AnalPhilosopher

“[I]t is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little,
and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.” —John Locke, 1689

“[P]hilosophy can no more show a man what he should attach importance to
than geometry can show a man where he should stand.” —Peter Winch, 1968

Precognition

Lance Armstrong will become an action hero in Hollywood. Think about it. He's fit; he's strong; he has nerves of steel; he's a quick study; he has worldwide name recognition. Brian Bosworth fizzled—although I rather liked Stone Cold (1991). I think Lance would succeed. What do you think?

Kevin Stroup (mail):
1. Can he act even a little? Yes, you can be so bad that even in action movies you are horrible. Remember the Muscles from Brussels?
2. Can he bulk up? Endurance physiques do not he-men make.
3. If he can do the first 2 things I listed then: definitely. If not, then: maybe.
7.31.2005 8:31pm
Mindy (mail):
I thought he was going to be a lawyer?
7.31.2005 9:40pm
Keith Burgess-Jackson (mail) (www):
To Kevin: Why must he bulk up?

To Mindy: Why can't he be both a lawyer and an actor? I'm a lawyer and a philosopher. Also, he's only 33 years old. I didn't say when he'd become a lawyer. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger. First a body builder, then an actor, now a politician. Why can't Lance be first a bicyclist, then an actor, then a lawyer?
7.31.2005 9:59pm
Shelby (mail):
By your reckoning, Lance is to become quite the Rennaissance Man, eh?
8.1.2005 2:17am
Mindy (mail):
I just didn't know if you were flip-flopping, or trying to pass off your new theory without us noticing. I can let him be all three if you want.
8.1.2005 7:05pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?