dewlap In reply to faestock [2012-06-04 13:30:01 +0000 UTC]

Great gallery and quite a lot of interesting poses, very inspiring

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to Algoroth [2012-03-26 02:14:01 +0000 UTC]

In addition, if you decided to talk about what others said, please notify them as well. You don't want to be too one sided do you?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algoroth In reply to dewlap [2012-03-26 15:27:18 +0000 UTC]

That is what my gryphon heresies journals are for. For people to look at, comment on, agree/disagree and so on. You are quite welcome to come in, read, comment, and so on. Just browse through my journals. Lots of cool gryphon stuff!

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

dewlap In reply to Algoroth [2012-03-27 01:35:09 +0000 UTC]

By the way, apart from Qilong's post then I would assume that you've also mentioned something similar on you "gryhon heresies journals", right?

If that is the case then, thanks for misrepresenting what I said... again.

I don't mind to discuss with you on the topic but I still have no interest on verifying the appearance of an imaginary creature. I said I'm happy to talk about it here because I think it is a waste of space on Qilong's post, and I don't really use my profile page anyway.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to Algoroth [2012-03-26 23:28:11 +0000 UTC]

You do know that the ONLY reason for me to pursuit on Qilong's post is because you have misrepresented what I said, right?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algoroth In reply to dewlap [2012-03-29 17:06:29 +0000 UTC]

In what way?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

dewlap In reply to Algoroth [2012-03-30 00:08:08 +0000 UTC]

Here is a cut and paste version of what I said from the other post (please see below). Not sure why you would do multiple posts on this. For someone who wants to be left alone, you sure have a unique way of showing this

Where shall I begin...

In the original post you said "...One deviant says I should not question the P. andrewsii hypothesis because gryphons were mythical and nothing could be proven. As if we're not allowed to speculate or have fun doing so..."

If you've gone back to my post on the gryphon basically my focus was: (To keep this simple I'll break it down in point forms for you, so there will be no confusion)

1. "cherry picking" data and ignoring trend (majority) is hardly good science.
2. I have no way of verifying your result or any results (imaginary). I have no way to determine whether one is more correct than the other...
3. feel free to speculate, but your method is on the bias side of things, if you are trying to sound "scientific" about it at the same time.
4. I have no preferences on whatever people come up with the creature. Reason as in 2.

Now, please point me to the part where did I say "...says I should not question the P. andrewsii hypothesis...As if we're not allowed to speculate or have fun doing so..."? All that I said on this is speculate/question all you like (if that is your interest) and whatever you come up with is fine. The only problem I have is your so called "scientific" method.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to Algoroth [2012-03-26 01:29:45 +0000 UTC]

Message received. ok

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to Feb-Gaara [2012-03-16 14:10:12 +0000 UTC]

thanks,

short faced bear... I'll try but probably have to take me some time because I'll need to look up info on the animal first.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Feb-Gaara In reply to dewlap [2012-03-16 14:53:45 +0000 UTC]

O(∩_∩)O~

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to fireydeathmonster [2012-01-05 09:56:37 +0000 UTC]

perhaps one day...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to szuzi [2011-08-22 13:18:40 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I quite enjoy drawing portraits and people. However, since I used to be an illustrator/tour guide at a museum that's why my gallery is mainly on prehistoric animals...

Your gallery is very interesting since there are a lot of poses which shows the human form very well (like how the knees look at different angles, how the form of the muscle changes in different poses or even the changes of the tilt on the body to keep the overall balance... and also poses which I don't think it's even possible...). I hope to see your next update soon.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

szuzi In reply to dewlap [2011-08-22 13:28:30 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I'm not sure when this will come, but there will be I'm sure!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to svna [2011-06-01 23:09:18 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, and you too have a wonderful day .

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to seridio-red [2011-02-06 08:48:21 +0000 UTC]

Thankyou, I'm glad you like my work.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to bronze-dragonrider [2011-01-29 15:29:27 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to bucketman123 [2010-12-09 21:53:44 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I'm not sure what to say but I'm just average. I am glad that you like my work perhaps I should do more drawings since I've been very lazy lately...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to AyanAyzodei [2010-11-04 12:14:51 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I hope to do more soon. I'm kind of busy with work at the moment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to Art-Minion-Andrew0 [2010-10-07 01:26:47 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, Greg's work is great both in accuracy (as least that's what I think) and pleasing to the eyes. Poses on these animals are not forced as in a lot of illustrations and they looked quite natural. However, not sure why but I find his recent illustrations / paintings style (especially those in his coffee table book)very dull and lifeless...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dewlap In reply to BlueCea [2009-08-28 14:37:58 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

Pleistocene?! I suppose you are talking about birds, right? Or just prehistoric animals? Wouldn't you prefer a period within the Mesozoic era?

As for more pictures... unfortunately, I'm getting quite lazy nowadays... I draw at work so by the time I get home I just don't have much drive to pick up a pencil... but I'll try...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlueCea In reply to dewlap [2009-08-29 00:27:55 +0000 UTC]

Sorry the Pleistocene is the "Ice Age". So mammoths, saber tooths, terror birds, the big mammals and birds. I understand too the lazy part. But when you need it, it'll be there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0