All of which are total bullshit.

I liked Joe Staton--as a kid--thirty years ago--he's not an influence--never has been. I haven't looked at Byrne's work in years.

None of what you see is there.

You do not know better than I do in this matter.

And you can't seem to grasp the idea that this is simply the way I draw. I don't work with comics open beside me-- I never have. My work is not bits and pieces taken from other artists--it's the way I've solved the artistic challenges thrown at me. A car has to look like something--the shine on a toaster has to look some way-- a hand has to be drawn somehow-- chances are some other artist has drawn a car or a toaster or a hand before and likely to somebody's untrained eye they'll see something that's simply not there.

And regardless of what you seem to think--I still make a very good living from comic books.

So, who do you consider the main the influences on your style, then?

The thing is--had you said, "this looks like Byrne to me" I'd have to agree--it does look like Byrne to you. When you start saying, unequivocally, that you know better than I do in regard to my influences--well, that's when I have to take issue with you--you don't know better than I do. I am the authority here.

Jack Kirby, Walter Simonson, Frank Miller, Terry Austin, Bill Sienkiewicz and Klaus Janson in that order.

Hahaha. Yeah, ANYBODY but John Byrne, right. Because that asshole Montgomery said so, and I have to contradict him.

Byrne stole everything from Neal Adams and Kirby anyway.

Oops, sorry, stuck in snobbish/oversimplifying/know-it-all mode. Never read too much Montgomery prose, kids. That's hardcore stuff, goes straight to the head.

I can't sleep, so, just by way of a picture comparison, I still see more of a Staton similarity than any of the others. I grabbed these from the first page that came up in Google Images:

Larsen:


Staton:


Kirby:


Simonson:


I can see the Simonson more than the Kirby, but Simonson has always looked similar to Staton to me.

Ah well, it was just for kicks.

And here's a random from Byrne:

Y'know that's not the first time I've seen you try to insult someone that way. And above with Chris, the "Don't ask, don't tell," remark, isn't the first time you've tried to insult someone by calling them gay.

Add to that how you claimed Erik Larsen traces John Byrne, and looking through his work to prove your point made you sick, among other things. That's not the first time you've felt it necessary to attack artists whose work you didn't like, instead of just an insult free, adult critique.

You bullied Tony Isabella about posts you could easily have ignored, and you've annoyed the hell out of the incredibly patient Pat Broderick. And dismissed most every small publisher who dares try and start a business.

You sure have a lot of issues about very specific things. Are you a failed artist, (or failed business owner?), and closeted homosexual, stuck in a sham marriage because your wife pays for everything and wears the pants in your family?

No, you being an asshole about it, has nothing to do with whether people disagree with you or not.

Making a statement like Erik Larsen's work seems influenced heavily by Byrne's work is a perfectly valid statement, and one that would be a great topic for debate. But claiming he "traces" Byrne's work and that the work makes you "sick" is argumentative and intentionally provocative, it's disingenuous to imply otherwise.