[Cerek]

I didn't "address" Chewie's other points because I felt my previous comments made it fairly clear I disagreed with them. However, since you insist.....

Originally posted by Chewbacca: So a recap of some facts... The hair was sold to the guy with the biggest collection of famous people hair according to the guiness book of world records and Armstrong wants the hair back or the money donated, and legal fees recouped. Right? well... Perhaps Mr. Armstrong thinks a principle or two is involved. I know I would be upset if someone sold my hair without telling me.

As I mentioned before, if you have ever had your hair cut, then there is a good chance your hair was sold without you being told. And as I asked in my previous post, who among us has ever given ANY thought to what happens to the cut hair before now? If Neil Armstrong had not expressed concern with how his hair was "disposed of" after previous cuts, I honostly don't see that he has any reason to get upset now.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Besides- How "signficant" could some dead person's hair ever be?- how in the hell does some one become inspired to collect hair from famous people in the first place??? Perhaps Armstrong thinks the hair collector is some sort of freak and would have wanted no part of it?

How did this guy become inspired to collect celebrity hair? Who knows. Maybe he figured locks of hair from celebrities would be easier and cheaper to collect instead of other memoribilia. How "significant" could a dead person's hair ever be? Well it obviously has significance to the guy who is collecting it, but probably not to many other people. Which actually supports the point I've been making. To rephrase the question, "How significant is discarded hair to the person that had the haircut?" The answer in almost every case is "Not very much". So if the hair wasn't significant to the "owner", then I find it a bit hypocritical and petty that it suddenly becomes very significant when the owner learns that the discarded hair was sold for a tidy sum of money. Bottom line is that Neil Armstrong apparantly gave no thought to what happened to his discarded hair until he learned the barber had sold it for $3,000.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: What evidence is there suggest Mr. Armstrong was profiteering himself? Does he need the money or something?

Don't really know what you mean about the suggestion that Armstrong was profiteering himself. I did suggest that Armstrong seemed to be upset that the barber had gotten the money. And it wasn't an outrageous amount. It didn't make the barber rich or pay for a vacation, it just gave him some extra money to pay on some of his bills. Neil is demanding the money be contributed to charity and the barber be forced to pay for his legal fees. That is just petty of Armstrong IMHO. If he wants his charity to have $3,000, I would imagine he could afford to donate it himself. And there wouldn't BE any legal fees if Armstrong wasn't acting like a spoiled child (HE got something and it should have been MINE). I don't know Neil's financial situation, but I'm sure he could earn $3,000 for any speaking engagement he chose to make. However, this was a one-shot deal for the barber.

If Neil objects to the sale of his hair no a matter of principal, then he could have handled it a LOT better than filing a lawsuit and demanding that this working-class barber pay his legal fees in addition to the money recieved for his hair. He could have gone to the barber privately and expressed his objections and could have asked the barber man-to-man to pay the money to charity. But he didn't choose to handle it that way.