?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Paul Shirley, Would You Rather, Time Machine, Interview Question. - Sauce1977 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Sauce1977

[ Userinfo | Sauce1977 Userinfo ]
[ Archive | Sauce1977 Archive ]

Paul Shirley, Would You Rather, Time Machine, Interview Question. [May. 10th, 2006|06:00 pm]
Sauce1977
[Tags|, , , ]
[Current Location |Somewhere in time.]
[Special Music |Paul Engemann - Scarface (Push It To The Limit)]



Paul Shirley is a basketball professional who last played with the Phoenix Suns in the NBA in the 2004-2005 season.

Currently, he's in Hollywood, doing production for a possible show about his life experience with basketball. Fox network has the pilot, and it could be picked up for the upcoming fall season.

He also keeps an internet presence on ESPN.com and blogland's MySpace.

********************

I submitted a series of "Who'd you rather?" questions today for Paul.

He opened his chat session with one of them.

********************


Who'd You Rather (City, State): Your time machine malfunctions . . . would you rather it take you to 1965, or 2065?

Paul Shirley: (4:02 PM ET): Have to go with the future. There will be all kinds of clones running around and I'll probably get some kind of jet pack out of the deal. 1965 feels too Quantum Leap. I never really wanted to go through that.

Paul Shirley: (4:02 PM ET): That certainly had nothing to do with sports. We're off to a roaring start.


********************

The question begs itself for your consideration.

What would you choose, if you had to do so?

1965 . . . or 2065?


Poll #726373 Time Machine Malfunction. You'd Rather Hit the Year . . .

ZZZZZZZZANG!

1965
10(71.4%)
2065
4(28.6%)


Plus . . . any particular reason for the choice?


********************


Paul Shirley.

Paul Shirley . . . professional basketball player . . . would-be time traveler.  Push it to the limit.

Professional basketball player . . . would-be time traveler. Push it to the limit.

He only did this once before.

He only did this once before.


********************


linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: gjenkins05
2006-05-11 12:35 am (UTC)
Safety not guaranteed!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 12:50 am (UTC)
PUSH IT TO THE LIMIT!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 01:07 am (UTC)
You know, I was waiting for someone to comment on the past.

If there are alternate time paths, on a trip into the past, I'd like to know just what the best payout rate for 1965 would have been on any particular bet . . . before I'd be swept back in time.

What I mean is . . . there's no guarantee (SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED) that, upon your arrival, if you did anything to change the time path (crush a flower underfoot, cause nuclear war years later, or the extinction of that species of flower, etc.) . . . like, once you're on a new time path, or an alternate reality . . . there's no guarantee (SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED) that outcomes of races or baseball games would, in fact, be identical to what you knew them to be.

In essence, I think Marty McFly was getting a little too hepped up about betting on races because there's a good chance they altered the time path. Plus, that Biff Alternate Reality was a crock of shit, as well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 01:28 am (UTC)
Is it the golden age of American horror that would draw you into the past?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 07:10 am (UTC)
Nuclear families, golden age of General Motors . . . sock hops, hoop skirts, soda jerks, Vincent Price in his prime, The Tingler, French Ticklers, Say Hey Kid, no Right Said Fred . . . sounds like fun.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brokenxwings
2006-05-11 01:04 am (UTC)
Shirely looks a lot like Matt Leinart.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 01:09 am (UTC)
And, for that reason, he is joyous upon joyousness.

He's mentioned multiple times that he uses that to his advantage at clubs and other situations . . . he lives in LA right now. I mean, it's gotta be the best time ever to be Paul Shirley, Matt Leinart Body Double.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pierce
2006-05-11 02:05 am (UTC)
stop calliing him 'shirley'!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 04:31 am (UTC)
Paul Shirley admits that, with his middle name . . . being called "P-M-S" kind of sucks.

Mike (Orange County): I saw someone address you on MySpace as P-M-S. I assume your middle name begins with M and I have to ask, do your parent hate you?

Paul Shirley: (4:42 PM ET ) Middle name: Murphy. My mother, who is a registered nurse, claims that the term was not yet coined when I was born. I used to get destroyed in middle school--girl's name as a last name and my initials have to do with menstruation. Then, I learned about sarcasm.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brushwithrob
2006-05-11 03:44 am (UTC)
I chose 1965, so I can watch the Yankees dominate in the 70's, as well as make mountains of cash off their victories.

Sort've like Biff in "Back To The Future".
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 04:36 am (UTC)
I don't think an alternate time path would make betting on the outcomes possible, my good man.

Think about it . . . forget the BTTF bullshit . . . now, think . . . let's say you picked the Mets to win it all in 1969, and in the time to wait, you kept a low profile. When it came time, you dropped as much dime as you could . . . and won . . . and then, with the publicity for having your face all over the papers, where it normally wasn't . . . suddenly, the Mets repeat in 1970, then the Pirates beat the Tigers in 1971 . . . pretty soon, you see the Yanks only get to one WS in the 70s, and they trade Reggie in 1978 . . . I mean, alternate time paths are a bitch.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brushwithrob
2006-05-11 05:38 pm (UTC)
Your logic is flawed, sir. Who's going to put my face on all kinds of newspapers and junk? Maintaining a low profile would be key. Nothing would change, I don't think, because as a man making money off the World Series, you'd be on the periphery.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-12 07:58 am (UTC)
Well, here's the thing . . . I guess I'm mistaking my own wish to make money with the gamble with the largest historical payout, aka . . . the biggest underdog of that time.

Such a person winning . . . millions, let's say . . . would clearly get their face in the papers.

Unfortunately, I don't think that I could last until 1969 . . . the Mets just popped into the head as an example of "no way they win it all . . . holy shit, wait."

What I mean . . . by the time you got there, something you'd do would change the time path sooner than later.

So, the only alternative is to look for the largest payout within immediate arrival, and keep a very very low profile.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brushwithrob
2006-05-12 03:46 pm (UTC)
True, very true. Horse racing is an easy way to make a fortune without drawing a lot of attention.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 06:30 am (UTC)
That's my point I've been trying to throw out there . . . let's say you did something that affected the public consciousness . . . by the time you did it, it would have ultimately affected the time path.

So, basically, from that point forward, it's a whole different reality.

So, you wouldn't possibly know everything that was coming from that point.

That's why BTTF 2 is a bunch of bullshit . . . once Biff won one time at that racetrack, the entire series of sporting events would not necessarily play out the same way.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 06:38 am (UTC)
Which isn't to say that some events would be the same . . . maybe some points in time are destined to turn out the same way. Like, let's say you manage to not have GWB in office . . . but then, some blubbering idiot far beyond any stupidity level previously possible wins and is re-elected in 2000 and 2004 . . . same game, different names.

"The Twilight Zone" touched on that idea . . . but they made reference to some events being impossible to change, like President Lincoln's assassination.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 06:59 am (UTC)
The only reason why I would possibly do 2065 . . . if I was terminally ill . . . maybe there's a cure available. In general, I'd be averse to the future because there would be no guarantee that there is a future.

Let's say that some galactic calamity happens, like a gigantic planet-sized rogue body . . . well, let's say that big thing collides with the Earth sometime between today and that day, and Earth shatters into bits. I wouldn't know about it, and when I jumped, I'd jump into a void.

There's another problem I thought up . . . this one's kind of from that one Ashton Kutcher film where he jumped around in time . . . if, for example, you got back to '65 and changed something significant . . . there's a possibility, if you had the chance to return to the current day, that a similar calamity could have happened.

For instance, there's a story that is around out there about the USSR's near-miss with nuclear holocaust. I think, in 1983, those in charge of the USSR's nuclear arsenal went to red alert over a radar malfunction. The readout appeared to show multiple nukes on the way to mother Russia. The superiors reacted quickly, pushing for immediate retaliation, but those in direct control of the launch button prevailed with cooler heads, choosing to see what happened. It turned out that it was a radar glitch, and the USSR avoided starting WW3.

In an alternate time path, maybe the superiors said, in Russian, "move, bitch, get out the way," and slapped all the launch buttons.

I think I'd do 1965, if only for that one big payout in the lottery/race track/ball game. Plus, being able to see Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles, live . . . that would probably be enough fun to off-set the bullshit of MLK and RFK's deaths, Nixon, and Vietnam . . . I'm 29, so I doubt if I'd be drafted, considering that without my glasses, my vision's shitty . . . younger kids might be a bit concerned about that possibility.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-11 07:08 am (UTC)
Plus, think about all the humping . . . for those who are single, there's no chance of getting HIV until the late 1970s. There'd be plenty of time to find someone to love, doo doo doo doooooo.

For those who aren't great at school, there would not yet be a need for a college degree to make a living.

I can do without the fancy fucking video games, too. Waiting around for Pong would be fine . . . Monopoly is available, and with all that time, plus a general idea of what might happen . . . fun times.

I don't think I'd want to go back further than modern plumbing. I'm not much of a camper, nor am I a fan of outhouses.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-12 08:00 am (UTC)
I think the worst pain I'd feel would be lack of internet/computer/telecom system. I hate phones, so the only way to k.i.t. would be through written letter.

Bag phones would be around by the 70s, but you'd have to be a mogul by that point.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: prophecy03
2006-05-11 11:20 am (UTC)
I would have to say the future. Check a couple things out, get some money making ideas....actually, steal inventions....

And check on the course of history, so if Jeb Bush runs for President and wins, I can kill myself in advance.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-12 08:27 am (UTC)
Hahhahaha.

So, you wouldn't be concerned with a jump to 2065 if there was a great possibility that you could jump into an environment that could not support life . . . that's interesting. :D

I like that daredevil nature, haha.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-12 08:28 am (UTC)
It's largely mapped for the consciousness, leaving little room for surprise.

We're also close enough to it to avoid any revisionist bends.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-12 02:18 pm (UTC)
If what Serling introduced in the episode about Lincoln's assassination is true . . . that some events are largely fixed in what could be stated as all possible time paths . . . there could be events in the future that hold such a property.

That would suggest a sort of fate, but it wouldn't revolve around every event.

As it stands, by the sheer nature of alternate time paths, that would suggest that fate and destiny largely do not exist.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: holzerhedrpca
2006-05-11 08:49 pm (UTC)
1965... easily.

For one, I would be able to relive the Phillies' only World Series victory, two Flyers Stanley Cup wins and two or three Philly basketball titles. Two... the music scene... wow, I mean, how could I pass up the opportunity to see bands like The Beatles (I think 1965 is before they stopped touring), King Crimson, Genesis, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, The Who, Jimi Hendrix Experience among others in their absolute primes live? Plus, I could be there to experience the music again as it came out...

I'm absolutely fine with the here and now... but there's something about being able to look forward to some of that stuff and experience the euphoria.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2006-05-12 08:33 am (UTC)
Since you mentioned 3 of the 4 in this YTMND, I submit to you a well-done page in the genre:

Whatchuknowaboutchordprogressions?

I'm pretty sure that within well-known chord progressions, there's probably others who have used this pleasing set of chords . . . I'll bet Nirvana had a variation of this among their tunes.

I guess you could call this an example of a "power progression."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)