How about this..

[Drich]

How?

Our observation suggest that you are deeply ignorant,  you lack basic education in science and reality in general,  you have no real earnest desire to learn but you are always on the look out for cheap and quick shortcuts that might seems to you to enable you to dominate conversation with pretenses,  and you are deeply committed to inflating yourself with bombast, braggadocio, shallow bluffing with the help of wikipedia and youtube, appeal to worthless "authority" such as the bible that impress yokels but cuts no ice with the educated as a means of giving yourself a sense of worth.

What is your plan for changing this?

are you calling Deesse deeply ignorant?

That's the way it look per chat etiquette... 

or are you deeply ignorant of how the chat system works?

If you are referring to me then I would like to point you back to  the first thread that kicked all of this off including all of the citations and videos that referenced current technology that you where arguing against.

And while i was citing everything I had to say, you responses where just a smattering of personal insults and putdowns that had little to do with anything topical... it was almost like you where having/recreating a one way father son conversation.

That is how I plan to use science and technology along with proper definitions (not pop culture understanding) to eliminate misunderstanding.. What i plan to do differently is not set you up for a kill shot. (allow you to speak on and on like you have a valid point, and bam set you up for a big reveal on how stupid you where to hold the position you have (EG. the first so what happened thread/ You all where arguing against established technology) 

So rather than allow you to hang yourselves with your own 'rope' I will try and correct you right away so it is not a surprise and you have no recourse... With a kill shot most of you try and stumble back into a flurry of personal insult so to try and save face... So I figure if I do not destroy your face then you should not have to try and save it. rather you should see my point coming if you are reading and interested in a honest conversation.

and again if you don't think this happened to you personally... you and everyone else who bombarded me in the first thread "so what happened" is guilty of this as all of you.. Again I without a doubt had science and technology on my side concerning how everything worked and how feasible everything was as again nothing is speculatory as everything is known/doable technology. The only point of contention was my label as a perpetual motion machine. while it was true this machine potentially will never stop running till well after the earth dies... it does not follow the specific requirements of such a device as such a device does not require fuel. This devise does not require an expendable fuel either but the earth's core temp could be considered as a fuel and as such disqualifies such a device from being identified as a perpetual motion machine.

Here's the thing... not one of you research this subject deep enough to even define what the parameters of your argument was.. meaning you did not even look up the word perpetual motion machine. you all argued from the gut. this is the rope I normally allow you to hang yourself with... IE arguing gut feelings ideas against known science. or establish technology.

---

Our observation suggest that you are deeply ignorant,  you lack basic education in science and reality in general,  you have no real earnest desire to learn but you are always on the look out for cheap and quick shortcuts that might seems to you to enable you to dominate conversation with pretenses,  and you are deeply committed to inflating yourself with bombast, braggadocio, shallow bluffing with the help of wikipedia and youtube, appeal to worthless "authority" such as the bible that impress yokels but cuts no ice with the educated as a means of giving yourself a sense of worth.

What is your plan for changing this?

Don't listen to him Drich! You continue being the best ambassador for Christianity that you can!

We're all relying on you to educate people about God by pointing out how everyone is wrong except you.

not everyone... that is just atheistic hubris talking. in reality only 2.4% of the world self identifies as atheist.. Meaning I do not argue that the whole world is wrong and I am right. I argue that I can cite my work post source material to everything I say and 2.4% of the world is often wrong when it comes to religion, and everything else they have learn to argue from a position of emotion and feeling rather than truth and facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism