As far as my wife goes, I'm exceptionally devoted to her. We've been married since 1990 and we're still on the honeymoon...I've based a couple of my toon characters on us.

I began drawing when I was 10 or so and had fun with it for about 10 years before I became disgusted with the industry and quit. I let the skills stay dormant until 2005 when I decided they'd make a relaxing hobby/diversion, and that has indeed been the case. Now you can see it all at my newer site, The Annals of Hearthstone, where I let the creative side run free. I offer two closely-related serial comics titled Range Patrol and Shrike Team, based in an anthropomorphic-inhabited world of my own creation called Hearthstone. If you liked Lewis' Narnia series, you'll very likely get hooked on Hearthstone, too. Just be advised that I've rated the comics PG for serious themes. If you're an uptight, "Puritan" sorta person, you won't appreciate it.

I have a drawing style that one professional artist friend of mine compared to the late Disney comic book artist Carl Barks. I see my style as a mix of Barks with a touch of anime/manga thrown in.

To outsiders, INTJs may appear to project an aura of "definiteness", of self-confidence. This self-confidence, sometimes mistaken for simple arrogance by the less decisive, is actually of a very specific rather than a general nature; its source lies in the specialized knowledge systems that most INTJs start building at an early age. In other words, why my simpler-minded opponents think I'm arrogant. When it comes to their own areas of expertise -- and INTJs can have several -- they will be able to tell you almost immediately whether or not they can help you, and if so, how. INTJs know what they know, and perhaps still more importantly, they know what they don't know. That's the answer to those who say I don't address topics like evolution out of "fear" or some other such nonsense. But check out the rest of the profile - I'm in good company (Susan B. Anthony, William F. Buckley, Jr., Phil Donahue, Everett Koop, C. S. Lewis (yep!), Colin Powell).

There's some more here that tells more of the story: It is in their abilities that INTJs differ from the other NTs, while in most of their attitudes they are just like the others. However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other NTs: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will. They are rather rare, comprising no more than, say, one percent of the population. Being very judicious, decisions come naturally to them; indeed, they can hardly rest until they have things settled, decided, and set. They are the people who are able to formulate coherent and comprehensive contingency plans, hence contingency organizers or "entailers."...In a sense, INTJs approach reality as they would a giant chess board, always seeking strategies that have a high payoff, and always devising contingency plans in case of error or adversity. (So, critics can spare that rot they like to use about me being afraid to find that Christianity is not true....I have my "contingency" already: deism. And frankly, if deism were true it'd make my life a lot easier, so I have every motive to wish it were, if indeed it was true.) To the INTJ, organizational structure and operational procedures are never arbitrary, never set in concrete, but are quite malleable and can be changed, improved, streamlined. In their drive for efficient action, INTJs are the most open-minded of all the types. No idea is too far-fetched to be entertained-if it is useful. (So don't refer to me as a closed-minded fundy, thanks. If I reject your ideas, it is because they are bad, not because I don't like them or am afraid of them.) INTJs are natural brainstormers, always open to new concepts and, in fact, aggressively seeking them. (Ditto.) They are also alert to the consequences of applying new ideas or positions. Theories which cannot be made to work are quickly discarded by the INTJs. On the other hand, INTJs can be quite ruthless in implementing effective ideas, seldom counting personal cost in terms of time and energy. (So don't try to tell me that I hang on to stuff that has been disproven, doesn't work, etc. It's not the way my type operates. My critics are simply imposing their own way of thinking on me. They're also afraid of someone who doesn't mind paying the price of time and energy to take them on.)

But anyway, I have a whole package of testimonies from readers who have found the ministry helpful over the years. Feel free to request a copy and find out why the critics are just spewing sour grapes because they can't get any respect.

Why are you so mean to people? I have a certain style I adopt at times that has earned me the description, "the Ann Coulter of apologetics" from one commentator. Before you write me to object to any treatment of an opponent, you need to consider a few things. First, despite what those of the Gored Oxen League may suggest, I use satire and sarcasm very sparingly, and only against opponents who show a certain proven measure of ignorance, arrogance, or willingness to deceive. (Of course, they would never see themselves as doing that, even if they're caught at it.) You'll find such rhetorical devices in less than 5 percent of the articles here; and much of it is now on the toon site in a special parody section, with illustrations. Second, whether we like it or not, Jesus and other Biblical figures did the same thing. Please, read the link if you have an issue, and do not reply with contrived explanations like, "Jesus had special insight" and all that...it really doesn't work, and let's be honest -- hopes that being "nice" to a vicious apostate out to tear the faith out of Christians will return them to God, are misplaced, to say nothing of being rooted in modern sentimentalism. Finally, I never do any of this gratuitously -- if I say someone is "ignorant," I prove it by showing they are. I'm also not "angry" or "threatened" or "full of pride" or any of that nonsense. All responses are carefully calculated for a specific effect and there is no "pride" involved in stating what is a fact. If you can't deal with the facts, then don't try to dispute them.

In sum, if you have a problem with the way I address someone, I expect you to know enough about that someone to explain why they don't earn what they get and to provide a solid answer rooted in fact, not in what you wish were true. As of the end of 2007 I have decided that I will no longer waste time replying to emails from people who can't follow these simple requests and points above, so if you don't, you'll get a reply instead from my patented Baloney Filter mechanism and thereafter be blocked. As always, though, honest inquiries are appreciated and will be treated with the utmost respect.