Ann Curry

Why would her being away cause her to cut her hair?

Well, the tuck behind the ear is pretty sexy when Jennifer Garner does it in 13 going on 30.

I hate to say this, but Ann Curry with short hair could pass for a boy:

http://www.gogomag.com/cgi-bin/tvheads_viewer.pl?tvheads24262&24262&Ann

http://www.super-hair.net/edge-v03.html

The link above should take you to a picture that shows, for better or worse, what Ann's hair would likely look like when/if she does go short. The picture is about 1/3 the way down the page. I doubt she could cut 10 inches of hair off and leave it much longer than this--maybe a little longer? I'm not sure it's fair to say she looks like a boy but it would be a big change.

I forgot Ann had hair that short. I say bring on the scissors Locks... looks great to me.

I was reading somewhere lately that Ann is 48. That is 5-10 years older than I would've guessed.

bean3270 wrote: She look good with short hair or long hair. I can see her with curly long hair too. But if is going to cut her for locks of love. Then cut it.

Bean, do you know about Locks of Love? They purport to be a nonprofit organization that makes kids who lose their hair because they get sick. I am all for that. But if Ann cuts her hair and donates it and Mary around the block from me cuts her hair and donates it the next day and Betty down the street from you does it the same day and Gord cuts his hair and donates it the next day... well, pretty soon you've got a warehouse full of hair. How many kids do you think need hair? Not too many, I'm betting. So that leaves a warehouse full of hair that either just sits there... or they sell it and keep the money. As someone earlier wrote, LOL might be better off if Ann donates the money than donates her hair. Naturally, I love her with long hair and I'm prejudiced, but for any woman with long hair to cut it and donate it to a group that really doesn't need it, well, let's just say that two wrongs don't make a right. (In my opinion, of course.)

I think the people at LOL are all SAINTS...what a wonderful cause!

My two cents.

To answer the question on how many ponytails it takes to make a wig:

http://www.wigsforkids.org/Hair-Loss-in-Children/FAQ/

http://www.locksoflove.org/faq.php

It appears the answer is around 10 - 12. That is ALOT of hair for one wig.

bnbivi00 wrote: To answer the question on how many ponytails it takes to make a wig: http://www.wigsforkids.org/Hair-Loss-in-Children/FAQ/ http://www.locksoflove.org/faq.php It appears the answer is around 10 - 12. That is ALOT of hair for one wig.

You've got your sources. I've got mine. The following information is from tlhs.com's FAQ:

Shall I donate my hair to Locks of Love?
Locks of Love is a charity organization, which collects human hair to create wigs for cancer patients.
So far a noble idea. However during long lasting discussions and research activities of our members, LoL did not get out of the game in such noble fashion. It is said that the performance of the organization is not as good as one would like to, in fact it is said that they gathered much more pony tails than wigs manufactured. I would highly recommend to give a donation a second thought, to keep the hair and better donate money to a charity you know well enough.

Please follow as well this link, a report from the Better Business Bureau.
Read as well this text coming from a member of ETLHS, nicely written together:

We disapprove of Locks of Love because:

- Their stated purpose is to make wigs for alopecia sufferers, but news stories and talk shows say the wigs are for children with cancer who lose their hair to chemo. This gets more human interest from their audiences. But chemo patients are generally better served medically and functionally with synthetic wigs, and many are more comfortable with turbans or caps. Most children with cancer prefer not to wear wigs. The organization seems to make no effort to correct the misconception about who gets the wigs.

- They make far fewer wigs than the number of ponytails they collect would supply, and seem to have no valid explanation for this disparity.

- The Better Business Bureau has found them not to be totally compliant in following proper procedures for administering a charity.

- Locks of Love has publicly acknowledged that they have ample supplies of hair, but they make no effort to switch their solicitations to cash rather than more hair. All they seem to want is for more and more people to cut off their hair. This seems to be much more important to the press, the organization, and its proponents than the wig making.

- Television and print media is constantly showing long haired women being shorn. They show all this cutting, and only rarely anything about the wig recipients. It suggests that long hair has no value to its wearer except as something to be chopped off. Although there are obviously many people who adore seeing hair chop events, many other people LOVE seeing long hair like mine. My hair gives pleasure to me and to others who see it and DOES serve a worthy purpose being on my head. You should hear the women in my aunt's nursing home admiring my hair. It gives them a lot of happiness to see it.

- Most of the donated hair does NOT wind up on a child's head. It is sold to commercial wigmakers who are selling their wigs to models, celebrities, etc., or sits in a warehouse.

- Thousands of long haired women are nagged by both well-meaning and mean-spirited people that they should give up hair they love in the name of this charity. This is just plain rude. Why aren't they giving their car away to a poor person, giving their home away to a homeless person, or selling their jewelry and other possessions to donate the cash to the less fortunate? To women on this site, it is NOT just hair, just as a to a car aficionado their automobile is not just a car that is disposable. Generally, our hair means more to us than it would mean to Locks of Love's intended recipients.

Other regulars on this site will be able to post with more specific details on these reasons. I hope you understand our positions and will not hold them against us.