Luke, I am your father CHANGED, to NO, I am your father......

a reply to: hidingthistime

I'd also like to say this about the wine bottle/skin passage.

It never says it was about making wine. It say new and old wine. New wine doesn't mean it hasn't gone through the fermentation and degassing stage, it just means its new wine.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: hidingthistime

I'd also like to say this about the wine bottle/skin passage.

It never says it was about making wine. It say new and old wine. New wine doesn't mean it hasn't gone through the fermentation and degassing stage, it just means its new wine.

the whole point is, it never, ever said bottles before, in the kjv it does now. It was always wineskins. I would be freaking if I ever saw bottles, as it makes no sense!

a reply to: hidingthistime

If you had read it you would know why it is called Interview With the Vampire, the 'narrator' in the book makes it clear. Sorry if that sounded rude, but when I saw it mentioned I went and grabbed my crumbly yellowing copy from 1989. Off topic, the film was pretty terrible but nowhere near as bad as the movie for Queen of the Damned.

originally posted by: hidingthistime

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: hidingthistime

I'd also like to say this about the wine bottle/skin passage.

It never says it was about making wine. It say new and old wine. New wine doesn't mean it hasn't gone through the fermentation and degassing stage, it just means its new wine.

the whole point is, it never, ever said bottles before, in the kjv it does now. It was always wineskins. I would be freaking if I ever saw bottles, as it makes no sense!

Yet some of them say wineskins and some say bottles. Easily explained. You read a bible which said one and not the other.

Why would having wine in a bottle make no sense? Do you go to the supermarket and freak out by all the alcohol in bottles on the shelves?

Your points are making less and less sense the more you try to rationalise them.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ditto, you are likewise making less and less sense to me.

I am done explaining things over and over to you.

To you this is just some game obviously.

originally posted by: hidingthistime
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ditto, you are likewise making less and less sense to me.

Really? Im not the one who thinks wine can't be in glass bottles lol.

I am done explaining things over and over to you.

You haven't done it once, let alone "over and over"

To you this is just some game obviously.

How could you possibly know that?

a reply to: TerryDon79

No, bottles don't stretch! Stop twisting my words! Holy crap, bottles do not stretch for the 10th time!

originally posted by: hidingthistime
a reply to: TerryDon79

No, bottles don't stretch! Stop twisting my words! Holy crap, bottles do not stretch for the 10th time!

Why would they need to stretch? You keep bringing this up and I've asked twice.

There's no mention in that bible passage that the wine was fermenting or needed degassing. It just references new and old wine. Supermarkets have new wine in bottles. They don't stretch either.

originally posted by: hidingthistime
a reply to: TerryDon79

No, bottles don't stretch! Stop twisting my words! Holy crap, bottles do not stretch for the 10th time!

Actually, they can stretch....just minutely before they break from internal pressure. Unless, of course they are heated to above their glass transformation temperature.

The temperature to which you are referring is called the glass transformation temperature. This is the temperature range at which glass changes from exhibiting solid characteristics to exhibiting liquid characteristics. This temperature is ~580°C for soda-lime-silica (SLS) glass (beer bottles, pickle containers and windows are made from SLS glass). The temperature you should be looking for is the working range of glass. This is the temperature range between the softening point and the working point, which for SLS glass is between 700-1000°C.

Source: At what temperature does glass become malleable without melting?


Unless, of course, that physics is also different in your original timeline too.

a reply to: hidingthistime

Cool Thread! I haven't read all the pages of replies yet, I do apologize for My Lazydom, but wanted to post this for all of those who say The line was always, "No, I am your father"... It was NOT THAT Originally!!

If so, WHY then would this be put into the Chris Farley David Spade movie, Tommy Boy?
The First part says it all!!!

This could make some sense as I have always had insomnia.... not sure if my head can believe in time travel though. ?.

a reply to: SyxPak

Why?

Because "Luke, I am your father" is instantly recognisable. "No, I am your father" could be a quote from Star Wars, Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer.

a reply to: SyxPak
Because the writers wanted to provide context for you, the viewer. That is the reason. Otherwise, you the viewer, would see him talking into a fan and only saying "No, I am your father". And that would not "click" in the minds of the viewer what he was doing, and would not be as humorous....since it is a movie... a comedy movie and not a documentary.

Next you will agree that James T Kirk always said, "Beam me up Scotty", when that too was not ever spoken in ST the original series. That particular saying became popular due to T-Shirts that also needed to provide context for the unaware.

a reply to: SyxPak

I love Chris Farley!

It is funny, a lot of the naysayers use this clip to try and say that it is this movies fault that we remeber Luke..... so dear Chris rewrote it, according to them!

a reply to: hidingthistime

Not just Chris. Marketing in the 80s used it on merchandise too.

(I already pointed that out btw)

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: SyxPak
Because the writers wanted to provide context for you, the viewer. That is the reason. Otherwise, you the viewer, would see him talking into a fan and only saying "No, I am your father". And that would not "click" in the minds of the viewer what he was doing, and would not be as humorous....since it is a movie... a comedy movie and not a documentary.

Next you will agree that James T Kirk always said, "Beam me up Scotty", when that too was not ever spoken in ST the original series. That particular saying became popular due to T-Shirts that also needed to provide context for the unaware.

how come all of these arguments only started a few years ago then, all started showing up and snowballing together? Nobody noticed the 500 times they watched it? No. It was always Luke when I watched it.

originally posted by: hidingthistime
a reply to: SyxPak

I love Chris Farley!

It is funny, a lot of the naysayers use this clip to try and say that it is this movies fault that we remeber Luke..... so dear Chris rewrote it, according to them!

Ummm, Chris didn't write that line. Bonnie Turner and Terry Turner (screen writers) wrote the screenplay, wrote it (in this timeline) and Chris Farley (actor) spoke the line as written.

Please don't try to change MY timeline due to your inability to correctly remember the film, Tommy Boy (not Black Sheep) thank you.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So what about the berenstein bears then? Why do we pronounce it "steen?"....

Why are there not 50000 bear pooh STAIN jokes?