2006-08-27 11:42:11 · 14 answers · asked by Yup! I'm a girl! 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Famous - providing it's famous for something good like curing cancer.
I would not want to obtain fame like that 'John Karr' dude or 'Billy the Kid'. If this were the case, then I'd rather be rich.
2006-08-27 11:49:07 · answer #1 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich
2006-08-27 11:48:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich.
2006-08-27 11:47:13 · answer #3 · answered by da_hammerhead 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich definately. It's better to be a rich person that no one knows about because no one will bother you.
And no one said that being famous would make you rich...
Charles Manson ... Famous - Not rich
2006-08-27 12:35:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich. If I just had the money to be out of debt, I wouldn't care less if I was famous or not.
2006-08-27 12:10:59 · answer #5 · answered by IthinkFramptonisstillahottie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich!!
2006-08-27 11:47:49 · answer #6 · answered by La La 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich ofcourse that way if you wanted you could become famous or have a hell of a good time trying!
2006-08-27 12:04:38 · answer #7 · answered by loligo1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would rather be rich than famous. I don't think famous people have much privacy. I value my privacy.
2006-08-27 13:12:14 · answer #8 · answered by armywifetp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
rich
2006-08-27 11:48:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich so I can help every one and get tax breaks
2006-08-27 11:48:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋