Because he didn't, and you're the only one pretending he did.

I don't want to get into the middle of you and Allen, but I do think that anyone who creates art is an artist,* and can reasonably call themselves that. This doesn't entail anything about quality or evaluation (I prefer Cooke's art to Allen's, for example). Likewise, I'd call you a writer and a critic, even if you're not paid a cent for it (something that's getting harder to do these days).


*I should've added: "with an aesthetic goal of creating art of some kind." I wouldn't call just anyone drawing doodles on a magazine cover an artist. Nor would tweeting "you suck" make one a critic.

The archives of The Comics Journal are now available online for you to correct yourself.

I do, too, but that's because a big chunk of Cooke's art is actually Milton Caniff's.

Like Charles, I'm of a 'let's you and him fight' frame of mind, however I have to say that Allen has some pretty decent artistic chops. In fact, this morning when I read the original comment questioning this particular ability of his, I went to retrieve a couple of his works from the Sketch-a-Day thread in Creating Comics. They're gone, kaput, raptured! What happened?

I changed ISP's in January and my personal web space where those images were hosted is now invalid.

I don't want to confuse ComiCon history with Julius Caesar's classic accounts of the Gallic Wars or anything, but that's too bad, there was some good stuff in there. I especially liked the portrait of the female singer in an art nouveau, steampunk style.

And there's another of those ambiguous accusations.

Again, this allen's way of accusing people of something that sounds like copying, but is ambiguous enough that he doesn't have to prove or defend his accusations.

Why not set up a Deviant Art site like Hunter did, a basic page is free, and there a wide variety artists of varying talent and experience.

If you are nervous about criticism, you can turn off the comments. But if you are open to it you might get helpful pointers.

I'm not trying to slag you you paranoid hayseed. If I'm wrong here I'm just misinformed. Wikipedia cites two articles, one from Wizard and one from Entertainment Weekly, and goes on to say, Moore claimed he ran across a guide to cult tv that featured "The Architects of Fear" episode, but it was after he wrote the ending, (a likely story!), and then quotes Len Wein saying "it simply stole the ending to an episode of 'The Outer Limits,' which Alan fully admitted!"

It's hard to believe he just ran across a show description with the same plot device. But even then, at the very least, Moore's addition of the reference is tacked on, if he didn't know of the similarity until finding the guide. And just making reference to the episode doesn't make it any less "lifting" the episodes plot to use as the ending in Watchmen. It doesn't make it an homage either.