RockMyAmadeus

This song fascinates me. It starts and ends in a completely different tempo, rhythm, and style. Typically, songs like this would have an ABA format, with the original tempo and rhythm repeated. This doesn't do that. I can't make heads nor tails of this song.

You mean, the guys who sold a Dark Knight set with a later printing #1 as "first prints"?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Avengers-14-Watcher-App-CGC-Grade-7-0-1965-/231482653793?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35e570fc61 Wow.

Wow. Were those 3-D printed?

no

We have not gone far afield. When talking about what and who is "steering" a conversation, or discussing how different definitions of words leads to miscommunication, among many other such tangents, none of which have anything to do with the X-Men, Storm, Gambit, et al, we have, in fact, gone very, very far afield. Whose posts are you reading...? I haven't said anything like that at all. I agree, which is why I haven't done it. You're reading things that aren't there. All interesting, but ultimately not relevant. Whether the footnote is a "flashback", a "flash forward", or a "flash sideways", the point is that it references another story, one that hadn't (completely) appeared yet. So was ASM #252/MTU #141/PPSPM #90. Of course, which is why the footnote was necessary in the first place. The story doesn't flow in chronological order at all at the time the Annual came out.

Agreed. I don't think that the timeline of events in the Marvel 616 universe should dictate the 1st appearance of a character in the universe which I live & read comics. Too many flashbacks, issue #0, issue #-1 and such to muddy the waters. In this case, it is a unique situation because the books were so closely released. Not at all. In fact, the gap between Amazing Spiderman #252 and MTU #141/PPSPM #90 is LESS THAN the gap between X-Men Annual #14 and X-Men #266 by a week, and no one seriously considers either MTU #141 nor PPSPM #90 as the "true" first appearance of the symbiote. So, not unique. Most footnoted stories have "some flow from one to the other"...that's why they are footnoted. I'm curious...if the "overall timeframe as a reference" is not what this is about...what IS it about...?

Nah. If this is how RMA achieves a more substantive conversation, I'll invest the time. Just because he is not seeing a differing view's substance doesn't mean he can't read the details of that view. Again, we really ought to be more careful with how we word things, lest we say something that might offend. In this case, I can see your view's "substance" just fine...I don't agree with it. There is a substantial difference. After all...the same can be said about you and my view's "substance", can it not...? Indeed, it can! As I said in the last post, and which is now confirmed, our definitions of the word "understanding" means different things. My definition of the word "understanding" means to grasp a concept, to comprehend the facets of that concept. "I understand the Pythagorean theorem." Your definition of the word "understanding" is to accept a viewpoint as valid. "We need to understand the plight of the poor, downtrodden cab drivers who now have to compete with Uber!" No problem, now that I understand your definition of that word.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe reword...? I don't see how that is disputable. "What came first?" is a matter of fact, and has been proven. I mean, I understand that you think X-Men #266 should be considered first, on a philosophical basis, but it didn't come out first. Correct, and I didn't say it was (although your analogy is getting fairly tortured by now.) That is incorrect. I am disagreeing with your view. Your view doesn't encompass every other view on the subject; it's simply your view. Naturally, I'm going to "stick to my thinking", as you stick to yours, and everyone else sticks to theirs, until something comes along to change our minds. That's basic reason. If someone comes along with a different view than yours AND mine, and it is compelling, I am certainly willing to consider it. Correct. It is not. We all need to be very, very careful in what words we choose to use in a conversation, so as not to unnecessarily communicate things that aren't necessarily accurate. There was no accusation, there was a polite request not to tell others what they should, or should not, talk about in a given conversation. If you felt it was "accusatory", you misunderstood, and I will try to communicate more carefully in the future. I don't know who, besides you, would call my statement an attempt to "steer" the conversation, and as we have already gone down this particular path, and found a dead end, I will just say again that disagreeing with someone is not "steering the conversation." Telling people "better not to say thus and such" IS. There's a difference. (This, by the way, is a tangent. It has nothing to do with X-Men.) Nobody has 'hurt feelings', so no worries there. Good! Do you mean "you don't have to steer anything? Without going further down this rabbit hole, this emoticon ----> means you shouldn't take what is said immediately before it too seriously. I do, have, and shall. Possibly. Some might say otherwise. Sometimes having a logical and reasonable discussion takes some investment. So like you cut up a post so you can respond to a given statement so there is no confusion, I am following the same approach since this may be easier for you to follow. I'll invest the time here. Oh, I don't think my ability to follow a conversation is at issue, here. But I thank you for your consideration! See? We are getting somewhere versus the old days. I don't think comparisons need be made, do they? Is it important to mention? Yes, context is critical. I'll assume positive intent with some of your statements (other than tangent where there is no tangent). Except that you misunderstood what I was referring to when I mentioned tangents, and, instead of clarifying, assumed, and then replied based on that assumption. That's not how productive conversation works. I agree, and do, as acknowledged, here: "try to not assume the worst about other people's comments (advice I must remind myself of often), "...? Not sure why the need to repeat it. That is why I took the time to post the printed images to assist in the discussion. And they actually are quite clear what is taking place. But that is also why some are going to lean one way or the other on their stance. There's nothing wrong either way with the thinking, other than when someone attempts to sell a book and wants to insert statements in their listing like 'THE TRUE 1ST APPEARANCE' which can lead to some confusion (see Dime Press #4, San Diego Comic-Con Comic #2 and John Byrne's Next Men #21 for all the 1st appearances of Hellboy). Except, in this case, we know what "THE TRUE 1ST APPEARANCE" is. It is the myth that X-Men #266 was "actually first" and that "really, the annual *may* have technically come first, but it was a mistake" which has been thoroughly debunked in this thread. The circumstances surrounding Hellboy are significantly different than this situation, and understandably confusing (though, again, even there, there is A true first appearance.) Except that it really doesn't. Again, there's no question as to which came first. All of this...the entire discussion about continuity and Storm and the footnote and Gambit's prominence or lack thereof in the Annual, as completely fascinating as it all has been...is moot. If people want to say "X-Men #266 really came out BEFORE the Annual, because the continuity of the story says that"...that's fine. They will be wrong, and they will be vigorously corrected, but that doesn't mean they can't believe things that aren't true. People believe things that aren't true all the time, and appealing to their reason doesn't change that. That's the beauty of free thought. This is true. Or like RMA calling someone's thinking a tangent when it is an analogy fitting a different frame of thinking. RMA did this mistakenly, rather than understanding all viewpoints. As I have hopefully made abundantly clear, one must get the facts before jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted. Your analogy...as tortured as it is...is NOT a tangent, and NOT what I was referring to when I lightheartedly spoke of tangents, so all of the following commentary from you about it is moot. Don't assume. If unclear, ask first. Advice we can all live by. I suspect, as has been the case quite frequently in this conversation, that our definitions of the word "understanding", as you have used it right there, are substantially different. Oh, and please don't refer to me in the third person when replying to me. It's a tad creepy.

That's such an interesting accusation...that people post "walls of words" just to frustrate their opponents. It necessarily suggests that the person posting such "walls" has no regard for reason, and their arguments are not made from a genuine position or opinion, but rather, "arguing for argument's sake." It says that they put no thought into what they're saying, and have no respect for either themselves or anyone with whom they are dialoguing. I suppose that may be true in some cases, but why would anyone put in the time and effort to type so much if the goal is only to annoy and frustrate people with verbosity...? :shrug: It seems to be an AWFUL lot of effort to just annoy people. Why not cut and paste the Declaration of Independence, something that requires little effort?

Its not up for debate that X-Men Annual 14 came out before X-Men 266. They're arguing about something else....for some reason. They're arguing about whether or not X-Men 266 SHOULD have come out first, and IF IT SHOULD HAVE, then does that mean X-Men 266 IS the TRUE first appearance, possibly regarding the intent of the creators. At least that's what I think they're arguing about. I think that encapsulates ( ) Bosco's argument fairly well. I'm just trying to keep us on track through all the tangents and side points. So if someone goes counter to what you say is how they view something, their points are a tangent? Where's that 'people should have debates that are respectful' speech you toss out every few days? 1. No, whenever a discussion diverges off the main point, it's a tangent. There's nothing inherently wrong with tangents (despite the opinions of some around here.) Obviously, I am one of the worst tangent-offenders around here. I can go off an a side-path, hand in hand with whomever is willing, for posts and posts and posts. Therefore... 2. You have taken offense where there is none. What isn't...? We've had several of them so far. No, not in the slightest. You've confused the word "argument" with "arguing." They are two entirely different things. "An argument" - a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. There's a substantial difference between making an argument, and having an argument. The former is what I said you were doing. See? We're operating under different definitions of words, which is leading to miscommunication, which leads to hurt feelings. We shouldn't do that. Some may, but such an argument (note, that's the "sets of reasons" definition I'm using) would be irrational, juvenile and unnecessarily inflammatory, and I'm quite sure it's not your position. My "walls of words", as you put it here (though I don't see any examples in this thread so far), have been explained: to avoid misunderstanding. Since we don't agree on the definitions of many words, it is necessary to OVER-explain things, so there isn't miscommunication. It's, unfortunately, why contracts are 50 pages long. Your assumption is the correct one! Context, Bosco, context is king. "Throwing out statements like being disingenuous" has no meaning unless the context of that statement is included. You present it here as if it was a contrast to the healthy discussion, but without context, one can't know. It may have been "unhealthy" or it may not. Context is critical. If you include the context of that statement, I'll be happy to report if it was a "non-healthy" or benign comment. Context is everything. I don't disagree with your statement at all, and that is most certainly not the context of my statement. Will do! My advice to all is: try to not assume the worst about other people's comments (advice I must remind myself of often), and see offense where it may just be simple misunderstanding, as Bosco's misunderstanding of the word "argument" here. I'm thankful for the opportunity to clear that up. Onward and upward!

Its not up for debate that X-Men Annual 14 came out before X-Men 266. They're arguing about something else....for some reason. They're arguing about whether or not X-Men 266 SHOULD have come out first, and IF IT SHOULD HAVE, then does that mean X-Men 266 IS the TRUE first appearance, possibly regarding the intent of the creators. At least that's what I think they're arguing about. I think that encapsulates ( ) Bosco's argument fairly well. I'm just trying to keep us on track through all the tangents and side points.

We already have the information from the US Copyright office, which is about as official as it gets, plus Marvel's own publishing schedule flyers for the time frame. There's no (or, there shouldn't be any more) dispute about which came first. The Annual came out three weeks before #266.

I'll make it simple for you, as you are stuck on a path with everything else. Alright, I'm game. Maybe there's something I hadn't considered. I'm open to reconsidering if there is some compelling evidence or argument presented. History to her. Not to us. It looks like we disagree about the definition of the word "prominent." When I say prominent, I mean "obvious, readily apparent, not hidden, not shadowed, etc." Gambit is prominently portrayed in the Annual: he is on several pages, he is named, he speaks, his full figure is shown. That is what I mean by "prominent." No assumption; it's how I understand the word "prominent." If that doesn't work for you, I'm perfectly willing to substitute another word that you can more easily accept. I'll change "prominent" to "Gambit is shown, in full figure, on several pages, speaks, and is named." Therefore, though he IS a background character in the Annual, he's not shrouded in shadow and mystery, like, for example, the identity of Hobgoblin in ASM #238. I conclude that, foundationally, we look at the very definitions of words differently, which of course will create problems in communication. As such, since Gambit is obviously and clearly portrayed in the Annual, and the readers don't know who this character is, and since he is central to the story that is being referred to in X-Men #265-267, the footnote is, in fact, about Gambit, because it is not an "either/or" situation...it is all-inclusive. Is X-Men #265-267 about Ororo's adventures with Nanny? Yes. Is X-Men #265-267 about the introduction to Gambit's character? Yes. Is Gambit the most integral character of X-Men #265-267 after Storm? Most certainly. Is it therefore reasonable to state that the footnote is just as much about Gambit as it is about Storm? Eminently. It's a completely logical conclusion. And we have gone very, very, very far afield. Well, no, we just disagree about the definition of the word "prominent", and are now splitting vellus. Substitute the word "prominent" with "Full figure shown, named, speaks, referred to by other characters, appears on multiple pages, not shadowed, not hidden, not obscured." We use words to define concepts, so we don't have to spell out those concepts completely every time we want to speak of them, but if we don't agree on these definitions, the laborious over-explaining is going to be necessary. Examples that may help: "Warlock is prominently featured in New Mutants #86, though he is not central to the story." "Wolverine is prominently featured in X-Men #99, though he is not central to the story." "Starfire is prominently featured in New Teen Titans #38, though she is not central to the story." Maybe that will help us reach understanding.

You can discuss it all you want. But you are making a big assumption what is on record is representative of the inner workings of Marvel production. Were you there? Did you work for them, and know all that went on? If not, better to assume everything that is there doesn't tell the entire story. It's not worth even going down that path, because neither of us knows what scheduling or production hurdles they went through unless (1) we worked there or (2) Marvel Production released its daily records of what went on. None of which is relevant, because we know there was no problem. There's no need to know the inner workings of Marvel production, because the only relevant information, we already have. There have been no "assumptions" made about the "inner workings of Marvel", because they aren't relevant. If you DO have some evidence that there was something relevant happening at Marvel production at that time that had a direct bearing on the events under discussion, quit holding out. By all means, share this information already. Not really. You are characterizing the situaions in terms that aren't justified by the statements of myself and others, such as "assume it tells the entire story." I didn't say that. No one else said that. The "entire story" isn't relevant to the discussion. The only thing that matters is that the books came out as scheduled, and they did. Whether or not Steve Smith and Sandra Simon were having an affair in the production office coffee room while the books were being produced doesn't matter, unless said affair had a direct impact on the books and their print/release schedule. None of it is relevant. So I'm not sure why you are continuing to bring it up. The only thing relevant to this discussion is this "did Marvel production get the books out as scheduled?" The answer, clearly, is yes. Anything beyond that isn't relevant. I know you are invested in the "production schedule error" story, and want it to have been an error in scheduling/production/release/distribution to explain why X-Men #266 is *really* the book to have, the "real" first appearance of Gambit. I understand that. You feel like, if you admitted that it wasn't, you would lose face. But the reality is that the Annual came out before X-Men #266, and it was planned that way. That's just the way it is. Like you pointed out, better to not attempt to steer the conversion just to what you want to note. Hold on...that's not an attempt to steer the conversation. That's plain ol' explanation of a disagreement. I am going to point out what I want to note. You are free to point out what you want to note. The "steering" attempts occur when you say things like "better not to discuss thus and such...", which should be avoided (the irony of this statement doesn't escape me, but it is allowable in this instance.) I am not going to tell you what you should discuss....that's the crux. You are perfectly free to take analogies down paths where they no longer make sense, as far as your heart desires. No one is saying you can't, or shouldn't. But that won't keep me from saying that you've taken your analogy down a path where it no longer makes sense. That's not steering the conversation, that's just dialogue. Again, no. Revat's analogy worked. Yours doesn't. In fact, I don't even know what "And just like a hospital working to maintain its visibility of the difference between the twins all the way through the lifecycle" actually means. I mean, I *think* I can figure it out, but it's a really awkward sentence, and I have no idea what making sure which twin is which has to do with Claremont's story flow. Are you trying to say that the Annual and X-Men #265-267 are twins, and they need to be looked at according to their lifecycles...? But this is not the case when it comes to Gambit. Mistakenly, for many years, his appearance in X-Men Annual #14 was noted as a cameo. And we all realize a cameo is so brief, this is why the hobby hesitates to call it a first appearance. But through this discussion, including photos of each panel, we have helped establish it was not a cameo. It was much more, though most of the panels treat Gambit as a background character other than the first few parts of the book when Ororo and Gambit run into the New Mutants. Now in the case of something like Goon, these previews were realized after-the-fact once the character really took off. And that led to collectors wanting CGC to change their labels on both books, along with sellers calling this out as 1st appearances. So yes, it does fit the situation we are dealing with now. Just in the case of Gambit, the general hobby was fully aware of the X-Men Annual #14 appearance. It was a mistaken assumption it was just a cameo. I don't (necessarily) disagree with you about any of this. I don't think you understood my point. No problem. I do take issue with your statement that "the hobby hesitates to call a cameo a first appearance." I don't, never have, and don't know anyone personally who does. It's just called a 1st Appearance (cameo.)" I think the footnote discussion may have run its course. But just to be clear, here is where you steered it down this path. First, a footnote isn't just to call out 'coming to a store near you'. It is referencing something that has been published and potentially referenced. Not always, and not in this case. That is, of course, your opinion. As I said, Gambit was prominently featured in the Annual, and curious people would want to know who he was, and where he came from. He is an integral part of the story that is referenced in the footnote. No, if we must be pedantic about it, the footnote is not specifically about Gambit, just Gambit, and only Gambit. The footnote is about what happens in X-Men #265-267. Gambit is a central character in those stories, and, in fact, the most important character in those stories next to Storm. So, if you want to imagine that the footnote has nothing to do with Gambit, that's fine, but it's a disingenuous way to view it.

That'll teach you all to trust strangers.

While there are certainly still vast swaths of copies in the hands of retentive collectors ( ), there were pallets and pallets worth of Valiants from 1993-1994 thrown out in the intervening years. It will be interesting to see what pans out, if it ever pans out.

And the first appearance of Wolverine is Hulk #181. And the first appearance of Rocket Raccoon is Hulk #271. And the first appearance of Tim Drake is Batman #440. Easy, cheesy.

That's simply not correct. Let me show you why: v. 1, no. 259, Mar90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-01-02; Reg. 1990-04-06; TX0002813490 v. 1, no. 260, Apr90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-02-06; Reg. 1990-04-30; TX0002819059 v. 1, no. 261, May90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-03-06; Reg. 1990-05-23; TX0002832961 v. 1, no. 262, Jun90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-04-03; Reg. 1990-05-31; TX0002843519 v. 1, no. 263, early Jun90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-05-01; Reg. 1990-06-19; TX0002872984 v. 1, no. 264, late Jul90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-05-15; Reg. 1990-06-19; TX0002793635 v. 1, no. 265, early Aug90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-06-05; Reg. 1990-08-27; TX0002882811 v. 1, no. 266, late Aug90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-06-19; Reg. 1990-08-27; TX0002882810 v. 1, no. 267, early Sep90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-07-03; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965689 v. 1, no. 268, Sep90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-07-17; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965727 v. 1, no. 269, Oct90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-08-07; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965639 v. 1, no. 270, Nov90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-09-04; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965691 v. 1, no. 271, Dec90. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-10-02; Reg. 1990-12-20; TX0002965669 v. 1, no. 272, Jan91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-11-06; Reg. 1990-12-26; TX0002966307 v. 1, no. 273, Feb91. Created 1990; Pub. 1990-12-04; Reg. 1990-12-31; TX0002976869 Those are from the US Copyright office. There are more just like it. It tells us that the publication of this title, and the rest that Marvel was producing at the time, was running exceptionally smoothly, even with bi-weekly issues. Marvel did this hundreds of times, every month, with nary a hiccup. Obviously, things were being done well at Marvel during this time period. I don't need affidavits from then-current Marvel employees to determine these things; the above data alone demonstrates that. No assumptions required; the data speaks for itself. You might want to steer the conversation, but if you could leave out the "let's focus on this, better not to speak for others, let's not talk about this other topic" language, it would be appreciated. If you think something isn't worth discussing, you can refrain from discussing it. Otherwise, if someone else brings something up, it's because they think it's worth discussing, and it's presumptuous to tell people what they have to say isn't what you think they should discuss. Fair enough? Interesting. I felt like it fit the situation as there is more to twins than just who was snatched first from a woman's womb. Maybe it didn't fit the way you wanted it to. The analogy only followed insofar as "what came first." That was Revat's point, with which I agreed. Delving further into the analogy didn't work, because the point was simple: what came first. Anything beyond that went too far. We are in agreement on this statement. We see this from time to time. Look at Goon as he became more popular how it went from Goon 1 (Avatar) to Avatar Illustrated to Dreamwalker 0. Those trying to figure out which was the big book to grab were being bounced around (along with CGC's labels). Look at this video from a fan trying to talk through each book he picked up - including referencing CGC. But that's not the point...the contention is not about trying to figure out what a character's first appearance is. That's important, but the fact is, there IS a first appearance for every character, a book that came out first, whether the collecting world knows what it is or not; it will eventually be discovered. The contention is basing first appearances on continuity, because that can (and does) change. How? People write new stories. As of right now, the "first appearance" of Wolverine in continuity is Origin #1. Before that book came out, it was Wolverine #10. Before that, it was whatever story took place before Hulk #180-181. But the first appearance of Gambit has been, since publication, X-Men Annual #14, and that won't ever change. It's a fact of history, immutable, barring the incredibly unlikely discovery of a heretofore unknown Marvel publication showing Gambit that came out before the Annual. Sure the timing makes sense when the books are this close to one another, and the story flows one into the other. Ororo being captured by Nanny, age regressed and then dealing with the Shadow King with the assistance of Gambit then flows into X-Men Annual #14 with her arrival. Ororo's return to the mansion kicks off the entire annual storyline. Gambit was not central to the story. Look at the images I took of all the appearances in this book, and you can see he is inserted in as background noise. You've misunderstood. Gambit is central to X-Men #265-267, not Annual #14. It is #265-267 to which the footnote refers. Ororo's return to the mansion wasn't a key part of Days of Future Present, but that's a side issue. That statement referred to the footnote. I thought that was clear, but if it's not, I'll state it clearly: that statement referred to the footnote. Hopefully, that statement is fully clarified at this point.

Sorry. I meant to say RMA mistakenly assumed the footnote had to do with Gambit. The footnote says "for details, see X-Men #'s 265-267." Gambit was central to the story in those issues. I'm not sure, then, how assuming the footnote has to do with Gambit would be a mistake.

Again, as Gambit was central to that story, this is not true. There is no difference; whether the gap was 7 years or 7 days, the Annual was on the stands, for sale, before X-Men #266. That's what is important, and that is the only fact that matters, because it is inarguable, and has decades of precedent. It may be interesting to discuss first appearances as it relates to continuity, but it is an ultimately hopeless venture, because it is not concrete, and can (and frequently does) change.

It goes both ways. Those that assume errors happened. Or those that assume the opposite for whatever reason. No, not really. Not all assumptions are equal, and it doesn't really go "both ways." For example, someone may assume that a murder happened at 10:37 PM on Thursday, Jan 29 2015, at the corner of Main and Broadway. But there's no body, no blood, no witnesses to a crime, no missing person reports, no disturbances in the area...nothing to suggest that such a crime actually occurred. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that what happened that night was precisely what usually happens. Both are assumptions...but one is reasonable, while the other is not. For there to be an assumption of an error in the publication scheduling, there would have to be evidence of it. There isn't any, none at all, with the exception of the editorial note (which, it has been shown, supports the "there was no error; we planned this all along" argument.) No resolicitation, no trade notices, no letters to distributors or retailers, nothing. All the evidence points to everything being released exactly as planned, like clockwork. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that everything carried on as it normally did. And in the case of Marvel Production having to comply with any legal expectation concerning scheduling, count on there is going to be less public information on the process. Who wants any mistakes or errors called out about their process? Especially if it can lead to anything resembling a fine which then may lead to personnel corrective action. Interesting theory, but not relevant to the discussion. The issue of legality that I raised was one of historicity and intellectual property rights, and how that relates to the everyday operations of the Marvel production department; not whether someone was doing something that may or may not have been illegal. The Marvel production department is one of the most tightly run departments of the company, because it involves scheduling and logistics with every aspect of comic book production, from dealing with creative to printing to distribution to marketing, and everything in between. They are the "funnel" through which everything passes, and the fact that they have an essentially unbroken record of publication at the US Copyright Office for decades demonstrates that they were a top notch, professional department. That is not a claim that other publishers (like Image, for example, or Pacific Comics, or Eclipse) can make. While it's interesting to hypothesize about an illicit coverup at Marvel production, there's nothing that suggests any sort of thing like that actually occurred. But now that Gambit is a key player for many X-Men/X-Franchise fans, it does become a point of discussion. Hence, this thread or else who would really care? It is a hindsight issue, and not relevant to anyone at the time. Gambit was a central part of that story, so it most certainly had focus on Gambit as a character. Obviously, Claremont wrote Gambit into the annual, and intended for readers to be made aware of this character, or he wouldn't have been in the -script. While the footnote specifically deals with the story of Nanny and Storm's regression, Gambit is central to that story, as we find out, and thus the footnote directly pertains to him, as well. I'm not sure who you're talking to, here. I, personally, have red the books, and am not making any assumptions about them. You must be speaking to the general "you." Marvel.com is just people, too, whose opinions are no more nor less valid than anyone else's. Just because Marvel.com says something, it doesn't make it official if it contradicts the facts. (And you've taken the twins example wayyyyy out of proportion.) ]quote]So you can see how somewhere the story got out of order, Gambit involved or not. It just so happens now Gambit matters. This assumes that the story "got out of order." Stories have been "out of order" throughout the history of comics for all sorts of reasons. No one is denying that the story order is not chronological. It's not, obviously. But it doesn't mean they messed up. Have you ever seen the story order for the Mutant Massacre? (Marvel even published a wonky map!) How about the X-Men/Asgard storyline from 1985? Secret Wars? (all of which takes place, literally, between single issues of each affected title.) How about Deathmate? (Now THAT was an error in production.) It happens all the time. It doesn't mean anyone screwed up. It just means they were published in a different order than chronologically, and THIS time, it mattered.

I wonder if you'll actually find anyone here proclaiming themselves to be an expert on anything, outside of the usual smartassery.

Below is the email exchange tracking down the history of the jersey: Madeleine E Robins -> her daughter -> San Francisco thrift shop -> San Francisco buyer -> San Francisco buyer moves to New York -> sells on eBay to me (who is in the San Francisco Bay Area) -> research to determine jersey belonged to Madeleine E Robins Interesting...Clem Robins also happened to letter X-Men #117, which I had in my hand last night, and noticed that it was not Orzechowski.

Aside from not being sure it really matters, look at the books. The EW #1 gold is the embossed, not the flat. When the books are sitting in cases at the offices, as they were, handed out at cons and to fans through the mail, there really isn't a "release" date for them.