Evidently I've been sucked into some kind of terrible troll vortex, but I'm going to take one last shot at this.
rhodo said:
Very well, I suppose I need to explain in detail since you still keep missing the point.
You said "copying" is not the same thing as "being mistaken for". Since there's zero chances of anyone possibly mistaking your comic for Penny Arcade or Calvin&Hobbes, of course it can only be "copying". Which is why I used that word ("ripping off") when making my comment.
So, is it clear now?
No, because that's not how the English language works. Saying something is a "rip off of" or is "inspired by" product x does, in no way shape or form, imply it's as good as, indistinguishable from or easily mistaken for said product in terms of quality. If you think it does, you're wrong. If I wanted to say "my comic is just like Calvin and Hobbes!" I would write exactly that. I didn't write that. You misunderstood. I can't possibly make this any clearer.
As for the point YOU are trying to make: are you honestly telling me that a comic's quality is defined by how many years it has been going on?
Do you mean I'm telling you that sometimes things get better over time? Yes. [http://penny-arcade.com/comic/1998/11/18] Yes, I am. [http://penny-arcade.com/comic] Do I think
Critical Miss gets better as Cory and I hone our craft? Yes.
And again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never compared
Critical Miss to either of the strips mentioned. The point I was making is how incredibly asinine your original comment was. You're comparing my work, negatively, to two of the
greatest comics ever made, and this supposed to be either a: insulting or b: a critical observation. It's neither. It's the equivalent of going to see a local band and pointing out they're not as good as
Led Zeppelin. Which is really about as informative as pointing out water is wet.