




Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:11:47 -0400
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Puzzle Cube: Addendum & Oops

It doesn't affect the main Puzzle Toy (the last described
4-Ring Puzzle Cube), but I thought I'd better get this
posted before someone has a really frustrating weekend.

 :-)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but the Variation 1 of the
4-Ring Puzzle may be impossible, i.e where the 4-rings are
linked so that each passes thru 2 others (essentially 4 links
in a circle). I thought I got this worked into to a cube,
but have been unable to do it again, so got to looking at it
harder.

There ARE still two versions (2 ways to link) 4-ring
puzzles that DO work. Besides the Final BEST one, you can
take the 2-ring puzzle, position the rings into the cube,
then run 2 more rings thru the center hole of the cube.

This gives something like a 3 link chain with 2 links in the
center. The last 2 rings added pass thru 2 rings each, and
since the first two rings were linked, they now pass thru
3 rings each. I suspect now that this what I did to get
the Variation 1 of the 4-Ring Puzzle.

If anyone gets it to work as described originally in Part 2
(Variation 1 of 4-Ring Puzzle) let me know (as will I if I
do); then there would be 3 variations.

It should be noted, too, that all of these puzzles depend to
some extent on the flexibility of the paper rings (except the
2 rings Puzzle). In the amended variation 1 4-Ring, and the
Variation 2 4-Ring solution with 2 types of faces, the rings
get flexed quite a lot. The 4-Ring solution with all six
faces of the same type is easier, and might even be theoretically
possible with a true "Plane" ring (zero thickness). A carefully
made set of rings slips into place quite easily.

They CAN be quite ornery about reversing from cube to rings!

Addenda:

If you want to make a "permanent" puzzle from Post-its, orient
the sticky along C-D instead, so that it ends up inside the Tab
and body of the unit. Then use glue on the tab and pocket, and
glue the Flap A down on the interior surface of the ring as per
the Post It directions. Flex the hinges and bend the ring into
a circle while its still damp from the glue and let each strip
dry before assembling the rings.

Another use for the basic unit:
Candy Dish
Leave all the Flap A's out while assembling 3 units in a ring.
Set the ring down on a flat surface like a dish. Fold the A Flaps
down to make the bottom of the dish. They will overlap just
enough to glue into a pretty good bottom.

If you cut up a big square of paper to get the 3 squares for
the Puzzle, use 3 of the left-over squares to make an extra
ring or the Candy Dish.
Use it as a stand to display the Puzzle!

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:15:53 -0400
From: parkmaam@gol.com (M. Schleicher P. Saalbach)
Subject: 'WOW' Origami Summary, and *Quintessential* Origami Question

Here is a summary of your *WOW* origami recommendations (Part I), and a
request for your suggestions of *quintessential* origami (Part II).

PART I: A SUMMARY OF 'WOW' SUGGESTIONS

Thanks to all of you for your suggestions to my "origami for seeming
'un-WOW-ables' query.  Most of you assumed the models should appeal to an
engineer, but I believe the models suggested below would impress anyone!  In
fact, I believe it's difficult not to impress non-origamians with the sheer
wonder of just about any origami model, especially when they try to fold a
simple one.  (See "PART II" below.)

Some of you responded privately, some publicly, so I will happily summarize
for you the suggestions I received for our collective benefit.

But first, Marc Kirschenbaum kindly gave me permission to share his
well-expressed private email to me with you.  I thought it captured the
essence of the more wondrous *WOWs* of today's origami:

"I guess some people just don't see anything impressive about some of the
clever design that goes into alot of the origami models out there. Since
your brother-in-law is an engineer, I would imagine he would want to
try to see beyond the surface aesthetics of a well-folded model.

In terms of sheer *WOW* criteria, I do have a few that most people seem to
find impressive (or impossible, as the case may be). Many people are
impressed by some of the colour change tricks that have adorned some models
out there. I, for one, am still impressed about something like Montroll's
*Zebra.*  Yes, I have a full understanding of how those stripes were
produced, but even after folding the model, I still have to absorb the idea
that this was all done from a single square.

Another impressive feature of some models is where topological trickery is
preformed. Examples might include a chain link from a single sheet or
seamlessly-connected struts on an airplane. Many multi-subject models (such
as people holding an object), seem to defy the laws of paper. If finding a
model that combines colour changes and topological transformations does not
perk your in-law's interest, I would check to see if he is comotose.

Still impressed with origami, Marc"

------------------
Models you (origami-l) said might 'WOW' an 'un-WOW-able':

Nut and Bolt:   David Brill
Tesselations/recursions:  Tom Hull, Chris Palmer, Jeremy Shafer
Chess board:   John Montroll
Jack-in-the-box:  Max Hulme
Atlantic Purple Sea Urchin:  Robert Lang
T-Rex Skeleton:   Yoshino-san
Bluebeard's Castle:   Ed Sullivan
Geodesic Dome (diagrams forthcoming, Valerie??):   Valerie Vann
Starship Enterprise:   Jeremy Shafer
30-unit Intersecting Tetrahedra:   Tom Hull
Flexagon:   Arthur Stone
DNA Molecule:   unknown (perhaps Thoki Yenn?)
Hyperbolic Parabola:   unknown
Un-unfoldable box:   unknown

If anyone can fill in the 'unknowns' above, please feel free and I will
re-distribute this list for everyone's benefit.  Also, if anyone has
additions to the list, please feel free to send them along, too.
----------------

PART II: A REQUEST TO IDENTIFY *QUINTESSENTIAL* ORIGAMI MODELS

While many of you are deriving satisfaction from complex folding, may I ask
another question I haven't seen discussed yet?

What origami models have been created that are relatively *easy* to fold,
but also exude a special sense of wonder when completed?  Can you analyze
the criteria of a really efficient, simple, but especially pleasing origami
design? This is what I'm labeling *quintessential* origami -- the "best of
the best."

In the world of manufacturing, some of the 'best' designs are those that
take the least amount of steps and resources, and also result in an
especially pleasing object.  *Functional* is a fundamental criteria here as
well as looks, but I'm not sure *functional* applies to origami. One of my
American design books identifies such objects as:

Hershey's Chocolate Kiss
Honey Bear
Barnum's Animal Crackers
Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich (self-manufactured!)
Oreos
M&M Chocolate Candies
Campbell's Tomato Soup
Milk-Bone Dog Biscuit
Slinky
Frisbee
Ray Ban sunglasses (aviator-style)
American Brown Paper Bag
Crayola Crayons

and describes them and other objects as "things that offer more to us than
we specifically ask of them and to which we respond more strongly than is
easily explained ... In a variety of ways, they each exhibit a rare and
mysterious capacity to be just exactly what they ought to be."
-- from "Quintessence" by Betty Cornfeld and Owen Edwards, Crown Publishers,
1983.

I believe a 'broader' interpretation of this can be applied to origami
design as well.

What, then, in your opinion, are some *quintessential* origami models?
Thanks in advance for your ideas!
----------------

Again, thanks for your great 'WOW' suggestions, folks!!  It looks like I
have enough folding challenges to keep me occupied and my brother-in-law
'WOW-ed' for quite awhile!!

Cheers!
Pamela Saalbach
parkmaam@gol.com
Pamela Saalbach
parkmaam@gol.com

                            "If all the world were paper,
                               And all the sea were ink,
                        And all the trees were bread and cheese,
                             What should we do for drink?"

            (from a 1910 edition of "The Most Popular Mother Goose Songs")





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:59:50 -0400
From: A004773%LBVM1.profs@lbgwy.mdc.com
Subject: third of a square's side

   another way to obtain 1/3 of the side of a square:

   1. fold a diagonal from the upper left corner to the lower right corner,
      and unfold it.

   2. fold the line that bisects the left and right sides of the square,
      and unfold it.

   3. fold a line from the lower left corner to the intersection of the
      fold in step 2 and the right side, and unfold it.

   The point of intersection of the folds in step 1 and step 3 will be 1/3
   from the bottom and from one side.

   This method generalizes nicely.  For example, if in step 2 you fold the
   line that is 1/4 from the bottom, then you will produce a point that is
   1/5 from the bottom in step 3.  Ditto for 1/6 and 1/7, etc.
   /john

 John Andrisan
 IBMMAIL: USMCDQND   Internet: a004773%lbvm1.profs@mdcgwy.mdc.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 11:47:12 -0400
From: Pruess Family <AB10TP3412.cin@desnews.com>
Subject: Re: I CAN'T STAND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>I want to get off this group because it wasn't what I thought it wou>ld be. I
>thought people would exchange ideas and show diagrams of their favorite
>folds. Instead it's just news and copyrights and where to look things up.
>
>
>NOSTALGIA1@aol.com

     I too thought that is what the list would be like, but it's not (that
often).  Every once in a while, someone really cool like Nick Robinson will come
along, and say he has something available that he can UUENCODE and send to you.
He has done that twice, and that made being on this list worth it.  I do origami
not to know who invented what fold, or where to find stuff, but to actually do
it.  I wouldn't be on this list if I just did stuff in books, because then I
could just ride on over to the local library and check out the books.  I want it
at my fingertips.

John Pruess
utahjohn@aol.com
ab10tp3412.cin@desnews.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 14:21:05 -0400
From: Folderbuck@aol.com
Subject: Re: internet paper aeroplanes

Regarding the recent discussion about whether or not folding paper airplanes
is origami, of course it is! The diferences between airplanes and other
representational origami is that the finished "airplane" must also respond to
the physical requirements of flight for lift, drag, thrust, etc. In this way
they don't need to represent a specific plane(although several do, e.g. the
SR-71 or space shuttle) but a generic "flying machine".

I most whole heartedly recommend Nick Robinson's fine book "Paper Airplanes"
for models which are both excellent origami and beautiful flyers.

Steve Buck





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:15:31 -0400
From: Richard Kennedy <KENNEDRA@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Cutting up gift wrap and other large sheets of paper....

Several people have mentioned the problems of straight edges slipping
during cutting. A few years ago I bought an (I think) aluminium (some
say aluminum ...) 30 cm / 1 ft ruler which has a thin strip of a rubber
like material on the bottom so that it does not slip in use. I bought it from
an artists materials shop in Birmingham (UK), so this sort of thing
should be quite widely available. I think I've seen a 3 ft version too.

Richard K.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:19:02 -0400
From: Richard Kennedy <KENNEDRA@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: A challenge

Yusri

There is a hedgehog in Eric Kenneway's book "Origami Paperfolding for
Fun", which has a very large number of spines. I'm sorry, I can't
remember the creator.

Richard K.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:31:39 -0400
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re: A challenge and Thanksgiving

> Perhaps we should broaden this challenge just a bit so as to allow a
> hedgehog instead of a porcupine?

If we did, we could look up John Richardson's clever hedgehog, published in
"Origami/Paperfolding for fun," by Eric Kenneway (Octopus, 1980). In
Richardson's critter, the spines are obtained by cross-pleating the paper and
reverse-folding the edges between the pleats.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see the porcupine, since its quills are much
longer (proportionately) than those of a hedgehog.

Robert





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:27:37 -0400
From: Richard Kennedy <KENNEDRA@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: Molecular Origami

I've just received a catalogue from W.H. Freeman, listing:

Molecular Origami (Precision Scale Models from Paper)  by  Robert Hanson

Has anyone seen a copy? Is it really origami, or lots of cut, fold and
glue? It is quite expensive (21.95 UK pounds), so I'm reluctant to
order a copy without further information.

With thanks

Richard K.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:27:14 -0400
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Puzzle Cube: Good News & More

Variation 1 (original Post) of 4-Ring Puzzle Cube:
   (Each Ring Passes thru two of the other 3 rings.)

IT DOES WORK! The rings must be fairly flexible. I had
decided early in the process of exploring the
Puzzle Ring Cubes that turning a ring inside out should
be "illegal" - in terms of a "solution" - i.e the rings
shouldn't have to be THAT flexible. So far, I don't
think any of the posted solutions do involve turning a
ring inside out, but I'll reconstruct all the sets
shortly, and double check. (One advantage of Post-It
rings is you can peel them apart and set up one of the
other configurations.)

So that makes Variation 3 of the 4-Ring Cube:

2 Rings pass thru 2 rings each, and 2 rings pass thru
3 rings each (i.e. linked thru each other and one of the
other two rings.) This is best set up by forming the
2-Ring Puzzle into a cube, then passing each of the 2
remaining rings thru the center hole of the cube, without
passing them thru each other.

For those seriously offended by glue:

I was playing with Post-Its, which are fairly stiff, and I also
wanted something that could be used with children and would work
with other stiff paper, like old-fashioned construction paper,
heavy colored bond, note cube paper etc. With the puzzle cubes
I also wanted to retain the possibility of tri-colored rings.

However, for those Puzzle Makers who want to stay "glueless"
(Post-It sticky or otherwise), here's another way to make
the modules for the rings. I'm sure the other modular fans
out there can come up with many more, but this one works OK.
You will want to use kami or similar light weight, in about
6 inch square or larger, as the multiple layers make a pretty
think strip. It still takes 3 sheets per ring,
so you can make tri-color rings.

1.  White up, square placed "square" (2 horizontal edges).
Crease on the two diagonals of the square. Unfold.

2.  Fold in half, lower edge to meet upper edge. Unfold.

3.  Cupboard fold the top & bottom edges into the horizontal
center crease. Unfold all the way. (3 horizontal parallel creases
1/4 the width of the square apart).

4.  Fold each of the right hand corners into the center of
the square ("blintz") to get an arrow point with 45
degrees angles. (Looks like a short fat pencil.)

5.  Refold the cupboard folds.  Refold in half horizontally,
bottom edge to top edge, resulting in a narrow strip
1/4 the width of the original square paper.
(The left edge of the strip is square, the right edge
has the 45 degree slope; the bottom edge is
longer than the top edge.)

6.  Valley fold (V-fold) the upper left corner down along
a 45 degree angle so that the corner meets the lower edge,
with the V-fold from the lower left corner of the strip
to the point where an existing crease passes thru the
top edge of the strip. The result is  2 right
triangle "flaps". The strip now has a symetrical trapizoidal
shape, longest edge on the bottom.

7.  V-Fold the two bottom pointed corners of the strip up along
the existing diagonal (45 degree) creases) so they meet at
the top. (The result is a small square diamond with a vertical
slot.) Unfold the two corners.

8.  The strip will now look similar to the Unit previously described,
with the addition of the small right-triangular flaps (TABS) on
the left end of the strip. Unfold to the short pencil shape at the
end of Step 4. Make 3 Units for each Ring.

9.  Join 3 units in a strip: Place Unit 1 on the left, Unit 2 on
the right, with the square left end of Unit 2 on top of (covering)
the "pencil point" (right end) of Unit 1. Slide Unit 2 into and
under the the top layers of Unit 1 so that the Unit 2 TABS are
just covered by the top layers of Unit 1 (TABS into POCKETS.)
Repeat similarly for Unit 3 (Unit 3 TABS into Unit 2 Pockets.)

10. Refold the strip, bottom edge to top. Form into a Ring.
Join by sliding Unit 1 TABS inside Unit 3 until the Unit 1
TABS go into the Unit 3 pockets.

The final join is awkward, but if you're sufficiently
motivated to stay pristinely "glueless", you CAN get the
4th Ring of the Puzzle locked closed.  :-)

If/when I get some "research" feedback on the Puzzle Ring Cubes,
I'll consolidate all the posts and the directions, (and maybe
some diagrams) and send it to the archive. There is a slightly
less awkward join, but its easier to diagram than describe. And
I DID want to keep this ASCII text, so everyone on the list
would have access.

Yikes, this is threatening to turn
into an Origami Advent Calendar  :-)

.. now there's an intriguing idea...

--valerie
Valerie Vann
INTERNET: 75070.304@compuserve.com  (daily)
          valerivann@aol.com        (weekly)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 16:19:49 -0400
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: What's on the List (was I CAN"T STAND IT!)

The person who started this (and wanted OFF) - I don't think
we ever saw a "real name", just their AOL alias - seemed to
be one of those folks who can't take the trouble to use the
archives, get the FAQs, download files, etc. They have no
excuse: AOL supports FTP and the WEB, and an extensive "HELP"
file all about using mailing lists...

As for expecting "everybody to be putting up their favorite
diagrams", not just a "bunch of talk about who designed what,
and copyrights and such...", and (in a later post), "having
it all right at your fingertips", WELL!:

In the first place most grown-ups recognize
real-world contraints not only of courtesy, but such facts as
that it is illegal to post other people's diagrams without
their and/or their publishers permission, and even if you
don't mind breaking the law, good manners and good sense
suggest that you don't impose the liability of copyright
violation on others, in that the institutions that host
the list and the archive (free of charge and with volunteer
labor) could be liable, and many subscribers get email at
work, and their companies could be liable; and AOL and most
other commercial Internet providers reserve right to suspend
your service for illegal activity, copyright violation
included, etc.

This means that most of us would only post OUR OWN original
"favorite" diagrams and ideas to the list, and it seems
extremely naive to think that everyone, especially some
of the published masters who hang out here, is going to
just hand out their best stuff free. Creating, perfecting,
diagramming all take enormous time and effort, and anyone
who does it is fully entitled to compensation by publishing.
I doubt if anyone is getting rich publishing origami.

Sadly, if they weren't expecting instant gratification, had
a little patience, and hung around awhile, the complainers
might actually learn something.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 19:15:42 -0400
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Re: Puzzle Cube: Addendum & Oops

-- [ From: Janet Hamilton * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

> I'm not 100% sure about this, but the Variation 1 of the  4-Ring
Puzzle
> may be impossible, i.e where the 4-rings are linked so that each
passes
> thru 2 others (essentially 4 links in a circle). I thought I got this
> worked into to a cube, but have been unable to do it again, so got to
> looking at it harder.

Valerie,

I did the two ring puzzle, variation 1 of the three ring puzzle, and
variation 1 of the 4 ring puzzle using post-its.  It did require a bit
a forcing to get the paper into place, but the glue on the post-its
held the rings securely.  Unfortunately, I only had three colors of
post-its available, so the color pattern wasn't quite right at the end,
but it would have been in the 6 3-color faces configuration.

By the way, it was a lot of fun - thanks for sharing the holiday gift.
The single ring will be a nice simple model for teaching beginners.
Now I just need an inexpensive source for bulk post-its!

Also, this may be a great "beginners intro to modulars" class at the
next OUSA convention.  The assembly of the ring is easier than the
assembly of most modulars, the chains are pretty, and even the two-ring
cube is simple.  The candy dish variation would be an added bonus.

Janet Hamilton





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 23:00:21 -0400
From: NOSTALGIA1@aol.com
Subject: WHAT A POMPOUS LETTER!

In a message dated 95-11-24 16:05:29 EST, you write:

>Subj:  What's on the List (was I CAN"T STAND IT!)
>Date:  95-11-24 16:05:29 EST
>From:  75070.304@compuserve.com (Valerie Vann)
>Sender:        origami-l@nstn.ca
>Reply-to:      origami-l@nstn.ca
>To:    origami-l@nstn.ca (Multiple recipients of list)
>
>The person who started this (and wanted OFF) - I don't think
>we ever saw a "real name", just their AOL alias - seemed to
>be one of those folks who can't take the trouble to use the
>archives, get the FAQs, download files, etc. They have no
>excuse: AOL supports FTP and the WEB, and an extensive "HELP"
>file all about using mailing lists...
>
>As for expecting "everybody to be putting up their favorite
>diagrams", not just a "bunch of talk about who designed what,
>and copyrights and such...", and (in a later post), "having
>it all right at your fingertips", WELL!:
>
>In the first place most grown-ups recognize
>real-world contraints not only of courtesy, but such facts as
>that it is illegal to post other people's diagrams without
>their and/or their publishers permission, and even if you
>don't mind breaking the law, good manners and good sense
>suggest that you don't impose the liability of copyright
>violation on others, in that the institutions that host
>the list and the archive (free of charge and with volunteer
>labor) could be liable, and many subscribers get email at
>work, and their companies could be liable; and AOL and most
>other commercial Internet providers reserve right to suspend
>your service for illegal activity, copyright violation
>included, etc.
>
>This means that most of us would only post OUR OWN original
>"favorite" diagrams and ideas to the list, and it seems
>extremely naive to think that everyone, especially some
>of the published masters who hang out here, is going to
>just hand out their best stuff free. Creating, perfecting,
>diagramming all take enormous time and effort, and anyone
>who does it is fully entitled to compensation by publishing.
>I doubt if anyone is getting rich publishing origami.
>
>Sadly, if they weren't expecting instant gratification, had
>a little patience, and hung around awhile, the complainers
>might actually learn something.
>
>--valerie
>

I have been on the list for 3 months now. It is not what I expected. I should
have the right to leave this group if it is not what I find interesting. If
you go to a movie and find it different than you thought it would be and find
it boring, you leave! No one criticizes you for leaving.   I am a member of
the Balloon twisters group and find that much more interesting. They share
ideas and post diagrams, people add their opinions to the drawings and share.
Nothing against your group but I gave it a chance and I don't like it. I
tried to quietly exit . I did get the FAQ and followed the instructions to
the letter at least a half a dozen times. 6 people wrote to me with different
instructions and none of them work. I didn't want to bother your group but
the fact is  I still CAN'T GET OUT OF THIS GROUP AND IT IS DRIVING ME
CRAZY!!!!!!!

Don't jump to conclusions Valerie until you know the true facts!

On my quick post for help I didn't feel it was necessary to give my name but
since you are so interested Valerie, I will give it at the end of this post.
Maybe since you have all the answers, YOU can tell me how to exit this group
the RIGHT way!

BRUCE KALVER
NOSTALGIA1@aol.com

PS: Re-reading your post about giving stuff away for free, there is a word
that you should learn that the other newsgroups have learned. It's called
SHARING obviously a word you have yet to learn.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 23:34:46 -0400
From: PenneyA@aol.com
Subject: Re: reference to: I CAN'T STAND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish we could show diagrams too.  but since we can't it would be super
helpful if someone could explain to me how to turn the postscripts into
ghostscripts so I can view the diagrams that I have downloaded in that format
                                 Penney.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 10:29:55 -0400
From: Nick Robinson <nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Simple hedgehog?

> Speaking for myself, I'd like to see the porcupine, since its quills are
> much longer (proportionately) than those of a hedgehog.

Robert; I have just invented a hedgehog which has 4 VERY long spines. It
comes from a bird-base.

Just thought you'd like to know.

BTW I have diags for an unpublished O'Hare hedgehog (2D profile, very simple
but effective) which I can uuencode to anyone interested.....

Nick Robinson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 14:38:43 -0400
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: WOW sources....

DNA Molecule:  Yoshihide Momotani - Yenn made a DNA *spiral*

Hyperbolic Parabola:  Englishman (hooray!) John Emmett in the 70's,
although most likely to be independantly created elsewhere...

Un-unfoldable box:   The late Ed Sullivan

Nick Robinson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 15:12:26 -0400
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: What can we copy?

My 3-ha'pence worth.

> people who are willing to make a small copyright infringement

I think the key issue here is intent. Photocopying & distributing (in
however small a quantity) printed works is illegal, but I and no doubt
hundreds of others do it every week. The thing is, it's not for profit.
When I print diagrams of my own work, I put the copyright sign not to stop
people passing it on (which is, after all, the main aim of diagramming!)
but to stop people making money out of it.

If someone wants diagrams that I have, I copy them, on the understanding
that the recipient will treat them in the same way I have; in a spirit of
sharing & not of ripping-off.

> It would also be difficult (in the case of the out-of-print BOS booklets)
> for British copyright enforcers to slap charges on an American

Difficult perhaps, but not impossible & indeed we have several clear
precedent cases to back us up. Copying the odd diagram is (in my eyes) OK,
but mass copying of complete works a different case. In the instance you
mention, why not drop a line to the BOS asking for permission to copy in
the light of the booklets non-availability? As a BOS council member, I'd have
no problems with that.

> I sell my diagrams at the price it costs me to copy them.

I wouldn't dream of selling my diagrams, since I feel it's an honour that
others might want to fold them. However, I do have access to a works
photocopier!

> My diagrams sport a copyright symbol for style only, and have no
> legally binding regulations tied to them.

I'm afraid they do, wether you like it or not, although I'm not a legal
expert!

> I know of no origami creator/publisher who makes a living

(The late) Kenneway, Jackson, LaFosse; & good luck to them. It's very hard
to do! All of those people have/had the utmost respect for copyright & the
*spirit* of origami.

NB These comments are response, not a critique ;)

Nick Robinson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 15:37:28 -0400
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: unsubbing....

I can sympathise with the frustrations shown, 'cause it took me months to
*subscribe* successfully. The system has inherent flaws.

Why don't we publish a regular FAQ including the address of the
listmanager/postmaster so disgruntled people can sort it out in private?

Faling that, if the people concerned switch to digest format, they only get
1 message a day, which can easily be zonked.

Yours positively,

Nick Robinson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 15:33:57 -0400
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: David Brill's Nut and Bolt

Just remembered; the Nut & bolt is published in the (wonderful) German
magazine, Der Falter. If you haven't seen this mag yet, try to - it's
without doubt the most attractive & stimulating magazine about, even if
your German is non-existant!

The issue was #8, devoted to the works of BOS members (myself included,
oddly enough). Back issues are AFAIK all available. Contact Paulo Mulatinho
(magnificent guy) at;

Origami Deutschland
Postfach 1630
8050 Friesing
Germany

& send him my best wishes.

As I mentioned in an earlier missive, Brill's "Brilliant Origami" should be
out soon, provisionally this Xmas, on Japan Publications. I saw the final
proofs last night at a party in Dave's new house, as it happens, & still
have a hangover!

Nick "ooh my aching head" Robinson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 14:38:56 -0400
From: Nick Robinson <Nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Bird-base hog

Diags on their way via private mail. The 4-point bird-base hedgehog was a
(feeble) joke, probably only suitable for jaded creators.... Sorry it
missed the mark!

I bet it *could* be done though - have a try & let us know!

Nick Robinson





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 16:09:54 -0400
From: vann@tredgar.cardiff.com (VAnn Cornelius)
Subject: Jurassic Origami mailinglist

> In today's U.S. mail I received an advertising flyer for a book entitled
> "Jurassic Origami" by Edwin Ee (EPB Publishers Pte Ltd., Singapore). ...

I received the flyer too.  I was wondering how the Sinapore folk knew where
I pick up my mail.  Different mailing list that I am on have differnet
info so that I can tell who has sold the list but this address is simple
and spelled right.

Interesting.
V'Ann
vann@cardiff.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 16:09:33 -0400
From: vann@tredgar.cardiff.com (VAnn Cornelius)
Subject: Re: St. George's Star

Please describe the "St. George's Star".

I don't remember seeing it.
V'Ann
vann@cardiff.com





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:40:21 -0400
From: DBSH47B@prodigy.com (MRS. JANET J HAMILTON)
Subject: Re: Bats!

-- [ From: Janet Hamilton * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --

I sent this reply before, but it got bounced back as undeliverable -
hope it makes it this time!

> Does anyone know of a good bat model? I've seen the model in Sakoda's
> "Modern Origami", but it's a little too stylized for me. I'm hoping
to
> find one that has a good "Bat face" but is not overly complex, since
I'm
> at only about an intermediate level.

Charles,

I like Michael LaFosse's Happy Good Luck Bat.  It is in the 1995 OUSA
convention book, and I believe the diagrams are available for
downloading from the FTP site.  It is listed in the convention book as
"high intermediate", but the diagrams are excellent and I found it to
be very straightforward.  I think I may even remember seeing that
Michael LaFosse had a video out on how to fold the bat - does that ring
a bell to anyone?

Janet Hamilton





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:54:06 -0400
From: parkmaam@gol.com (M. Schleicher P. Saalbach)
Subject: Re: WHAT A POMPOUS ...

May I extend my personal apologies to the folks who are having troubles
leaving this listserv?  I can imagine how *really* frustrating this
situation must be!

May I suggest that responsibility be placed *directly and solely* on the
people who can actually *DO* something about this situation through
attention to and persistence at specific problem-solving techniques?  This
is the origami-l listserv manager, the person wanting to exit, and any
intermediary internet providers.  You who are trying to leave know who you
are.  Research to see if your internet provider can help you out.  And, I
understand our listserv manager/system administrator to be:
        "M.J.van.Gelder" <M.J.van.Gelder@rc.RUG.NL>
Maarten van Gelder, Rekencentrum RuG, RijksUniversiteit Groningen, Holland

Why not all get together and figure out where the problem lies?  It could be
an interesting educational opportunity about how networks actually work.

The inability to exit is a problem with a 'rational' machine that can be
solved 'rationally' with some persistence on the human parties directly
involved in and affected by the machine's performance (unless, of course,
our server is becoming another HAL!).  Someone recently said the system is
inherently flawed.  Stirred up emotions of people who can do *nothing* about
it themselves add no value to the unfortunate situation.

Let us not forget we are privileged to be communicating with each other in
the first place in this virtual community by the sponsorship of -- and also
at the mercy of -- a manmade machine.

To those of you who wish to leave, try to visit us again sometime in the
future (if our machine in this corner of cyberspace ever releases you this
time!) to see *if* and *how* we have evolved as a group.

Until then, peace to all, whether currently interested origami-l-ian or no.

Pamela
parkmaam@gol.com

>In a message dated 95-11-26 06:02:05 EST, you write:
>
>>Every time you join a list, you are given instructions as to how to quit the
>>list - and you are reminded to save those instructions. I cannot believe
>that
>>you were foolish enough to ignore instructions if you are a fan of origami.
>>
>>I believe instead that you are simply cluttering up a very interesting list
>>with much unneeded whining. Please recheck the instructions you were given
>>when you joined the list and quit bothering us.
>>
>>
>
>I see that another person is having trouble unsubscribing. So it NOT just me.
>It would seem that there is a problem with your list 'cause we follow the
>instructions "to the letter" and still we are stuck here.
>
>To the origami subscribers:
>Don't assume that we don't have your instructions to un-subscribe. YOUR
>INSTRUCTIONS DON'T WORK! Try it and you'll see.
>
>To the other person that is having trouble:
>It appears that you can't leave. YOU ARE STUCK HERE!
>
>Bruce Kalver
>NOSTALGIA1@aol.com
>
>
>
Pamela Saalbach
parkmaam@gol.com

                            "If all the world were paper,
                               And all the sea were ink,
                        And all the trees were bread and cheese,
                             What should we do for drink?"

            (from a 1910 edition of "The Most Popular Mother Goose Songs")





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 22:51:09 -0400
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Trouble getting off this list

Ok, some folks are having trouble unsubcribing, and we'd all like
you to succeed in getting off. I'll take your word for it that
you have tried the official method, ie sending an email message,
no subject, addressed exactly to

   listserver@nstn.ns.ca      AND NOT to origami-l@nstn.ns.ca

with the message:

      unsubscribe origami-l
Or:   signoff  origami-l

and NOTHING else, no signature, etc.

If your mail program demands a subject, use NO SUBJECT. Turn off
all formating and other fancy mail options you system may be using.

Note that the Help file issued by the listserver itself says:

    listserver@nstn.ca     However, I have gotten a response using:
    listserv@nstn.ca

The listserver in question is the Boston Univerity ListProcessor
program version 6.0 by Anastasios Kotsikonas. (FYI, and if you
contact your system support service).

I have noticed that AOL subscribers seem to have more problems, and
I used to think it was because they "didn't read the directions"
(which IS often the problem), but I'm now beginning to wonder if it
isn't somehow related to the AOL practice of allowing multiple
"mail boxes" or "aliases" on each subscriber account. If the
unsubscribe request is not being sent with the exact email address
used in subscribing, the listserver will not recognize the unsubscribe
request. It is possible on AOL for a single person to have more than
one "address", some folks use the same password for all of them, and
log on as a different "person" under different circumstances. If
someone got impatient when they subscribed to the list, they might
even be subscribed more than once. These aliases can be deleted or
changed to new ones at any time. Or it may be related to AOL's
growing pains, the expansion of their network or something that
is causing the listserver not to recognize your address.

Consequently, I suspect that the time has arrived for you to use
the method of "Last Resort", as described in FAQ 5:

Send email to:   daniel@nstn.ns.ca    (per FAQ#5)

or:             listmgr@nstn.ca

(the latter is the "Errors to:" address given by the listserver)

Describe the problem, and be
sure to include the email address under which you RECEIVE mail from
the origami-l. You could also download the members address list from
the archive and check it for your address.

"Daniel"/listmgr is a real person, but for whom mail lists
are most probably not the main mission in life (which is why they
invented robot listerserver programs), so as the FAQ says,
it may take some time for you to get deleted.
Be patient, give it a week or so.

Please remember that the mail is being sent by a robot
computer program. No one on the list has any control over or
direct access to this program. Sending repeated complaints to
the whole list won't help.

Finally, for those using commercial providers such as AOL, call
your customer support service; you're paying for it, so give
them something challenging to do.

--valerie





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:31:31 -0400
From: rshuster@netaxs.com (Bob Shuster)
Subject: Re: St. George's Star

>Please describe the "St. George's Star".
>
>I don't remember seeing it.

Sorry, that's all the description I got.  The woman said she remembered her
brother doing this as a project for school (in the 70s) and that it was
called a "St. George's Star" - no further description.  Let me see what I
can find out.     - Bob

      = = =      /| Bob Shuster                           |\      = = =
[>----|-|-|-----/ |   Composer/Arranger/Copyist/MIDI &    | \-----|-|-|----<]
  (___|_|_|____)\ |   Computer Consultant  (215-927-4928) | /(____|_|_|___)
      " " "      \|   (& trumpet!)  (rshuster@netaxs.com) |/      " " "
                       http://www.netaxs.com/~rshuster/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:43:10 -0400
From: unhinged@yrkpa.kias.com
Subject: Woo models

I was wondering if I could "poll" the members of the list for their
suggestions on the best, most striking models they have used (or would
recommend to use) to impress a woman.  I've been seeing a young woman of
exquisite taste (in other words- she LOVES the origami :) ) and I've made
her a rose (Kawasaki's first, published in Connoisseur) with Joseph Wu's
base, tucked inside of a Fuse box.

She loved the butterfly ball, and the Koala from Gay Merrill Gross' "Art
of Origami" (thanks for the book- lots of GREAT models)

What else would the members of the list recommend?  I'd like to continue
to impress her with the folding.

Thanks!

Rob





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 00:47:59 -0400
From: unhinged@yrkpa.kias.com
Subject: Re: St. George's Star

Wouldn't have been the "Swedish Star" or the "German Star" would it?
This model is diagrammed in Ansill's "Lifestyle Origami" and is a
'modular' of sorts made from 4 long, interwoven strips of paper.

On Sun, 26 Nov 1995, Bob Shuster wrote:

> >Please describe the "St. George's Star".
> >
> >I don't remember seeing it.
>
> Sorry, that's all the description I got.  The woman said she remembered her
> brother doing this as a project for school (in the 70s) and that it was
> called a "St. George's Star" - no further description.  Let me see what I
> can find out.     - Bob
>
>
>       = = =      /| Bob Shuster                           |\      = = =
> [>----|-|-|-----/ |   Composer/Arranger/Copyist/MIDI &    | \-----|-|-|----<]
>   (___|_|_|____)\ |   Computer Consultant  (215-927-4928) | /(____|_|_|___)
>       " " "      \|   (& trumpet!)  (rshuster@netaxs.com) |/      " " "
>                        http://www.netaxs.com/~rshuster/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 12:15:13 -0400
From: ACPQUINN@myriad.middlebury.edu
Subject: RE: WHAT A POMPOUS LETTER!

I totally agree with "NOSTALGIA1"s rebuttal ... especially the last bit about
sharing ... originally, before some people decided they should be able to make
a profit on origami, the whole issue was about sharing.  People would get
together and share ideas, models, techniques, etc., and everyone would come out
of it feeling really good.  While there are some books by popular creators that
almost anyone can get, there are just as many books if not more that are almost
impossible for someone who doesn't have money out the wazoo to get.  Diagrams
in these latter books are just as worthwhile to have, and so people who have
them and are willing to make a small copyright infringement can and do share
them.  For example:

Books from Japan - those of us who don't live in Cambridge or other cities that
have Japanese bookstores are at a disadvantage; even if we do live in such a
place, imported books are often much too expensive for many of us.  OUSA does
carry some imports, but it may be a while before they carry the new Momotani
flower books or the new Kawahata.
Out of print books - from any country, these are well-nigh impossible to get,
since used bookstores rarely carry them.  It would also be difficult (in the
case of the out-of-print BOS booklets) for British copyright enforcers to
slap charges on an American copying such small amounts of British literature,
especially literature that was in such limited circulation in the first place.
It would be different if one was illegally mass-producing the works of Rudyard
Kipling.
Privately circulated diagrams - Mine, for example. I sell my diagrams at the
price it costs me to copy them. I don't really care if people circulate them
by themselves, I don't even care if they make a profit doing so. I'm not out
to make a profit by doing origami, except in the case of my classes and selling
my models.  My diagrams sport a copyright symbol for style only, and have no
legally binding regulations tied to them.  I do origami to share and to spread
my art around.

Finally, I wish to emphasize something i saw earlier in one message or another.
I know of no origami creator/publisher who makes a living doing such, save
perhaps Akira Yoshizawa.  Most people who publish origami are doing so as a
side enterprise to pull in a little extra money, but more importantly to make
themselves and their models known, to share their knowledge and expertise. I
will not use this as an excuse to go out and copy the complete works of John
Montroll (my apologies, John, for using you as an example) and sell them at
a profit, but i will use it as something which will put things in perspective
for many people.  Origami is not a huge field where all participants make alot
of money.  Any small copyright infringement, such as the copying of one model
out of a book that isn't easy to get, will usually be tolerated.  The hounds
of the law will probably not be at our heels for such an offense; in any case
we are here to share and not to bicker about what is and isn't technically
legal about our sharing. If everyone in every business in the world did that,
many of us might be out of our jobs.
Anyway, that's my $0.02 on this subject.
-Alasdair
acpquinn@myriad.middlebury.edu





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:07:18 -0400
From: marmonk@eskimo.com (Mark Morden)
Subject: David Brill's Nut and Bolt

In Pamela Saalbach's summary of Wow-able origami models David Brill's Nut
and Bolt was listed as one of the best Wow-able models.  Could someone
please tell me where the Nut and Bolt has been published and if it is still
available.

Thanks in advance

Mark

Mark Morden == marmonk@mail.eskimo.com
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I belive in the rising sun;
not because I see it but by it I see all else.
                                           C.S. Lewis





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:33:52 -0400
From: Mike Kennon <mkennon@nando.net>
Subject: RE: Simple hedgehog?

I would be interested in the 2D diagrams. Do you have diagrams for you new
model? I would love that also if available.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name: Mike Kennon
E-mail: mkennon@nando.net
http://uptown.turnpike.net/M/mkennon/index.html
Date: 11/25/95
Time: 12:26:38
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------------Original Message---------------

> Speaking for myself, I'd like to see the porcupine, since its quills are
> much longer (proportionately) than those of a hedgehog.

Robert; I have just invented a hedgehog which has 4 VERY long spines. It
comes from a bird-base.

Just thought you'd like to know.

BTW I have diags for an unpublished O'Hare hedgehog (2D profile, very simple
but effective) which I can uuencode to anyone interested.....

Nick Robinson

----------End of Original Message----------





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:56:02 -0400
From: "Weinstein, Michael" <michaelw@bdg10.niddk.nih.gov>
Subject: 'WOW' Origami Summary, and *Quintessenti

Simple models that really cut it are amoung the most difficult things to
create.  My personal favorite is Stephen Weiss' Scottie dog, which was
published in one of the convention collections, although I can't remember
what year.  Tom Hull and Robert Neale's book is a collection of similarly
brilliant yet simple models.
Weinstein





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:49:40 -0400
From: LapinPub@aol.com
Subject: RE: *Quintessential* Origami Question

Well, just to put my own two cents in -- Rae Cooker's Strawberry comes to
mind, and also the "Peace Dove" which was published in the newsletter several
years ago.  Also, for me, the "Lover's Knot" has always been a favourite.
 And, breaking from the category of simple models I'd vote for most anything
by Crawford Particularly her Kangaroo.

J.C. Nolan (LapinPub@aol.com)





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:59:13 -0400
From: chall@scsn.net (Carol Hall)
Subject: Oh, dear!

I've been on this list for a bit less than a year and do truly enjoy it.
The most obvious reason is that it is *about* origami.  There is more to the
art/craft/whatever than simply diagrams and pieces of paper.  But one of the
other reasons that I enjoy this list is that it has been remarkably free of
flame wars.

I'm sorry if a few people are disappointed.  It is certainly their right to
choose not to participate if they don't like what they encounter here.  If
the wonderful assortment of diagrams available for ftp and the sharing of
information is not to anyone's liking, so be it.  Nothing can please
everyone, nor should everyone expect to be pleased 100% of the time.

My request would be that those who choose to leave try to do so without
vitriolic disruption of the list.  From the number of "how do I get off this
list" posts, it seems that several people have difficulty unsubscribing.  If
repeated and careful unsub attempts do not solve the problem,  then queries
to list managers or system administrators may be the answer.  I can
understand the frustration when machines won't do one's will, but flames
only get everyone upset.

Here's to a polite cyberworld!
Carol Hall
chall@scsn.net





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 16:44:18 -0400
From: knuffke@sirius.com (Charles Knuffke)
Subject: Bats!

I hope everyone on this list had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I was lucky to
have received an invitation to enjoy thanksgiving with a very good friend
and her parents. After dinner, I found out that my friend's mother is very
interested in bats. I'd really like to do something to say thank you for
their generousity, so here's my question...

Does anyone know of a good bat model? I've seen the model in Sakoda's
"Modern Origami", but it's a little too stylized for me. I'm hoping to find
one that has a good "Bat face" but is not overly complex, since I'm at only
about an intermediate level.

Thanks in advance for any help, especially if the source is not out of print!

Regards,

Charles Knuffke

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Charles Knuffke               knuffke@sirius.com
153 Divisadero
San Francisco CA 94104
          "Amen the Thunderbolt in the Dark Void"





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 20:04:25 -0400
From: Penny <Penny@sector.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Bats!

My favourite bat is by Robert Neale and I have it in Sam Randlett's 'The best of
Origami' the face is not too detailed, but that does not detract from the
finished model.My copy of the book is pretty old so could well be out of print.

In your message dated Saturday 25, November 1995 you wrote :
> I hope everyone on this list had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I was lucky to
> have received an invitation to enjoy thanksgiving with a very good friend
> and her parents. After dinner, I found out that my friend's mother is very
> interested in bats. I'd really like to do something to say thank you for
> their generousity, so here's my question...
>
> Does anyone know of a good bat model? I've seen the model in Sakoda's
> "Modern Origami", but it's a little too stylized for me. I'm hoping to find
> one that has a good "Bat face" but is not overly complex, since I'm at only
> about an intermediate level.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help, especially if the source is not out of print!
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles Knuffke
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Charles Knuffke               knuffke@sirius.com
> 153 Divisadero
> San Francisco CA 94104
>           "Amen the Thunderbolt in the Dark Void"
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
>

--

------------------------------------------
Penny Groom                :(
                           :)
penny@sector.demon.co.uk





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:01:26 -0400
From: rshuster@netaxs.com (Bob Shuster)
Subject: St. George's Star

Help!  I just got a plea for help from someone looking for folding
directions for a St. George's Star.  I looked through my admittedly small
library and could find neither diagram or reference to it.  I suggested she
join this list, but if I can get the info myself I'll email it to her.  Has
anyone seen this?     - Bob

      = = =      /| Bob Shuster                           |\      = = =
[>----|-|-|-----/ |   Composer/Arranger/Copyist/MIDI &    | \-----|-|-|----<]
  (___|_|_|____)\ |   Computer Consultant  (215-927-4928) | /(____|_|_|___)
      " " "      \|   (& trumpet!)  (rshuster@netaxs.com) |/      " " "
                       http://www.netaxs.com/~rshuster/





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:00:46 -0400
From: Bob Roos <roos@grendel.csc.smith.edu>
Subject: Jurassic Origami

In today's U.S. mail I received an advertising flyer for a book entitled
"Jurassic Origami" by Edwin Ee (EPB Publishers Pte Ltd., Singapore). The
book is available by mail order (from Singapore!). I would order it, except
the cost is U.S. $18 plus U.S. $7.50 shipping and handling, and I'd like
to avoid the shipping charges if the book is/will be available in this
country.

SO... does anyone know anything about it? E.g., will Origami USA carry it?
Can anyone provide a review of it?

By the way, there is an Email address if any of you want to write for more
information:  epbpublr@singnet.com.sg

And if you just want to order it without waiting for more info, the
address is:

        EPB Publishers Pte Ltd
        Marketing Division (General)
        Blk. 162, Bukit Merah Central
        #04-3545 Singapore 150162
        Tel: (065) 278 0881
        Fax: (065) 276 6970/278 2456

They take VISA and MasterCard.

The book is 183 pages, ISBN 9971 0 0399 6, and the flyer says it has
directions for 21 "fantastically complex origami dinosaurs."

Bob
P.S. Japan report coming...one of these days.





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 03:28:08 -0400
From: hokido@primenet.com (Kenji Houston)
Subject: Re: Bats!

At 04:44 PM 11/25/95 -0400, Charles Knuffke wrote:
>I hope everyone on this list had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I was lucky to
>have received an invitation to enjoy thanksgiving with a very good friend
>and her parents. After dinner, I found out that my friend's mother is very
>interested in bats. I'd really like to do something to say thank you for
>their generousity, so here's my question...
>
>Does anyone know of a good bat model? I've seen the model in Sakoda's
>"Modern Origami", but it's a little too stylized for me. I'm hoping to find
>one that has a good "Bat face" but is not overly complex, since I'm at only
>about an intermediate level.
>
>Thanks in advance for any help, especially if the source is not out of print!
>
>Regards,
>
>Charles Knuffke
>
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>Charles Knuffke               knuffke@sirius.com
>153 Divisadero
>San Francisco CA 94104
>          "Amen the Thunderbolt in the Dark Void"
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
>
I created a simple bat, if you have a fax. I can send it to you.

Kenji





Return-path: <origami-l@nstn.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 10:58:11 -0400
From: Kellie Elizabeth Cass <KELLIECASS@delphi.com>
Subject: Subject:  WHAT A POMPOUS LETTER!

ACPQUINN@myriad.middlebury.edu writes:
  >> ... before some people decided they should be able to make
      a profit on origami, the whole issue was about sharing.

   One of the problems with the internet is that many folks have
learned the hard way that some people are here to steal the
stuff they so generously share, sometimes actually PUBLISHING it
without attribution (even when copyrighted & certainly without
permission). & there is lots of cross-posting between services,
where if you post something on say Prodigy someone will repeat
it word for word on Delphi (often again without even giving
credit & even if they do give credit, folks re-posting it on yet
another service will credit the poster if anyone & so the
tell members to "just change the wording a little to make it
your own."
   This isn't pettiness, it is livelihood if the originator
decides to later publish it & readers think he got the idea
from someone who stole it from him! Although the problem is not
as extensive in origami, it exists in all areas of crafting. &
these rotten apples spoil things for EVERYONE.
   I do agree about occasionally photocopying something from an
out of print book since many of us CAN'T buy that no matter how
much we're willing to pay. Although technically illegal, I
myself think it is ok if just a small exerpt & you can't buy it
anywhere.
   But "can't afford" is not acceptable. I can't afford every
origami book I want either (I want them all) so my only options
are to (1) buy as many as I can afford (2) check my library for
those I can't buy (3) borrow any I can from friends & perhaps
trade off with them so we each buy X number & share them.
    Just my $.02.
    I don't contribute to this group because I have notthing to
contribute (I'm too new at it) but I gain so much from it &
consider it far & away the best group anywhere. I have gotten
the most priceless tips techniques ideas & general information
here that I've never seen in any book! And it is such a thrill
to have the big name origami authors actually participating
here! I love it and can't even imagine wanting to unsubscribe.
                                              Kellie
