X-Men Annual #14 - Proof of Gambit's 1st published appearance within 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

Honestly...who has Diamond/Capital City order forms that show which book showed up on which day???

 

That's really the only thing that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truly accurate?

 

Jim

 

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.

[Jeffro.]

Doesn't matter what should have happened. What matters is what did happen. The annual hit the stands first. That makes it the first app of Gambit.

 

Now, which one is more desirable to collectors? That's another story.

[Bosco685]

Honestly...who has Diamond/Capital City order forms that show which book showed up on which day???

 

That's really the only thing that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truly accurate?

 

Jim

 

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?

 

No, it is not a tangent. And I have been quite consistent - with picture facts what my point is. You disagreeing with the thought process doesn't mean we are arguing (you consider that arguing??). It just means you view things differently. Though some would attempt to say your 'walls of words' is meant to be a tangent.

 

I've been assuming the entire time we are having a healthy discussion, even though you have thrown out statements like being disingenuous. There is nothing disingenuous with reading through the story, seeing actually what is in print, and interpreting it differently.

 

But please. Continue on.

[Bosco685]

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.

 

We have not gone far afield. Say what you want to make your point. But please stop trying to make it look like only you and people that support your thinking are the only folks that have a grip on the situation. That never contributes to a respectful, healthy conversation.

 

Although you are stretching the reference quite a bit what Ororo is discussing in a panel that clearly states what she shares with the New Mutants Team, some of your points are valid. Though it is more accurate the way you are summarizing it versus earlier the 'flashback'/footnote was all about knowing more about Gambit. And if you are going to call something a 'flashback', then what does that term mean?

 

a device in the narrative of a motion picture, novel, etc., by which an event or scene taking place before the present time in the narrative is inserted into the chronological structure of the work

 

Now are UXM 265-267 true flashbacks? They are actually taking place at the same time as the release of X-Men Annual #14. So the footnote is tying together the stories from both runs (Shadow King adventures and Days of Future Present), though more to link up the experiences of the characters than any relations between the stories.

 

Being different than other character releases that have been brought up here (Venom/black suit, Wolverine), these books were right on top of one another. So again, it is clear how the release of one before the other could cause the story not to flow 100% in chronological order.

[Ant-Man]

The annual hit the stands first. That makes it the first app of Gambit.

 

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.

[Bosco685]

The annual hit the stands first. That makes it the first app of Gambit.

 

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. And it just so happens the storylines have some flow from one to the other with Ororo and Gambit's experiences.

 

But I do agree. The overall timeline as a reference (which is not what this is about) would be quite the challenge.

[the blob]

Blob's brain hurts.

 

I don't want to pick sides. Full disclosure: my stack of the annuals is larger than my stack of 266s, but neither stack will get me more than some chinese takeout. we can forget about going to that BBQ joint I like.

 

Isn't what matters what happened in THIS universe, you know, the one we comic geeks live in, where one version of the printed matter arrived in this universe three weeks before the other?

 

And I'm not even opining on which should be worth more. Perhaps 266 should because everyone's favorite Cajun (other than Ron Guidry) actually plays an important part of the story, is on the cover, etc., rather than standing doing nothing in a bunch of panels, but he's probably in enough panels, even doing nothing.....

 

Jeez louise, why am i getting into this?

Edited March 18, 2015 by the blob

[Bosco685]

The final answer will depending on the individual. So I am sticking with my earlier statement.

 

What this thread has shown, though, is there is going to be a camp that feels X-Men Annual #14 is the 1st appearance, X-Men #266 for others (including Marvel.com), and some are even going to lean towards both books being called out. There is nothing wrong with any of the three due to the timing of the book releases, 'flashback' reference to UXM 265-267, and general feeling of a collector.

 

And we must never forget the intent.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Honestly...who has Diamond/Capital City order forms that show which book showed up on which day???

 

That's really the only thing that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truly accurate?

 

Jim

 

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.

 

No, it is not a tangent.

 

What isn't...? We've had several of them so far.

 

And I have been quite consistent - with picture facts what my point is. You disagreeing with the thought process doesn't mean we are arguing (you consider that arguing??).

 

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.

 

It just means you view things differently. Though some would attempt to say your 'walls of words' is meant to be a tangent.

 

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.

 

I've been assuming the entire time we are having a healthy discussion,

 

Your assumption is the correct one!

 

 

even though you have thrown out statements like being disingenuous.

 

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.

 

There is nothing disingenuous with reading through the story, seeing actually what is in print, and interpreting it differently.

 

Context is everything. I don't disagree with your statement at all, and that is most certainly not the context of my statement.

 

But please. Continue on.

 

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!

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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?

 

[Bosco685]

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.

 

But you called explaining how the analogy of twin birth had more to do with the situation than just who was born first a tangent. There is more by fact - not by tangent to not keep a discussion on track.

 

Just because it didn't fit your frame of reference (what came 1st must be right - it was first), versus how something goes from one to the other (one baby will always be called out separate from the other baby, like Claremont would call out the flow of the story going from UXM #266 to X-Men Annual #14), that doesn't mean it is a tangent. Rather, you still were trying to stick to your thinking above any other view on the subject.

 

That's not a tangent. Some would call that steering the conversation the way you would like it to be. Like you were accusing me of doing.

 

What isn't...? We've had several of them so far.

 

See above.

 

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.

 

Nobody has 'hurt feelings', so no worries there. But the 'tangents' and you having to keep it on track does come across like only you have a grasp on a situation. You don't have to steer anything. We are having a conversation. So just like you ask that I see your viewpoint, I am asking the same.

 

See? We may be getting somewhere here.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Your assumption is the correct one!

 

 

See? We are getting somewhere versus the old days.

 

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.

 

Yes, context is critical. I'll assume positive intent with some of your statements (other than tangent where there is no tangent). You should do the same.

 

Context is everything. I don't disagree with your statement at all, and that is most certainly not the context of my statement.

 

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).

 

But it is still going to come down to the individual what they trust in. You just hope the seller conveys all the details.

 

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!

 

This is true. Or like RMA calling someone's statement a tangent when it is an analogy fitting a different frame of thinking. RMA did this mistakenly, rather than understanding all viewpoints.

 

[the blob]

This reminds me of the end of that Star Trek episode where the black and white painted guys get locked into some never ending fight on their otherwise destroyed home planet.

[Bosco685]

This reminds me of the end of that Star Trek episode where the black and white painted guys get locked into some never ending fight on their otherwise destroyed home planet.

 

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.

 

It's the folks that float in trying to weakly make their point (e.g. 1 came before 2, or calling being asinine because they see things differently) that add no value to the conversation. Other than they lack the ability to clearly outline their viewpoint.

[the blob]

I just want to know which one of you is going to be played by the ghost of Frank Gorshin, that's all.

[Bosco685]

I just want to know which one of you is going to be played by the ghost of Frank Gorshin, that's all.

 

Much more appropriate actor.

 

[slym2none]

Why not cut and paste the Declaration of Independence, something that requires little effort?

 

 

Oh, you know someone is going to do that now...

 

 

 

 

-slym

[RockMyAmadeus]

But you called explaining how the analogy of twin birth had more to do with the situation than just who was born first. There is more by fact - not by tangent to not keep a discussion on track.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe reword...?

 

Just because it didn't fit your frame of reference (what came 1st must be right - it was first),

 

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.

 

versus how something goes from one to the other (one baby will always be called out separate from the other baby, like Claremont would call out the flow of the story going from UXM #266 to X-Men Annual #14), that doesn't mean it is a tangent.

 

Correct, and I didn't say it was (although your analogy is getting fairly tortured by now.)

 

Rather, you still were trying to stick to your thinking above any other view on the subject.

 

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.

 

That's not a tangent.

 

Correct. It is not.

 

Some would call that steering the conversation the way you would like it to be. Like you were accusing me of doing.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

Nobody has 'hurt feelings', so no worries there.

 

Good!

 

But the 'tangents' and you having to keep it on track does come across like on you have a grasp on a situation. You don't have a steer anything.

 

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.

 

We are having a conversation. So just like you ask that I see your viewpoint, I am asking the same.

 

I do, have, and shall.

 

See? We may be getting somewhere here.

 

Possibly. Some might say otherwise.

 

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.

 

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!

 

Your assumption is the correct one!

 

 

See? We are getting somewhere versus the old days.

 

I don't think comparisons need be made, do they? Is it important to mention?

 

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.

 

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.

 

You should do the same.

 

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.

 

Context is everything. I don't disagree with your statement at all, and that is most certainly not the context of my statement.

 

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.)

 

But it is still going to come down to the individual what they trust in.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

This reminds me of the end of that Star Trek episode where the black and white painted guys get locked into some never ending fight on their otherwise destroyed home planet.

 

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The annual hit the stands first. That makes it the first app of Gambit.

 

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.

 

And it just so happens the storylines have some flow from one to the other with Ororo and Gambit's experiences.

 

Most footnoted stories have "some flow from one to the other"...that's why they are footnoted.

 

But I do agree. The overall timeline as a reference (which is not what this is about) would be quite the challenge.

 

 

I'm curious...if the "overall timeframe as a reference" is not what this is about...what IS it about...?

 

 

[porcupine48]

Should I read through all this?!