It feels kinda weird being accused of *NOT* tracing.

Weird because you were the guy who accused Erik Larsen of tracing yet you could not provide one piece of evidence?

Larsen traced Byrne during his formative years. Larsen denied this, but he also denied Byrne was even one of his major influences AFTER HE HAD ALREADY WRITTEN A LONG EDITORIAL SAYING THAT BYRNE WAS THE MAJOR INFLUENCE OF HIS FORMATIVE YEARS. There are still very strong elements of Byrne in Larsen's crap style, along with elements lifted from Kirby, Staton, Miller, etc., but Byrne still looms large over Larsen. The guy still has a copy of the Pacific Comics ROG-2000 oversized edition at an arm's length, fer chrissakes.

And once again, don't question my aesthetic perception.

Hah, this thread just got more interesting!!!

Yeah, why is it so unbelievable that I translated his cartoony skull into a more realistic looking skull? I don't get it.

I believe you. It's like a total Allen thing to do..

I say this with actual experience after having you ink over my pencils...and you do make changes or adapt it towards your view point...so I could totally see this happening.

Not really much of a conspiracy I'm thinking. I just like seeing you both produce!

"Tracing" and "being influenced by" are different things.

I said nothing about the arguments which could be made regarding influences. I said you, "accused Erik Larsen of tracing yet you could not provide one piece of evidence"

Tracing is a provable offense.

Note how your clip art skull has no a single element in common with mine. Not a one. That's not "tracing." Was it influenced by? Possibly.

Lets see some art that was literally "traced" by Larsen.

Holy fuck. Have you been drinking? Okay, let's go through this again.

Larsen learned to draw by tracing John Byrne comics. He said in his article that Byrne was the major influence of his formative years. Do you honestly believe that teenaged Larsen *NEVER EVER* took a piece of tracing paper to the work of the guy he was admittedly trying to copy? And even though I was merely using the word in a derogatory connotation (the way you're using "clip art" here), if you really want to get technical, simply following the lines of Byrne — even without the use of a lightbox, projector or onionskin paper — does fall within the textbook definition of the word "tracing."

Has Larsen had any published work that is a tracing from Byrne? I haven't studied his garbage closely enough to know. However, what I have seen absolutely screams the origin of his limited abilities. That you choose not to see that may have something to do with why you can't even draw something as ubiquitous as a human skull in the proper proportions.

If thats the hair your splitting now...

Of course not, I don't think there are very many artists out there that didn't trace when young and just LEARNING. It's a valuable tool in teaching art. Your earlier accusations were not that specific. Or no one would have argued with you.

You do this bait and switch thing all the time, you make a dramatic and inflammatory claim, or accusation and then back it down into something that no reasonable person could argue with. "I chased a filthy homo into traffic," later becomes "What's wrong with chasing a filthy drug addicted, gay prostitute, nose picking, booger eating, drug dealer, away from precious young children! I'm a hero dammit!"

You are obviously playing some sort of game over and over.