in their company,
the term Omniverse still means "All UniverseS" (only it's all UniverseS in Marvel)

Originally posted by Creshosk
Rather than wording things to sound impressive but useing improper phrasings.

Now that I see what you were using as a basis,
I have to strongly disagree, but respectfully of course.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm just used to other people being agressive as well... sorry for that.

I understand, cats sometimes get to me too.

I think we're having a great discussion though, so long as we stay civil, I know I will.

I also want to PM you later, no need to discuss that here.

Let's proceed though, this dialogue of logic is fun. 🙂

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
so I guess we can all agree that Marvel has a special meaning for the term "Omniverse"....and whenever they use the word "Omniverse" they mean all of the Marvel Companies universes encompassed into one. So maybe it should be refered to as the "Marvel Omniverse" rather then The Omniverse.

👆 That's exactly what I've been saying.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
I think the term omniverse should be taken the same way the words Adamantium and Vibranium are be taken whenever Marvel uses it on panel.

I like that.

Actually Master in reference to you question about what legimate sources that was used I can only say "A Treatise in Reality in Comics Literature" Written by the (in)famous Mark Gruenwald which worked for marvel and helped establishe the omniverse in the marvel comics. Just thought you would líke to know.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Actually Master in reference to you question about what legimate sources that was used I can only say "A Treatise in Reality in Comics Literature" Written by the (in)famous Mark Gruenwald which worked for marvel and helped establishe the omniverse in the marvel comics. Just thought you would líke to know.

Mark Gruenwald did in fact help in expanding the meaning of the term Omniverse, I agree.

But the term Omniverse was being used by Alan Moore back in 1982 in UK titles,
that were published under Marvel.

In fact,
Jaspers threatened the Omniverse back in 1983,
in a black & white issue titled, Daredevils #1.

"When I first became aware of the threat that faced the Omniverse"

Of course this wasn't canon to Marvel mainstream titles, but as you can see,
the term was being used to define all Universes, atleast in the UK titles.

This seires along with the rest of the Jaspers saga,
was re-printed in 95' ...
in color when it became canon to Marvel in X-Men Archives #1-7.

...................................................................

I also did concede as Erik pointed out,
that Marvel did in fact consider itself part of a greater Omniverse in the 2005 bio.

But evidently, Marvel has changed their position,
cause in all the 2006 - 2007 relevant bios, Marvel is a standalone Omniverse.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Mark Gruenwald did in fact help in expanding the meaning of the term Omniverse, I agree.

But the term Omniverse was being used by Alan Moore back in 1982 in UK titles,
that were published under Marvel.

In fact,
Jaspers threatened the Omniverse back in 1983,
in a black & white issue titled, Daredevils #1.

"When I first became aware of the threat that faced the Omniverse"

Of course this wasn't canon to Marvel mainstream titles, but as you can see,
the term was being used to define all Universes, atleast in the UK titles.

This seires along with the rest of the Jaspers saga,
was re-printed in 95' ...
in color when it became canon to Marvel in X-Men Archives #1-7.

...................................................................

I also did concede as Erik pointed out,
that Marvel did in fact consider itself part of a greater Omniverse in the 2005 bio.

But evidently, Marvel has changed their position,
cause in all the 2006 - 2007 relevant bios, Marvel is a standalone Omniverse.

But the omniverse as a hole was first establised by Uatu correct, in the 1995???

Also Marks book was in 1980 and he was hired by marvel in 1978.

Not to disagree just saying that its very possibly that he is the actual "father" of the omniverse.

Originally posted by Utrigita
But the omniverse as a hole was first establised by Uatu correct, in the 1995???

92'

Originally posted by Utrigita
Also Marks book was in 1980 and he was hired by marvel in 1978.

I didn't know that.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Not to disagree just saying that its very possibly that he is the actual "father" of the omniverse.

I agree.

he also introduced the handbooks as we know them I believe

http://www.marvel.com/universe/Creator:Gruenwald,_Mark

a little on him.

What can I say.. Respect the man

Originally posted by Mr Master
I'm confused here Cresh.

How does this translate to,
all Universes in different comic book companies, the real world ect?

Originally posted by Mr Master
This can easily be subjected to one's own creation of a Reality with multiple Universes.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Instead of saying All of DC's Universes, we can just say DC's Omniverse.
Instead of saying all of Marvel's Universes, we can just say Marvel's Omniverse.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I thought you had a specific official legitimate source,
that related the term "Omniverse"
with all the Universes in Marvel, DC, the real world ect. as a sum.

But it wouldn't make any sense. I could start refering to a universe as a pair of pants. and ask people if they prefer Marvel Pants or DC pants.
That would make just as much sense.

Originally posted by Mr Master
That doesn't say that though.

If it ain't all, it ain't all and if it ain't all, it ain't omni.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I agree.

The word Omni in latin definitely means All.
The word Universum in latin definitely means Universe.

But imo, It doesn't support your point entirely.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I have an analogy of my own now:

The term "Sum" means "the total amount of something that exists"

If I said, "the Sum of my money is $50,000," am I limiting the meaning?
Because surely the "total amount of (money) that exists" is far more than $50,000.

Yet I can use the term because, I'm subjecting it to my personal wealth.

In the same fashion,
while we agree that the term Omniverse means "All Universes"
I don't see why I or You, Marvel or any other person who creates a comic book can't
subject the term to their personal perception.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Especially when the term doesn't specifically constrict itself to one context.
(like the Sun is a Star)

This is why IMO, Marvel, like anyone else,
can subject the term to their personal company.

Simple fly?

Originally posted by Mr Master
The meaning hasn't changed, it's just being used in a particular arena.

Originally posted by Mr Master
When Marvel states that they have an Omniverse in their company,
the term Omniverse still means "All UniverseS" (only it's all UniverseS in Marvel)

Originally posted by Mr Master
Now that I see what you were using as a basis,
I have to strongly disagree, but respectfully of course.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I understand, cats sometimes get to me too.

I think we're having a great discussion though, so long as we stay civil, I know I will.

I also want to PM you later, no need to discuss that here.

Let's proceed though, this dialogue of logic is fun. 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Master
Now nothing Mxy has ever done surprises me. Mxy & IM are unique indeed.

Glad to see you changed your mind there. 😛

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because as I've said before. If it ain't all, it aint omni.

If it ain't all, it ain't Omni.

I understand your stance, and I disagree.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There isn't multiple omniverses...

I agree, in Marvel there's only one.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yeah, syntax. Words have specific meanings I could for example go "Apple synch water floggin' Jim froofy whippersnapper"

But it wouldn't make any sense. I could start refering to a universe as a pair of pants. and ask people if they prefer Marvel Pants or DC pants.
That would make just as much sense.

...

Originally posted by Creshosk
If it aint all, it aint omni, be excluding DC the real world etc. you prevent it from being omni.

If it ain't all, it ain't all and if it ain't all, it ain't omni.
If it ain't all, it ain't Omni. by excluding a single universe you keep it from being all.

Because as I said words have specific meanings. You could call it the miroromniverse. That would be somehting more to the effect of "All Marvel Universes"

I understand your stance, and I disagree.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Waffer snip cat frizzbee wallabee. Dinosaur frog banana snout. Suit monkey frisky donkey.

...

Originally posted by Creshosk
but it has changed. If it isn't all, it isn't omni.

Exacltly, it's all universes BUT... It's all universes EXCEPT... It's all universes.. only it isn't all universes.

I understand your stance, and I disagree.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Yeah it is.

We can finally agree. 😎

Well, this is obviously going no where now,
so I enjoyed the thought provoking part of the discussion,
but I'm sensing that's finished, and while I enjoy humor,
I'm just not in the mood.

It was cool while it lasted.

On another note:

You think you can make me one of those awesome Sigs and/or Avatars?

I would truly appreciate it. (I'll provide the scans if necessary)

Originally posted by Galan007
So you accept feats like those, now that IM has done it?

Well it's officially canon.

Remember I had told you in the past I saw those types of issues as goofs,
but now that I see it's canon, well ... I must submit.

Stan also claimed that IM is Marvel's Mxy.
So that was the clincher (for me) to give Mxy his props for ridiculous feats.

I wish DC's Who's who was more significant,
cats wouldn't have to do much to prove an issue's canonicity.

What is the story with DC's Who's Who anyway?

Originally posted by Galan007
Glad to see you changed your mind there.

😄

Originally posted by Mr Master
What is the story with DC's Who's Who anyway?

Carlin seems to enjoy doing insane things with Mxy, much like Stan Lee seems to enjoy doing insane things with IM --- Just depends, lol.