im confused as to why he is taking it as a personal attack.
My only point that could be considered an insult was questioning your lack of will to read peiters post yet still claim that you are open minded.
"I respect your point but I don't agree with you. I think style is something that comes to you, it's something that influences you. Personally I don't work at style at all, I draw the way that feel natural to me. When you see stuff you get blown away by, you take some of what you see in you and I believe that you do so without even knowing it. Sometimes you get influenced a lot sometimes you get influenced just a tiny bit. But everything gets mixed in the soup."
Yeah we covered that, and that is one way of developing a style and we are not arguing that, We are arguing the best way to devlop style is to make conscious decisions about what you want your art to look like, but we are saying that the it is perfectly reasonable to make a style just from conscious decisions.
Thing is that my arguments are just a summary of pieters post, so do your self a favour and read it.
Just remember, the key to winning an argument is being willing to accept defeat; If you go into an argument without being wiling to lose you will never consider their points enough to rebut them correctly, and the other person will just get frustrated as you dont actually listen. Your argument is that you can only devlop style with time and cant force it; Our argument is that you can do that, but the most effective way is to use conscious decisions to choose what style you are going to draw with.
Our arguments are similar and we aren't even saying that you are wrong, we are just saying that your point is part of a larger picture.