NY Times article abuot Locks of Love

Hi SuperGrover!

The article swayed your opinion... presumably in the direction of "more favorable?" Hmm.... I read the article, and although it was enlightening in some regards, it did nothing to sway my contrary opinion.

They have been in active operation for at least 5 years, and have produced approximately 700 wigs in that time. 10 to 15 ponytails are used to make a single wig. That totals about 10,000 ponytails used, thus far. At the rate they receive hair donations -- 2000 ponytails a week -- that means the last five week's receipts alone could have covered their entire 5 year production! Do you know what that means? About 2% of the hair donated has found its way into a wig for a LoL recipient.

2% !!

LoL is swimming in a sea of hair. They have so much of it, they even admit that they sell "excess" hair.

In my opinion, people donate primarily because they hope and believe that their hair will be used in a wig given to a child with long-term medical hair loss. The truth of the matter is that there is only a tiny probability that that will occur.

Further, the deafening silence from LoL regarding this surplus of hair is a breach of the public's trust, for if potential donors were made aware of this surplus, many would probably reconsider, and rightfully so.

The writer of the article has provided the readers with the relevant objective information, yet leaves it to the readers to distill that information into knowledge. I have. And the concoction stinks.

In principle, I have no problem with people making fully-informed choices, but the perception of LoL in the public is wildly biased in favor of the organization. Doing "good" work is not the only requirement of a charitable organization. Avoidance of material misrepresentation is crucially important, and in this regard, LoL fails miserably.