I can see where Beardguy views them as interchangeable.

While this topic's been mostly pure appreciation and nostalgia for Kirby's work, a few have said here in this topic they don't like or see what the big deal is about Kirby. And that's fine, not everyone has to like his work.

But the focus of the other topic...



...has been, to paraphrase in less vulgar language: "Is Kirby really that great? Is he worthy of his 'King of comics' reputation?" Which I answered with the rest.



So I do see a distinction between the two topics.

This one is more for reflecting back on personal favorites of Kirby's work, and new editions that keep his legacy alive, and portfolio work by Kirby, and discussing tributes by other artists, such as the Levitz/Giffen darkness saga in LEGION, or Simonson's ORION series, or new Marvel Masterworks editions. Or discussing nostalgically the various eras of Kirby's career, and enthusiastically remembering one's favorite work by Kirby, or other aspects of his career, personal life, its impact on his work, and anecdotes about Kirby or having met him.

The other topic by Karl Hungus (or Ray Adler) is about what makes someone worthy of being called the field's greatest artist, and whether Kirby fits the criteria to be called that. Which is more about contrasting Kirby with other artists, in the greater context of comics history. It's a bit less reverent, and a bit more critical of Kirby's work.

Both topics have their individual merits, and a degree of crossover.

But I like the two being separate.