




Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 16:38:37 -0400 (AST)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: merry xmas gif

I wanted to send a card to all my electronic friends, but the sheer
hassle of persuading my software to add specific people to a single list
- an (individual cut & paste job :( - has prompted me to send it out to
the list at large. I've kept the file as small as possible & if anyone
thinks I've broken rules, a) Sorry,   b) Humbug   c) have a look at the
volume of regular over-quoting on this list

hope everyone has a peaceful Christmas, whatever their faith.

Nick Robinson

email   nick@homelink.demon.co.uk (but watch this space in the new year)
homepage     http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/nick





Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:26:43 -0400 (AST)
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re: non-convex paper (Specifically square v. not-square)

Doug Phillips drops the gauntlet with:

> So, Robert, my question to you (and to everyone else too) is:
> Why the square?  What reasons can you give that are not
> reiterations of "it's always been done that way" or "that is the
> form that has been studied most."  Perhaps if I put it this way:
> What are the characteristics that describe the ideal starting
> shape(s) for origami?  (justifications here are needed or you could
> just list the characteristics of a square and circle your way into
> recursive non-answering. Why does a square, better than any other
> shape, satisfy those characteristics?

You're asking for a scientific answer to what is ultimately a religious
question. I can list lots of reasons why a square is a _good_ shape for
starting; I can't give you any reason why it is _best_.

So here are some reasons why a square is _good_. It's relatively easy to
make. Ease of manufacture favors parallel-sided and rectangular shapes; and
one of the appeals of origami is that the raw material is relatively easy to
come by.

Another reason is that a square has a lot of interesting symmetries based on
multiples of 22.5 and 15 degrees that lead to elegant crease patterns.
However, any argument based on geometry or symmetry is going to run into the
problem that there are other shapes that have interesting geometry or
symmetry about them. A4 (1:Sqrt[2]) has a lot of interesting symmetries as
well and there's probably more precut A4 paper in the world than square
paper.

Or maybe not: there's a lot of Post-It's around these days.

Why personally do I fold from squares? When I was younger, I was influenced
by the stuff I saw in Secrets of Origami and some awesome designs Neal Elias
sent me, and a lot of the designs were from rectangles, so rectangles seemed
perfectly okay since that's what the Big Guys were using. And later,
rectangles were great because I could fold things out of them that I couldn't
do from squares. And later still, as my design skills improved, designing
from rectangles began to seem like shooting fish in a barrel (as Jerry has
observed) and so designing from a square was, and remains, more
intellectually stimulating to me.

This is an important distinction: I don't think there's anything inherently
better about a square; but there is an established concept, "folding from an
uncut square", that takes in a lot of origami (though not all), and it is
intellectually stimulating (two big words that basically mean "fun") to see
how far one can push this existing concept. And so far, I don't think we're
anywhere near the limits.

The idea of a square as challenge was raised already. Doug quoted Steve
Woodmasee as saying:

> The square is the appropriate shape to begin with for me because it
> offers no 'head starts'. The excitement of Origami is that so much
> was accomplished with so unyielding a shape to begin with. If we
> start using more favorable shapes to start with, where's the magic?

Carrying this further, even the four corners of a square constitute a "head
start" on the way to getting appendages. So if we wanted to push this idea a
bit further, an even more appropriate shape, one yet more challenging, would
be a shape that has no corners at all, i.e...

A circle!

But I guess we've been here before.

Robert J. Lang
rjlang@aol.com





Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:54:19 -0400 (AST)
From: nienhuis@westworld.com (Bob Nienhuis)
Subject: Re: [NO] Web Page graphics

On Sunday, Dec. 15th, Steve Woodmansee writes:
>
>        After talking to Joseph Wu and some others who have some terrific
>Origami based artwork on their web pages, I decided to develop my own for
>use on my own recently created web page.  I've had some problems and am
>looking for some friendly advice from others.

You might want to check out the Transparent/Interlaced GIF Resource Page -FAQ
at:

http://dragon.jpl.nasa.gov/~adam/transparent.html

It contains a WEALTH of information.

Bob
nienhuis@westworld.com





Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:30:38 -0400 (AST)
From: PenneyA@aol.com
Subject: Re: merry xmas gif

nice card Nick, thanks.  I have been lurking but not commenting much  on the
list lately.
                 Penney





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:43:31 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: wetfodding

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Nick Robinson wrote:

=I know you didn't intend to say otherwise, but I'd like to point out
=that wet-folders usually apply all the restrictions of "normal"(!)
=folders, they just avoid thin legs!

Nope! Not true! As Tom Robbins would say, "skinny legs and all"! Robert Lang's
got wetfolded versions of his insects, and Phillip Yee has wetfolded many
insects from many different creators. I've managed a few myself!

          Joseph Wu           Faith: When you have come to the end of all the
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   light that you know and need to step into the
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  darkness of the unknown, Faith is knowing that
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami one of two things will happen: either there will
 Webmaster, DATT Japan Inc.   be something solid to stand on or you will be
    http://www.datt.co.jp     taught how to fly.                --Anonymous





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:03:55 -0400 (AST)
From: Sy Chen <sychen@leatherback.nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [NO] Web Page graphics

At 10:44 AM 12/15/96 -0400, Steve Woodmansee wrote:
>[Non-Origami, mostly]
>

>        Today I downloaded LView Pro, which is supposed to be able to
>transform .GIF files to .GIF files with transparent backgrounds, but no
>success there either.
>        Any brave folder / technical person / graphic artist want to walk me
>through it?

Here is my extra $0.02 knack about LVIEW Pro:

You may need to reduce the color depth to 8bit (256 colors) if you can not
see the color palette in 'background color sub menu'.

Sy Chen





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:40:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@homelink.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: wetfodding

Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp> said....

>Nope! Not true! As Tom Robbins would say, "skinny legs and all"!

Sorry, I was supposing that other wet-folders use the same weight of
paper that I prefer (ie. thick!)

cheers!

Nick Robinson

Origami, Improvised Guitar, Web-site design!

email           nick@homelink.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/nick
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk
DART homepage   http://www.shef.ac.uk/~oip/dart/





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:39:16 -0400 (AST)
From: Derek Stottlemyer <derek@stottlemyer.com>
Subject: Re: [NO] Web Page graphics

Sorry, I cut out a lot in the reply...
        I have used both Lview and PSPro, and they
both work fine, though PSPro is more confusing.
Be sure that the background is all one color.  In
PSPro, it's usually easy to set the transparency
color to the background color, but if you change
the background color later, it messes things up.
That had me confused for a while.
        A hint for keeping the background color
clean is to use a non white color for the
transparent color (red or blue, a color that isn't
being used anywhere else), that way you won't
accidently lose part of your picture.
        You also have to save as gif 89a.
        Hope this helps.
        Derek Stottlemyer

Robby/Laura/Lisa wrote:

> -------------------------------------------
> Select the colour you want to make transparent as background colour, then in
> "Save As" select "GIF 89a", then select "Options", choose "set the
> transparency value to the background color", and save.





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:17:38 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeannine Mosely <j9@concentra.com>
Subject: Re: Square parer and the Concept of paperfolding.

David Lister mentions two useful rectangles:

   The mention of the Golden Rectangle (and I may also throw in the Silver
   Rectangle) as having aesthetic appeal brings me up sharp against the general
   acceptance that square paper is the ideal shape for folding.

I would like to put in a plug for one of my favorites, that I call the
"Bronze Rectangle" in the ratio of sqrt(3) to 1.0.  This rectangle is
amazingly useful for modulars because of the many ways it can be
folded into combinations of whole or partial equilateral triangles and
squares. And of course, it's available in boxes of 500 at your local
(American) stationers.

        -- Jeannine Mosely





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:33:16 -0400 (AST)
From: DORIGAMI@aol.com
Subject: Re: Circlular paper.

Hi, everybody. I have access to circular paper in white.....could be sponge
painted or otherwise colored.....If anyone is interested let me know and I
could get you a price. Dorigami @aol.com





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:01:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net>
Subject: origami sighting in outer-space!

                   Origami in Outer Space!

Hello all,
  I was watching Educational Television from NASA (America's National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) and they were showing how various
toys behave in space on the Space Shuttle.  Among the toys they had
were Slinky, basket ball and hoop, wind-up fish, Klaker Balls, magnetic
balls, gravitrons, and a flying bird.  One of the toys was an origami
maple seed!  I think it came from _Flying Origami_ ???  (can someone
help me here)  When the astronaut threw the seed from the thick end
it flew in a straight line and slowly rotated just like a helicopter.
He threw it straight at the camera and when it hit the camera I could
see that it was a folded piece of paper.  Origami in Space!

--
 Douglas Zander                | many things interest me, too many to list
 dzander@solaria.sol.net       | here.  if you want a profile :-)  why not
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA     | send me a letter?  tell me about yourself,
 "Over-looking Lake Michigan." | I'll tell you about myself.





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:14:13 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: The bronze Rectangle.

It's simply amazing! After mentioning the Golden Rectangle and the Silver
Rectangle, Jeannine Mosely extols the merits of paper of the proportions:
square root of three to one and proposes that it shall be known as the Bronze
Rectangle.

Earlier this year I was experimenting with a Star of David folded from
American letter paper.  Not having any paper of American size, I cut some of
my own to size, but I found it was not quite a perfect fit. I tried the fold
wiith A4 but A4 did not fit properly either.

I then worked out that the ideal proportions of paper to fold the Star of
David were square root of three to one. I hadn't made many discoveries in
paperfolding but this was one of them. Guess the name I thought of for paper
of these proportions! Yes, the "Bronze Rectangle". (In view of recent
postings about equilateral triangles, I should point out that equilateral
triangles simply cascade out,  whenever paper of these proportions is
folded.)

John Cunliffe had written the BOS Booklet on the Silver Rectangle and  it was
he who advocated that the name Silver Rectangle should be given to paper of
the proportions : square root of two to one, which is used for the
International sizes of paper. (But not in North America). I asked him how he
came by the name and he told me it was not his own invention;  it was
suggested by the Dictionary Department of the Oxford University Press on the
analogy of the Golden Rectangle

I wrote to John proposing that paper of the new ratio should be called the
Bronze Rectangle. I must say I was disappointed by his lukewarm reception -
he said he was too busy with other things to be bothered!

Now Jeannine has thought up the name and having gone public first, she has
all the proprietary rights in the name. I feel like Fred Rohm when he
invented the electric phphonograph pick-up, only to be told when he proudly
took it to the Victor Phonograph Company in the hope that they would develop
it, that they had registered a patent for the identical thing the day before!
( Fred used to use this story against himself as a demonstration that
different people could simultaneously design identical models.)

I comment this shape of paper to all folders for experiment  and I hope that
everyone will adopt Jeannine's term as its name. I hope, too, in future
dictionaries, th Bronze Rectangle  will be credited to her.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

Dlister891.AOL.com





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:40:08 -0400 (AST)
From: Daniel Chow <dchow@wente.llnl.gov>
Subject: Dave Brill's book

Greetings, Paper-philes...

I am new to this list but I've been "folding paper" practically all my life.

I am looking for comments and responses regarding Dave Brill's book
"Brilliant Origami".

I was particularly impressed by the life-like models that Dave Brill
created, especially the lion, lioness, and horse.  It's amazing how he
forms soft, fluid curves from angular polygons!  When is the last time
your origami lion actually looked "cuddly"?

Perhaps this has been discussed to death, but I've never found "cubistic"
origami to be fascinating.  Kasahara loves to emphasize the purity of
simplicity.

But personally, making an animal that looks like nothing more than a
triangle with feet just doesn't do anything for me.  But this is a
debate for another time...  (As I zip up my flame-retardant suit!)

So, if anyone can recommend other books that carries Dave Brill's life-like
spirit combined with a high level of expertise, please do so!

--Daniel Chow





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:55:23 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: Re: origami sighting in outer-space!

A>One of the toys was an origami
>maple seed!  I think it came from _Flying Origami_ ???  (can someone
>help me here)  When the astronaut threw the seed from the thick end
>it flew in a straight line and slowly rotated just like a helicopter.
>He threw it straight at the camera and when it hit the camera I could
>see that it was a folded piece of paper.  Origami in Space!

Wow!

Maybe this is the model from Nick Robinson's "Paper Airplanes"? (Now that
would be a certain claim to fame, Nick!)

You know, you can send the astronauts questions via email....Was this a
recent event? And if so, do you know which astronaut or shuttle mission this
was? Perhaps it might be possible to find a picture of it in the online NASA
archives....Hmmmmm...

Ok. Went looking myself. This is all I've found so far. Typing in "toy" in
the search field at this site:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/html/searchpao.htm

Will give you thumbnails of NASA toy images.

So far I think I see one blue paper airplane at the bottom left of this
preflight photo:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/STS54/10065439.jpg

The toys in the picture supposedly went up on the shuttle mission STS-54 in
'93 as part of a general toy experiment, which was videotaped for
educational TV. Do these look like the right toys, Douglas?

Still amusing myself here :->....

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:25:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: origami sighting in outer-space!

At 07:01 PM 12/16/96 -0400, Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>                   Origami in Outer Space!
>
>Hello all,
>  I was watching Educational Television from NASA (America's National
>Aeronautics and Space Administration) and they were showing how various
>toys behave in space on the Space Shuttle.  Among the toys they had
>were Slinky, basket ball and hoop, wind-up fish, Klaker Balls, magnetic
>balls, gravitrons, and a flying bird.  One of the toys was an origami
>maple seed!  I think it came from _Flying Origami_ ???  (can someone
>help me here)  When the astronaut threw the seed from the thick end
>it flew in a straight line and slowly rotated just like a helicopter.
>He threw it straight at the camera and when it hit the camera I could
>see that it was a folded piece of paper.  Origami in Space!

This sounds like Stephen Weiss's *Maple Seed* from his _Winggs and Things_
book (or at least a title close to that). This could very well be the first
origami model ever to leave our atmosphere. I am going to send a note over
to Stephen tommorow to let him know.

Marc





Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:38:22 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: Maybe origami on the Mir Space Station?

Here's a far-fetched idea, but maybe worth trying....

Right now you can email "seasons greetings" to John, Sasha, and Valeri on
the Mir Space Station:

http://shuttle-mir.nasa.gov/shuttle-mir/mir22/seasonsgreetings/

I just sent my "Merry Christmas" along with a request that one of them fold
and a paper plane and photograph it flying...or even better fold a crane (if
one of them knows how).

Now if this was an international group effort (*HINT*), maybe they might do
it. Or maybe NASA might schedule it for a future mission. (I'm a skeptic. I
doubt those guys up there are reading their email. Not something I would opt
to do while orbiting. I expect some PR flunkee is reading and filtering all
their public mail.)

Time to turn off this computer, I think.

pat slider.
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:39:18 -0400 (AST)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: The Forms of Origami (Part One)  [Long]

As the years have passed, I have been fascinated by the intricate landscape
of Paperfolding, with all its highways and byways, wide vistas and secret
corners. At one time I cherished a dream of compiling a book called: "The
Styles of Paperfolding". Such a book would devote one chapter to each style
and after and introduction and discussion of where the style fitted into the
general scope of paperfolding, it would contain a diagram of two with
instructions for folding a model in that style and also have an illustrated
picture to show the models. The book would, where appropriate, place the
style in its historical context.

I'm guilty of starting the recent debate on the Forms of Origami myself, in
my article on Carbon 60 in which I casually muttered: "The connection between
modular folding and ordinary origami has always seemed to me somewhat tenuous
because the only aspect of real paperfolding involved is the folding of
countless identical modules of minimal paperfolding interest." Notice that I
distinguished modular folding from  "ordinary origami" but I did go on to say
that I, too, was captivated by modular folding.

Valerie Vann (7th December) immediately came to the defence of modular
origami in a long and very interesting posting and suggested that modular
folding was at least as much "origami" as folding from some other materials,
such as foil, foil-backed tissue , plastic or other paper substitutes. A
telling point she made was that modulars had to made to "lock" and that
locking procedures were very origamic. (The rest of her posting concerned the
relationships between modular origami and geodesics.)

Also on 7th, December Jerry Harris took up the question of what is and is not
"Origami" by postulating three different kinds; 1. Single sheet origami.
 2.Modular origami, where multiples of identical modules are pieced together
and 3.Composite origami, where a model is made from two or more different
pieces each folded in different ways. I can readily respond to this, because
it is one of the basic classifications that has also occurred to me.

In another communication dated 7th December , Jean Villemaire rightly
broadened the enquiry into principles of  categorisation by asking how many
kinds of paperfolding could be distinguished. He suggested a
multi-dimensional classification involving 1. Number of sheets, 2.shape of
paper, 3.historical distinctions, 4. Figurative v. abstract, 5. Function 6.
Etc. etc.

On 9th December, James Sakoda added further catagories: 1,  the technique of
linking squares of paper as in the Sembazuru Orikata,  2. Origami collages as
in Kyo Araki's "Kyo Origami", .3. pop-ups as by Chatani,  4. Gift-wrapping
and  5. Origami flower arrangement.

James added: "The Japanese have never been shy about taking these steps when
they seemed necessary to achieve an attractive result. Setting up a limited
number of categories may obscure the differences among them and it may be
better to recognise them as separate kinds of effort which can still be
included under origami." This view met the approbation of Steve Woodmansee,
also on 9th, December. Steve especially liked the idea of referring to all of
the branches of Origami as "separate kinds of effort , which can still be
included under origami". Nevertheless, he went on to admit his own preference
for square paper.

On 12th, December, Steven Casey came up with  "The Unified Fold Theory" in
which he discussed the acceptable limits in various fields (Cuts, Modular,
Pre-Cutting and the Shape of the initial paper), beyond which the style
crossed the boundary and ceased to qualify as "Origami"

Steve's distinctions are acceptable suggestions. It is unlikely that all
folders would necessarily draw the lines where he does, but this does not
invalidate his suggestions Steve also mentions a category of his own in
"kirikomi" origami where the paper is cut into (but with removing any paper)
before folding. This was  advocated by the elder Michio Uchiyama. (He claimed
it saved wasting paper!).

Steve adds; "I also believe that any definition of origami should come from
an internal frame of reference, that is among the practitioners of the
art/science and not be hijacked by others simply  because [their techniques]
contain a minor element of folding" He mentions packaging, paper sculpture,
pop-ups and multi-piece pop-ups, "which are all great in their own right and
can stand alone".

Taking all these contributions together, we have a wide field of origami
styles and techniques. I could add a few of my own. There is the form of
cutting practised by Dr. Solorzano in which he "slashed" the paper with a
knife along an existing crease. There are various subdivisions of
mathematical paperfolding, from demonstration of simple theorems of Euclid to
the trisection of angles and  formation  of conic sections by folding. The
folding of polyhedra from one sheet of paper (Lewis Simon, Bennett Arnstein
and Rona Gukewitz) is a separate catagory and I would even place box-pleating
and technical folding in categories of their own The Second international
meeting of Scientific Origami at Utsu, Japan in 1994 showered us with what
seemed a myriad of new approaches.

So the dicussion about the Philosophy of Origami has continued. One feeling
that seems to have widespread acceptance is that  Origami is what you make of
it. An artist is at full liberty to choose his own medium., even to the
extent of mixing media, as in a combination of oil paint and clay modelling.

Even Paper Quilling has been brought under the umbrella of Origami, on the
basis that curved paper is acceptable and quilling (that is making tight
rolls of narrow ribbons of paper and then arranging the little spirals into
pictures) is only an extreme kind of curved paper. I begin to start asking
questions here. Why does every paper craft have to be brought under the
origami umbrella?  When we keep a hold on ourselves, we all know what we mean
by Origami in the proper sense of the word. There is a perfectly good word,
"Papercraft" which can be used to encompass all the remoter styles of
manipulating paper.

It is still possible to identify folding from an uncut square of paper as
being distinctive in its own right. This is the core of paperfolding and if
one keeps one's feet on the ground, one can see that the assembling of
modules from multiple pieces of paper is just not the same thing. One of my
favourite sayings is that one must keep one's feet on the ground, but one's
head in the clouds.  So I revel in the sheer abundant variety of folding
techniques, whatever one chooses to call them.

I hope to say  more on how  we can arrange all this variety in our minds to
give it some semblance of order, without imposing a rigid classification
system on it  and without abusing our useful names and definitions. Long
though this posting is, I have still more to say, but I will keep it for
another time.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 05:52:48 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@empnet.com>
Subject: Re: Dave Brill's book

At 08:40 PM 12/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
<excerpt>
>I am looking for comments and responses regarding Dave Brill's book
>"Brilliant Origami".
>
Don't worry, no flames from me.  Dave Brill's book is definitely a
must-have, and the models are stunning.  However I don't believe Brill's is
the only style to produce lifelike models that don't look 'cubist' and angular.

Check out Robert J. Lang's Insect models (Origami Insects and their kin), or
John Montroll's models (North American Animals in Origami, Origami for the
Enthusiast, Prehistoric Origami, and quite a few more), to name a few.  If
you check the archives, sometime in the last six month (if memory serves)
there was a discussion of western versus Japanese origami styles.  Western
styles are thought to be more oriented towards realistic attributes of the
model; Japanese styles are often simpler, concentrating more on a minimalist
representation of the model.

Given the excellent on-line services (I'm thinking specifically of
Fascinating Folds - http://www.fascinating-folds.com/ ) you should be able
to find plenty of the type of models you're looking for.

                         ''~``
                        ( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
|                                                     |
|          "Origami: Welcome to the Fold!"            |
|                Steve Woodmansee                     |
|              Bend, Oregon U.S.A.                    |
|                                                     |
|                    .oooO                            |
|                    (   )   Oooo.                    |





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:20:55 -0400 (AST)
From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@empnet.com>
Subject: [NO] Web Page graphics

Special thanks to Eric Andersen, Robby/Laura/Lisa, Nick Robinson, Bob
Nienhuis, Sy Chen, Derek Stottlemyer and all others who responded to my
earlier request for help with importing graphics to my web page.  All of
your suggestions worked!  Since this is going to the entire list, thought I
would share my final findings:

1.      You *can* develop web page graphics in PowerPoint.  They must be
saved as .WMF files (Windows Metafile).
2.      PaintShop Pro is necessary to convert the graphics to .GIF format.
3.      LView is necessary to change the background color to white (in my
case), then save in GIF89a format in order to treat white as invisible.

Thanks again everyone!

                         ''~``
                        ( o o )
+------------------.oooO--(_)--Oooo.------------------+
|                                                     |
|          "Origami: Welcome to the Fold!"            |
|                Steve Woodmansee                     |
|              Bend, Oregon U.S.A.                    |
|                                                     |
|                    .oooO                            |
|                    (   )   Oooo.                    |





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:43:45 -0400 (AST)
From: vann@tredgar.cardiff.com (VAnn Cornelius)
Subject: OrigamiUSA Affiliate News Request

Dee Lynch asks for news from OrigamiUSA
affiliate groups.  The PAPER deadline in
Jan 1.  Send her a note about what your
groups have been up to and she will
forward it to the editor.

Dee Lynch:

TrekDBob@aol.com





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:54:59 -0400 (AST)
From: Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net>
Subject: Re: origami sighting in outer-space!

>
> This sounds like Stephen Weiss's *Maple Seed* from his _Winggs and Things_
> book (or at least a title close to that). This could very well be the first
> origami model ever to leave our atmosphere. I am going to send a note over
> to Stephen tommorow to let him know.
>
> Marc
>
 Yes, that sounds familiar, I thought I recognized the seed!  :-)

--
 Douglas Zander                | many things interest me, too many to list
 dzander@solaria.sol.net       | here.  if you want a profile :-)  why not
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA     | send me a letter?  tell me about yourself,
 "Over-looking Lake Michigan." | I'll tell you about myself.





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:09:21 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: Two older Chatani books for sale....

Posting this for any Chatani fans on the list. The prices seem on the high
side for used paperbacks, but maybe these two titles are hard to find these
days.

Please post to the list if you are getting one of these, so the bookseller
does't get overwhelmed with inquiries; otherwise the next Chatani title he
sells will cost much more....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>KEY TO ORIGAMIC ARCHITECTURE by Chatani, Masahiro
>Tokyo  Shokokusha  1985
>keywords: ORIGAMI Paper-folding craft
>Fine 7 x 10" soft bound in Fine jacket. Text in English & Japanese. Create
3-D buildings Pop-up style. First Edition.
>The price of the book is US$ 25.00 Please reference the seller's book #
000195 when ordering.
>
>
>PATTERN SHEETS OF ORIGAMIC ARCHITECTURE by Chatani, Masahiro
>Tokyo  Shokokusha  1984
>keywords: ORIGAMI Paper-folding craft
>Fine 7 x 10" soft bound in Fine jacket. Text in English & Japanese. Create
3-D buildings Pop-up style. First Edition.
>The price of the book is US$ 25.00 Please reference the seller's book #
002288 when ordering.
>
>The seller is Needful Things at Mail  POB 587   (Post Office does not
deliver on Main Street)  UPS 63 Main Street, Cathlamet, WA, USA, 98612
>Email them at needfult@teleport.com., phone them at 360 795-6222.
>Their conditions of sale are; Please reserve, e.mail, (360)795-6222, or
Needfult@interloc.com.
>Washington resident use resale # or add 7.5%.  Postage HC $3.00,   .50 each
>additional/Paperbacks $2.00   .25 each additional. $4 for Priority.
>VISA/MC not available.    Needful Things, POB 587, Cathlamet, WA 98612.





Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:35:36 -0400 (AST)
From: Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com
Subject: OT: books for kids-please don't send e-mail

(OT: Off Topic, which I prefer to NO because NO makes subjects lines
read oddly.)

If you receive an e-mail explaining the Houghton Mifflin campaign for
e-mail in exchange for free books to children's hospitals, please don't
send mail. (You can stop reading now, unless you want details.)

It's not a hoax, but it has become an e-mail virus. HMI (Houghton Mifflin
Interactive) has run a campaign via their website for the last few years
to donate a book for every 25 messages received. They request
messages about Christmas memories or wishes or ... via a form on the
website. You can visit http://www.polarexpress.com and read the
mail received--an amusing way to waste a few minutes or hours.

Somehow, this year, the campaign became the subject of an e-mail
that is making the rounds saying that HMI is desparate for e-mails.
This is no longer true (and perhaps never was). The goal for the
campaign has been met. Yet the e-mail/usenet message continues
to make the rounds. If you receive it, please don't forward the message
or send e-mail.

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com
(My opinions are not necessarily those of Houghton Mifflin or HMI.)
