




Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 22:52:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Acronymically challenged

Jean Villemaire has had the definitive last word
on "OFTC"; his message is enough to gladden the
hearts of all true trivia fans! And that surely
includes 90% of origami people...  :-)

Leave it to the English-speaking tribes to borrow a
word from French, or Norman-French (Old French?), and
then botch the usage and/or the spelling! Maybe that's
why I have such a hard time figuring out which vowels to
put in and how many.

--valerie
Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com





Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 22:52:24 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: NO: Paper Balloons

Natural rubber may be biodegradable, but it can be
murder (literally almost) to the digestions of small
mammals such as rabbits. Ingesting rubber bands, even
"real rubber" ones can result in a fatal digestive
block, infection and death in 48 hours or less in a
rabbit.

On the other hand, I've heard that the foil ballons are
even illegal to release in some areas, as they can cause
problems with power lines or air traffic control or something.

For what its worth...

--valerie





Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 23:00:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michel Bartolone <bartolon@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Discovering origami-l and an introduction

>>>How did people who subscribe to origami-l discover it?

Hi, How did I discover the ORIGAMI-L? Well, I discovered it about
5 years ago...I went looking for anything on the internet related to
my other love bonsai. I didn't find anything, but I did find the list.
I didn't subscribe until now for a variety of reasons that I won't bore
you all with. I did start rec.arts.bonsai though. :) How did I rediscover
ORIGAMI-L? A good friend of mine convinced me that at least some of you
might like some of my origami teaching stories.

Take a bow Geoline.

Having said all of that, on with the introduction. I am Michel Bartolone.
I am a software engineering technician for G.E. Medical Systems where I
have been employed for just over 16 years. I am 37 years old, married,
and have three sons, Antonio (14), Stephano (13) and Carlo (8). I have
been folding since I was about 10 years old. I was introduced ro the
art of Origami by a PBS television program called oddly enough, "The Art of
Origami" hosted by Samuel Randlett.  I folded off and on for most of the
years inbetween then and now.

  About 4 years ago, I became involved in teaching origami. That
started when my eldest was in 4th grade and came home with Sadako.
I read it in about 15 minutes (believe it or not, I had not heard of
it before that) and called and offered to help my son's teacher teach
the kids how to make paper cranes. I had also sent a few small examples
of other small models. I still don't know if that was a mistake or
not. The teacher was very impressed and releaved...she didn't know how to
fold at all...and she asked if I would be willing to teach all three of
the 4th grade classes at the school. I said sure. I had envisioned teaching
about an hour in each room during the course of an afternoon. They didn't.
Two days before I was scheduled to teach, they called and asked if I
could teach just the cranes and do it in 3 half hour sessions on three
different days...to all 90 students at once!!! So, I had to change from
using 8 inch squares to using 36 inch squares. I decided that in order to
get the kids proficient enough, that we would actually do two models.
Both had to be fun to do, and had to be something the kids would enjoy.
I decided on the first model I learned, the water bomb. Well, to make an
already long story a bit shorter, the classes went wonderfully. I had
used 36 inch wrapping paper squares, pre-folded and then unfolded so I
could do the folds in the air, on the stage and the kids would see.

After that I was asked to return for "High Interest" Day. I have been
teaching origami at the local grade schools (4 different ones) and
a couple of public libraries for the last 3 years. I still love every
minute. Tomorrow, I'll share my origami philosophy, some of the things
I share with the kids, and tell you the story of Angela Kuemmel.

Sincerely
Michel Bartolone





Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 23:56:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@erols.com>
Subject: Re: dinosaurs

The Aronson's wrote:
>
> Dear Jessica,
>
> Rachel Katz invented a wonderful simple dinosaur that can even be done with
> construction paper.  The instructions were in an old Newsletter from
> OrigamiUSA from several years ago. Perhaps someone out there knows how to
> locate this brontosaurus - he was cute!
> Good luck!
> Ellen Aronson

Rachel Katz's "Simple Dinosaur" can be found in The New Origami by Steve &
     Megumi
Biddle.

Have fun!

|------------------------------------------------------\
|  _     Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy) <chens@asme.org>     |\
| |_| Folding http://www.erols.com/sychen1/pprfld.html --\





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 04:00:28 -0300 (ADT)
From: lemieuxj@woods.uml.edu
Subject: Michael Lafosse on QVC

You can find details of the Michael Lafosse's Origami
offering on QVC at the following location:

http://www.qvc.com/scripts/detail.dll?product&F15615

Bob
J. Robert A. Lemieux
lemieuxj@woods.uml.edu





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 07:21:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michael LaFosse <michael@origamido.com>
Subject: Yoshizawa visits Salem, MA

Hi everyone!  I am new to the origami-l and I just wanted to let you
know that there are TWO opportunities to visit and study with YOSHIZAWA
sensei this summer: (1) Origami USA convention AND (2) at the Peabody
Essex Museum, SALEM, Massachusetts:

MASTER YOSHIZAWA is coming to Massachusetts!!

   WHERE: Peabody Essex Museum
          East India Square
          Salem, Massachusetts 01970
          (508) 745-1879 or 1-800-745-4054

   WHEN:  Saturday June 21 and Sunday June 22, 1997
          (Note: This is the weekend before OrigamUSA's
           convention)

   TIME:
          On Saturday June 21st:
            - Adult Master Class         10:00am - noon
            - Children and family class   2:00pm - 4:00pm

          On Sunday June 22nd:
            - Adult Master Class          2:00pm - 4:00pm

          Reservation suggested by June 13.

          Each master class: members $30, nonmembers $35.
          Limited to 25 participants.  Best for ages 12 and up.
          Familiarity with basic origami recommended.

          Children and family class: members $12, nonmembers $15.
          Limited to 25 participants.  Best for ages 4-12, accompanied
          by adult (no change).

          Further information can be found by calling the Peabody Essex
          Museum at (508) 745-1879 or 1-800-745-4054.  or on the
          world-wide-web at http://www.pem.org/calendar/special.htm

I will also be there on each of the days listed. An exhibit of YOSHIZAWA
sensei's art will be at the museum before, during, and after his visit.
This will be a great chance to visit with sensei in a smaller, more
intimate gathering .  You must register to attend his classes; the seats
will go quickly so call soon. If you do not wish to take classes you can
drop by for just a visit. Hope to see some of you there.

Michael LaFosse
michael@origamido.com
www.origamido.com





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 09:08:34 -0300 (ADT)
From: A.Welles@student.kun.nl
Subject: Not folding with squares

I do not know who brought the subject up, since I already have deleted the
message that I am replying to right now.

But anyway, the subject was folding with paper that is not square;
primarily rectangles and triangles.

I strongly reject folding with other shapes than squares.
I will mainly focus my opinion on folding animals, because this is my
number one interest when it comes to Origami.

Some artists believe the best way to start folding your own animals is
taking a rectangular piece of paper of infinite length, then everything
that is needed for the animal (such as head, legs and tail, etc.) should
be formed and finaly the access paper should be cut off.

I do not advocate this view, simply because on of the many thrills of
folding your own animals is working with the limits that lie within the paper
and one of those limits surely is the square shape.

(Theoretically there is only one limit of paper and that is its thickness.
Just imagine what you can do with paper that has almost no thickness at all!)

I believe that the Origami-artist should adapt his (or her)self to the
limits of the paper and not vice versa. That is also one of the reasons
why I strongely reject cutting and gluing, let alone using more than one
piece of paper. This may be considered the vision of many purists.

Well, this is my view on folding with other shapes besides the 'good old'
square and folding with shapes such as stars, etc. should be even more
out of the question.

Hopefully I have inspired other readers to give their vision, so an
interesting discussion will start!

Arjan Welles
The Netherlands
A.Welles@Student.kun.nl





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:06:18 -0300 (ADT)
From: Herman Tse <hermant@asiaonline.net>
Subject: Books on Dinosaurs

Hi,

Can anyone give me some title on Dinosaurs?
Recently I've seen some models really good. I wonder any book can let me
enjoy the folding of Dinosaurs.

Thanks.

Herman :p





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:10:04 -0300 (ADT)
From: Michael LaFosse <michael@origamido.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

A.Welles@student.kun.nl wrote:
>
> I do not know who brought the subject up, since I already have deleted the
> message that I am replying to right now.
>
> But anyway, the subject was folding with paper that is not square;
> primarily rectangles and triangles.

The single-sheet of square paper seems to be the "gold standard" for
origami today.  It is a format that we can rely upon as a common playing
field for technical comparison and merit.  It is also a very productive
format and the one in which we are most versed -- it is our first
language in origami.

There are many great challenges left in this classic format, the
square.  However, I am much more impressed with elegant designs,
sensibly folded, from some non-square papers than I have been with many
models that have been designed to torture a square into some shape,
animal or otherwise, for the sake of saying it is from square paper.  We
all make some of these, from time to time -- I am guilty too.  Because
of this, I have grown to appreciate the good sense of a paper folder who
will not hesitate to design in a better suited format.

Designing in origami has a lot in common with engineering and
architectural design.  From that platform I will simply say that the
appreciation of the qualities and limitations of your materials is
paramount.  If you have a choice you also have an obligation to choose
well.  I do not deny the thrill of success in conquering the all mighty
square, which can take years of stubborn pursuit -- believe me, but I
will also not denigrate good design sense in origami nor will I view the
other paper formats as lesser citizens.

2-Cents worth of Michael LaFosse
michael@origamido.com
www.origamido.com





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:43:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Robert D. Maldonado" <robertma@csufresno.edu>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

A.Welles@student.kun.nl wrote:
>
[snip]
> on[e] of the many thrills of
> folding your own animals is working with the limits that lie within the paper
> and one of those limits surely is the square shape.
>
> (Theoretically there is only one limit of paper and that is its thickness.
> Just imagine what you can do with paper that has almost no thickness at all!)
>

Why is one limit "surely" the square?  Is it historical?  Why not
rectangular, a more common shape?  I'm not advocating here, just
wondering what the criteria, given the one theoretical limit, are for
insisting on a square.

Robert Maldonado





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:56:06 -0300 (ADT)
From: havener3@delphi.com (geoline)
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

>From the Origami List at origami-l@nstn.ca,
Arjan Welles of The Netherlands squared-away:

>I do not know who brought the subject up, since I already have deleted the
>message that I am replying to right now.
>
>But anyway, the subject was folding with paper that is not square;
>primarily rectangles and triangles.
>
>I strongly reject folding with other shapes than squares.
>I will mainly focus my opinion on folding animals, because this is my
>number one interest when it comes to Origami.
[snip]

What ever floats yer boat (or Noah's Ark).  There is room in origami to
accomdate whatever shape, material or form.  I do singles, multiples,
modulars, squares, triangles, rectangles, circles, people, action figures
(my little guy loves space stuff, Darth Vader, space ships...so I fold him
action figures for to play with sometimes) critters and mythic creatures
just for the fun of it and for displaying with my bonsai.  I'm just a mom
who grew-up doing stuff like origami and bonsai.  They are just fun and
relaxing to do.  Sometimes, I have so much fun just in the DOING, that I
don't exactly know how to recreate something I have done.  I see basic
folds and shapes and how they fit together in my head while I'm folding
away and how certain materials and paper textures can be molded with a
little twist or curl using my fingernails to add personality, character and
emotion.  Even if I fold two same creatures with the same plan, they never
look exactly alike because I always add little details to perhaps tail, eye
lids, head tilt, stance, lift a foot, girth, et cetera.  We tend to place
our own limits on creativity.  The ZENsible thang to do is make the most of
what you do know and the material you have to work with.

Sort of like Kobayashi Issa watching summer clouds:

Oni to nari       |Huge clouds of dog days
Hotoke to naru ya |Forming into a demon
Doyo-gumo         |Changing to Buddha

Paper forming shapes
Like Issa's clouds of thunder
EnLIGHTENING strikes!

Geoline Havener-Li
email: havener3@delphi.com
http://www.geocities.com/~jaspacecorp/momsai.html





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 16:26:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: Allen Parry <parry@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares but dollars

Being a creator of dollar bill folds (a 3:7 rectangle) I find it more
challenging
than a square.

A dollar is a fixed size and thinkness.  You have to make the most of what
you have.  This is the goal...to get the most "bang for the buck". 8^D
Its easier to fold, do to its durability and lack of fear in tearing it.  I
find
that many paper folders have difficulty with some dollar designs because
they're not use to more agressive processes (like using pliers to pull out
a hidden point).

The square kami folder has the luxury of working with large and very thin
pieces of paper, utilizing many layers of  paper.  If I had this option, my
models
would be small and very thick.  As it is now, I try to create my models as
large as possible.  I did Brill's "man riding a hourse" several times (I
really enjoy
this model), but it takes on this character, small & thick.  I have to put
the
model in a vise to keep it together, then coat it with a glaze to keep it
in shape.

Also, the square is symetrical, starting you off with four even points.
Our dollar folds start us out with two shorter points on the ends and
a lot of paper in the middle we have to do something with.  In doing an
animal, at least two of our legs usually come from the side of the bill,
eating up
valuable acreage.  Try doing an insect...the multiple appendages are a real
challenge.  Last year at the OUSA convention I gave Montroll a dollar and
challenged him by saying "Fold me an ant".  As I watched him fold, I noted
his
genius...but also noticed him trying several approaches to getting six
legs.
He did it, but he's a master creator.

---------------------------------A CHALLENGE TO CREATORS
--------------------------
Speaking of such....I'd like to present a challenge.  This use to be done
on
the list but I haven't seen one in a long time.  I challenge all of you
creators
out there to fold an ant out of a dollar bill!  Let's bring them to the
OUSA
convention an compare what we come up with.  If you can't make it to the
convention, mail it in to OUSA and we'll put it on display, take pictures
of
the models, and we'll sent you a set of photos of each person's approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------

With a dollar, we also try to utilize the features of the bill to add
character
to the model (Stephen Weiss does an excellent job of this in giving his
model's eyes).

For myself, I picked dollars because I felt there were already too many
rabbits,
dogs and other animals made out of square paper.  The dollar bill, to me,
is
unexplored territory in origami....having a character all of its own.  My
folding
has been an adventure discovering what can be done with this rectangle.

Allen Parry
parry@eskimo.com





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 16:39:42 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Kirsch)
Subject: Re: dinosaurs

On Thu, 1 May 1997, J Armstrong wrote:
> I've agreed to teach a beginers class
> who want to do dinosaurs.  Having never been thrilled by the topic, I
> have not a single dinosaur fold in my repertory.

I believe Joseph Wu has a very nice stegosaurus in the archives, which is
absolutely suited for beginners.

-> ftp://ftp.rug.nl/origami/models/stego*

If I remember correctly, this is actually a favourite model of Mathias
Maul, a friend of mine. Another of his favourite models is Robert Neale's
Frog with Big Mouth. :)

Another advantage of this model is that I know it by heart, something
which I could never manage with John Montroll's Stego.  :-)

Yours, Sebastian               sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de,skirsch@t-online.de





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 17:16:35 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

A.Welles@ wrote:
>
> I do not know who brought the subject up, since I already have deleted the
> message that I am replying to right now.
>
> But anyway, the subject was folding with paper that is not square;
> primarily rectangles and triangles.
>
> I strongly reject folding with other shapes than squares.
> I will mainly focus my opinion on folding animals, because this is my
> number one interest when it comes to Origami.
>

There are definitely some animal models not suitable from squares.
e.g. Slender shaped animals (Snake, Caterpiller, Centipede, ...)

Folding from squares usually makes too many extra wasted layers unless the
     designer
has special pursuit. (Rattlesnake by Peter Engel in Origami from Angelfish to
     Zen;
Snake by John Montroll in Animal Origami for the Enthusiast) My view of purism
     comes
from full utilization of paper not from shape itself. Animals have less
     symmetry than
many common geometry forms. It is hard to fully utilize squared paper without
     waste.
Why stick to square?

Folding from square is for the people (like me) with less appreciation on paper
cutting preparation. I would prefer A4 if you can offer me pre-cut A4 washi with
unlimited supply.

|------------------------------------------------------\
|  _     Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy) <chens@asme.org>     |\
| |_| Folding http://www.erols.com/sychen1/pprfld.html --\





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 17:47:17 -0300 (ADT)
From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

Shi-Yew aka Sy aka sychen @ erols.com wrote:
>I would prefer A4 if you can offer me pre-cut A4 washi with unlimited
          supply.

And here lies an excellent reason for sticking to squares: A square in the
US
is the same as a square in the rest of the world. If some designers used A4
and others 8.5 by 11, what a pain it would be to fold stuff by foreign
designers.

At last, a *practical* reason. I've heard the philosophical reasons.
And, I don't much care. I'm not interested in cutting paper to size, so I
pretty much stick to washi squares for their convenience.

Lisa (425 cranes til August)
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:12:28 -0300 (ADT)
From: steve179@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Drawing

I was curious if there's software that many find preferable ( a.k.a.
easy,inexpensive)       for drawing origami diagrams.

I've tried drawing some of my own (simple) designs and the best thing I've
found so far is a DOS product called NEOPAINT. You can distort shapes and
erase lines and add text. You can also save the result as BMP or PCX ( which
can be converted into other popular formats)

I also own DRAW Plus put out by Serif ( I've used Page Plus from the same
company for "Desktop Publishing") but although it is easier to use it
doesn't have the same flexibility.

Does anybody have any favorite(s) ?





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:15:53 -0300 (ADT)
From: kel@cwia.com (Karen Liebgott)
Subject: Re: Joseph Wu`s book (was:Re: Books by Kawahata & Montroll: comments)

>Just make sure to get that literary agent David Lister wrote
>about to negotiate a good deal for you with those publishing
>sharks <g>. I`ll gladly pay a good price for your book if you
>get a decent share of the money.

What about self-publishing? A spiral bound book can be made at Kinko's;
they also lay flat while the model is being folded.

               Karen Liebgott, kel@cwia.com
    ...We will be known forever by the tracks we leave...
             www.geocities.com/RainForest/4271





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:52:13 -0300 (ADT)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

Lisa "Crane Countdown" Hodsdon wrote:
+And here lies an excellent reason for sticking to squares: A square in
+the US is the same as a square in the rest of the world. If some
+designers used A4 and others 8.5 by 11, what a pain it would be to fold
+stuff by foreign designers.

Bzzzt.  A4 is the same ratio in the US as it is in England or anywhere else:
    1:sqrt(2)

As far as convenience goes, you are right, in the US finding precut
A-ratio paper is very hard.  But at least it has interesting
properties, unlike the 8.5x11 paper (which, by the way, it isn't
always).  If you cut 8.5x11 down to 7.75x11, you get very close to
A-ratio. Interestingly enough, I have found a lot of prepackaged paper
is NOT 8.5x11, often there is a quarter inch variance in width.

As for shapes "commonly" available, yes, the square is a reasonable
compromise.

-Doug "Purity is in the eye of the beholder" Philips





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:15:10 -0300 (ADT)
From: Cathy Palmer-Lister <cathypl@generation.net>
Subject: Re: Michael Lafosse & cloth-paper

>
>I attended a class where fusible webbing was used to bond cloth to
>paper.  The webbing was placed between the cloth and the paper and the
>sandwich was ironed.  The webbing melts and bonds the paper to the
>cloth.  The cloth can't be too thick or it doesn't fold well.  Also,
>complex models with lots of layers don't work well.  We folded one of
>Gay Merrill Gross' purses, a crane, and a pin from a 3-diamond
>decoration (I think the design was by Mike Thomas).
>
>Janet Hamilton
>
>-Thanks, Janet.  This is turning into a real interesting posibility.  Is
the webbing easily available?  I have never heard of this.

                                                Cathy





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:21:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Cathy Palmer-Lister <cathypl@generation.net>
Subject: Re: Discovering origami-l and an introduction

.................................................snip................
>
>After that I was asked to return for "High Interest" Day. I have been
>teaching origami at the local grade schools (4 different ones) and
>a couple of public libraries for the last 3 years. I still love every
>minute. Tomorrow, I'll share my origami philosophy, some of the things
>I share with the kids, and tell you the story of Angela Kuemmel.
>
>Sincerely
>Michel Bartolone
>
Hi, Michel!  I teach a fourth grade and frequently do origami with them.
I'd love to hear of your teaching experiences.  I just recently had them
folding Brill's silver dodecahedra as part of their math lesson.  One kid
has become obssessed with it.  Every day he comes into school with a still
smaller version of the model.  Today's had edges of about 1.5 cm.

                                                                Cathy





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:36:24 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

At 05:16 PM 5/2/97 -0300, "Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy)" <sychen@erols.com> wrote:

>There are definitely some animal models not suitable from squares.
>e.g. Slender shaped animals (Snake, Caterpiller, Centipede, ...)

Really? That never occured to me when I was designing my "Cankerworm," and
I am sure Robert Lang did not think it would bother his Treemaker
algorythm, when devising his "Caterpillar." Both of our models start with a
square, make effective usa of the paper, and are very efficient. My model
has 28 legs, and has a length of 1/2 the diagonal. Sure, a rectangle might
be conceptualy easier to design with, but I had a lot more fun using a
square, and my design seem to bu more fun to fold than any of the rectangle
based varieties. That does remind me of one big advantage squares have over
any other rectangle; you can orient your model along the diagonal, and
still have two-way symetry.
>
>Folding from squares usually makes too many extra wasted layers unless the
>designer has special pursuit.

If paper wasting is a big concern, than origami might not be the right
hobby for you. You can take any model, colour in the visable surface area,
unfold, and see how much paper is "wasted." What this so called wasted
paper yeilds, is a layered look, which is to me, one of the main aesthetic
appeals of origami. A reasonable thing to strive for (regardless of the
starting shape or shapes), is to utilize the paper to the best of your
ability.

>It is hard to fully utilize squared paper without waste.
>Why stick to square?

That is the whole fun of starting with a square. If we started with shapes
that shared the symmetry of our prospective subjects, much of the disign
element would be lost. To paraphrase Robert Lang, he stated that a good
portion of the digning proces is mapping your subject's symmetry to the
very different symmetry of your subject.

Marc





Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:42:44 -0300 (ADT)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Drawing

At 08:12 PM 5/2/97 -0300, you wrote:
>I was curious if there's software that many find preferable ( a.k.a.
>easy,inexpensive)      for drawing origami diagrams.
>
>I also own DRAW Plus put out by Serif ( I've used Page Plus from the same
>company for "Desktop Publishing") but although it is easier to use it
>doesn't have the same flexibility.

The program I would reccomend (if price is a big factor), would be in fact
"DRAW" by Serif. There are some other alternatives. Corel has been sellimg
older versions of its Draw! program at huge discounts. Also, You can get
Freehand 5 for "free" with the puchase of a JAZ zip drive (I have seen this
offer in a few catalogs). Canvas is a feature rich program that is often
cheaper than it's more commercially successful competitors.

If price is not as much of an issue, for a few hundred US dollars, you can
get programs like Corel Draw!, Freehand, Illustrator, and Designer. I use
Frehand, but I should note, these progams sgare many features; it is a
matter of what you get used to first.

Marc





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 00:01:34 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Michael Lafosse & cloth-paper

Cathy Palmer-Lister wrote:
> >-Thanks, Janet.  This is turning into a real interesting posibility.  Is
> the webbing easily available?  I have never heard of this.

The webbing I have used is called Wonder-Under, though there  are many
other brands.  They are usually available at fabric stores, sometimes at
general craft stores.  100% cotton, wool, or silk works better than
poly-cotton blends, and a thinner fabric is easier to work with than a
thick fabric.

Here is a short description of the technique:

1 - cut the paper to the exact size to be used (or use pre-cut origami
paper), and cut a piece of fusible webbing a little larger than the
paper

2 - place the fabric on the ironing surface, wrong side up, place the
webbing on top, then cover with some pressing paper, teflon paper,
butcher paper, or the like.  This is used because it can take the heat
from the iron but will be able to be peeled off the webbing.

3 - iron over the paper as instructed for the webbing, then let the
fabric cool, and peel the pressing paper off

4 - place the origami paper over the webbing wrong side down, cover with
pressing paper, and iron.  Allow to cool and peel off the pressing paper

5 - trim the excess fabric and webbing to the size of the paper

6 - fold away!  You can use the iron to help set the folds

There is another technique that I have not tried that uses "Stiffy" or
starch to make the fabric foldable. See the web pages at
http://www.owt.com/gdscott/ for a description of that technique.

I prepared a bunch of fabric squares before the holidays of red fabric
with holly leaves, and my kids folded them into cranes for tree
ornaments for our relatives.

Janet Hamilton

--
mailto:Mikeinnj@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj/





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 03:11:59 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Theil <theil@htonline.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

Geoline Havener-Li's quote of the Kobayashi Issa haiku:

Oni to nari       |Huge clouds of dog days
Hotoke to naru ya |Forming into a demon
Doyo-gumo         |Changing to Buddha

brought to mind a wonderful book called THE HAIKU HANDBOOK: How to Write,
Share, and Teach Haiku by William J. Higginson with Penn Harter (Kodansha,
1985). The book is not pedantic on the subject, but it does make a couple
of points about haiku that I found fascinating, and that the Kobayashi
haiku illustrates.

The first point that I found so surprising (having been brought up on the
5/7/5 scheme as the defining element of haiku) was that some teachers think
that to make a true haiku in English the scheme should be more like 3/5/3
to mimic the very short syllables available in Japanese. In other words, a
Japanese haiku of 5/7/5 syllables takes a much shorter time to say than
seventeen syllables in English takes to say. So if you really want to mimic
the flavor of haiku in English you must use fewer syllables. Okay, so
that's amazing enough -- to try to say something meaningful in eleven
syllables!

In addition, the book indicated that there is a set "design" to haiku
(that, in my experience, English poets pay very little attention to). The
Kobayashi haiku illustrates this "design" perfectly. Here's how it goes to
the best of my understanding:
The first five syllables refer to a season (or holiday)
The seven following syllables give an image from that season, and
The final five syllables convey a transformation or enlightenment of/from
that image.

The idea of trying to truly imitate the Japanese haiku as outlined above
(which some people think is truly impossible because of the vast
differences in the two languages) engages me.

I think that the limitation of using a single, uncut, unglued square of
paper to create an origami model has the same emotional and intellectual
attraction -- that the enormous creative satisfaction gained from such an
endeavor is very much dependent on the stringent requirments of the art.

Linda Theil
theil@htonline.com





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 06:06:05 -0300 (ADT)
From: Liz Hanson <liz@zylanid.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Drawing

In message <3.0.32.19970502194312.00683c00@pop.pipeline.com>, Marc
Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com> writes
>
>The program I would reccomend (if price is a big factor), would be in fact
>"DRAW" by Serif. There are some other alternatives. Corel has been sellimg
>older versions of its Draw! program at huge discounts. Also, You can get
>Freehand 5 for "free" with the puchase of a JAZ zip drive (I have seen this
>offer in a few catalogs). Canvas is a feature rich program that is often
>cheaper than it's more commercially successful competitors.
>
>If price is not as much of an issue, for a few hundred US dollars, you can
>get programs like Corel Draw!, Freehand, Illustrator, and Designer. I use
>Frehand, but I should note, these progams sgare many features; it is a
>matter of what you get used to first.
>
>Marc
In UK many of us have been "given" a "free" copy of Micrografix "Windows
Draw ver.3" on the cover disks on magazines.  That is quite a clever
program - can do rotations and certain distortions.  However I have not
tried to draw origami with it yet - just plans and other diagrams.
--
Liz Hanson





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 06:12:35 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Folding from Non-Square paper

I thought I would set down a few random thoughts on folding from non-square
as opposed to square paper, but I don't intend it to be a reasoned thesis!

1.A few months ago, I wrote in Origami-L about John Smith's ideas on "Origami
Profiles" which analyses how each individual's preferences in folding fit
into the general scheme of things. The theory accepts that everyone is
entitles to adopt whatever rules for folding he or she chooses.

2.  Following from this a folder can choose to fold from a square or from a
triangle or from A4 or a pentagon or a rectangle or a rhombus or a long
ribbon of paper half and inch wide and ten yards long. He may even prefer
silk ribbon or even string. Whether other people would include in their own
concepts of Origami is another thing.

3.  If you accept that cutting is legitimate (and cutting, too, fits into
John Smith's Profiles of Origami), your can convert a square of paper into
any shape you like. Or you can trim your dollar bill into a square. Or you
can chop off any of those surplus bits of paper that get in the way. (No, I
accept that most people who like to use scissors don't look at it in this
extreme way, but I assert the possibility.)

4.  Without even using scissors, you can convert most simple shapes of paper
into most other shapes by folding alone. You can fold a square to make a
triangle, or a hexagon or a 3 X 7 rectangle, even A4. So having done that, in
theory, you can go on to fold anything that can be folded from a square
equally from a Dollar bill or anything that can be folded from a Dollar bill
from a square. I write "in theory" advisedly, because all the preliminary
folding to get the shape  makes the model bulky and difficult or even
impossible to fold in practice.

5.  It seems to me obvious that the reason most people chose the square is
that it has a greater symmetry than other shapes. Other regular polygons also
have their symmetry and triangles, hexagons and octagons have their merits
and are useful to fold from, but a quick test will reveal that the four equal
sides and for right angles of the square give a peculiar sort of symmetry
that offers far greater possibilities for development than any of the other
shapes. Once we leave regular polygons and come to rectangles, symmetry is,
of course, very much reduced.

6.  It may be suggested that a circle has more symmetry than a square!. Yet,
curiously, while a circle CAN be folded (and may have hidden qualities which
have yet to be explored by paperfolders) It is almost impossible to use for
ordinary origami, because the circular outline is just not compatible with
the straight crease lines that result when a piece of paper is folded.

7.  It has always struck me as strange that while square paper is in practice
by far the most popular for origami, square paper is rare in the everyday
world. You just cannot go into an ordinary shop and ask for square paper. Of
course, nowadays, a shop may stock "origami" paper, but by its definition,
Origami paper is not ordinary paper. Writing paper is always rectangular,
wrapping paper is always rectangular, banknotes are always rectangular. Even
toilet paper comes in rectangular tear-off sheets! About the only common
paper that I can think of that comes in squares are paper handkerchiefs and
serviettes, obviously because proper cloth handkerchiefs and napkins are
square. (Which makes me ask, why are handkerchiefs and napkins always square?
I think a consideration of this question should throw considerable light on
the problem of square versus rectangular paper.)

8.  One of the greatest virtues of the square is that you can fold a bird
base from it. I concede that you can fold quasi-bird bases from an
equilateral triangle or from other simple polygons, but they do not have any
of the virtues of the true bird base from a square. The bird base is a
miracle of paper geometry and every paperfolder has enjoyed enormous pleasure
form exploring its amazing properties, ( See John Skmith's BOS booklet "In
Praise of the Bird Base". In the 1960s the bird base dominated folding. It
was almost impossible, for a time, to escape from its clutches. (Probably
because modern folding derived from Yoshizawa's own discovery of the virtues
of the bird base.) The domination of the bird base does not apply so much
 today when many other techniques of folding have been discovered. But new
techniques do not detract from the wonder of the bird base.

9.  I sometimes wonder whether the first paperfolding started not with a
square, but with a rectangle. In the days when people began to fiddle with
trimmings of paper left over from the primitive paper making process, it is
unlikely that any of those trimmings would be square. As paper was cut to the
requisite sizes, rectangular offcuts would be more likely. Some of our
simplest paper folds are in fact from rectangular paper. Like the simple hat
that turns into a boat. Or the paper dart,. Even the swallow or glider starts
with a rectangular sheet of paper, from which a square is cut or torn to
leave a rectangle of paper which will form the tail of the swallow. Did these
models originate in time before the multiform series, windmill and pajarita?

!0. A square is a simple shape. Every square has the same proportions and can
therefore be standardised. On the other hand rectangles are infinitely varied
in shape, so that it is hard to standardise any particular proportions. (As
evidenced by our continued jnablility to standardise the sizes of typing
paper throughout the word., even today.) So it is easy to produce square
origami paper, but impossible for manufacturers and shopkeepers to produce a
rectangular paper that will command general acceptance.

11.  Arising out of this , historical inertia takes over and square origami
paper is square because it always has been square; square paper IS origami
paper and origami paper doesn't come in any other shapes otherwise it isn't
origami paper.

!2.  Despite the infinite possibilities of folding from square paper, the
universal availability (I'm speaking relatively here, of course: they aren't
very available to most people)  of banknotes has meant that they have
inevitably been folded, so that in banknote folding we have for long a strong
tradition of folding from rectangles. In particular , the Dollar Bill with
its curious, but immutable proportions of 3X7 has had a particularly powerful
influence in  the Unite States.

13   Again, despite the power of the square, and despite the fact that most
folders of animals and other living creatures start from a square, when it
comes to inanimate objects, folders often use a rectangle. From Neal Elias,
through  Max Hulme and David Brill and on to Yoshihide Momotani and Robert
Lang, folders of railway trains, jack-in-a-boxes and cuckoo clocks have all
favoured rectangles, often of extreme proportions. One of the reasons for
this is that rectangles can be folded longitudinally and laterally to form
the grid from which so many inanimate objects can be folded.

14. Origami is not only an art: it is a puzzle and a game. We like to pit our
wits against the paper and its inherent geometry. A game must have rules and
the most obvious rule, ready to hand and accepted by a tacit general consent
is that we should begin with a simple, easily definable shape of paper, and
that is the square.

15.  As has so often been said in Origami-L, creative art is arises where the
constraints are greatest. The accepted constraint in Origami has always been
that the paper should be a simple square.

16.  To summarise, the square has become the classical shape of paper for
folding.

                        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those are some of my random ideas. Other subscribers will no doubt be able to
add to them. Origami is fascinating, not only from the point of view of
folding, but also for just thinking about.

David Lister.

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 08:23:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: So Called Processed Cheese "SQUARES"

"Goveia, William P" <wgoveia@indiana.edu> sez

> What's Japanese for "fold cheese food"?

Not sure, but it's tenuously connected with my domain name, so why not
try some of the origami diagrams available at CHEESYPEAS!!! Muttor
Panir(?) to curry freaks like the two Alexes!

all the best,

Nick Robinson

personal email  nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 08:53:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Robby/Laura/Lisa <morassi@zen.it>
Subject: RE: So Called Processed Cheese "SQUARES"

Dennis,
At 10.00 1/5/1997 -0300, you wrote:

>But think of the advantages of folding with cheese:

<snip>

You've forgotten the essential one. If you're unsatisfied with your model,
no need to trash it.... just open your mouth, close eyes and swallow.... No
waste, no mess around, and a clean environment :-)

Roberto





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 09:54:23 -0300 (ADT)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Folding from Non-Square paper

In the ever recurring thread on "why start from a square" and all the
variants on that, during the recent recurrance, David Lister wrote a
number of vary interesting things.  Many of which I agree with, and
some I slightly disagree with, but there are few items in particular
that I want to visit, and the ones I don't I will be happy to agree
with as silence implies consent, or revisit later!

Thanks David for writing so off the cuff, rather than waiting to submit
more extensively edited material which might never see the light of
day...  ;-) I intend none of my comments to be taken confrontationally,
but as I am also dashing this off, it may inadvertantly come out that
way!

+4.  Without even using scissors, you can convert most simple shapes of paper
+into most other shapes by folding alone. You can fold a square to make a
+triangle, or a hexagon or a 3 X 7 rectangle, even A4. So having done that, in
+theory, you can go on to fold anything that can be folded from a square
+equally from a Dollar bill or anything that can be folded from a Dollar bill
+from a square. I write "in theory" advisedly, because all the preliminary
+folding to get the shape  makes the model bulky and difficult or even
+impossible to fold in practice.

This is a very interesting consideration to me.  Since there are many
out there who are posting that the excess paper is "part" of the model,
I pose two specific challenges:
    1) Fold Ted Norminton's Daffodil (In Jackson's Classic Origami),
        which starts from a hexagon, from a square without removing the
        "excess" paper.  Now, compare to a model folded from the same
        size hexagon and tell me what criteria allow you to conclude
        that the square based result is superior.
    2) Design a daffodil model which starts from a square and looks at least
        as good as Ted's.

+5.  It seems to me obvious that the reason most people chose the square is
+that it has a greater symmetry than other shapes. Other regular polygons also
+have their symmetry and triangles, hexagons and octagons have their merits
+and are useful to fold from, but a quick test will reveal that the four equal
+sides and for right angles of the square give a peculiar sort of symmetry
+that offers far greater possibilities for development than any of the other
+shapes.

I find such statements as these very curious, of the self-fullfilling
nature, because squares have been traditionally folded from they have
been explored more and therefore have already yielded up a vast field
of possibility.  I find nothing inherent in the geometry of the
triangle that indicates it would be any less fruitful had its fields
been as thoroughly plowed!  Certainly this is not obvious except in the
most cursory sense!

+8.  One of the greatest virtues of the square is that you can fold a bird
+base from it. I concede that you can fold quasi-bird bases from an
+equilateral triangle or from other simple polygons, but they do not have any
+of the virtues of the true bird base from a square.

I am hoping that James M Sakoda will say something about this.  He has
done some very interesting stuff with non-square quadrilaterals that
fold into bird bases.  I haven't personally done such an exploration,
but I find it fascinating and hope he will elaborate more specificly
about the results of his work here on origami-l!

+tradition of folding from rectangles. In particular , the Dollar Bill with
+its curious, but immutable proportions of 3X7 has had a particularly powerful
+influence in  the Unite States.

There are two comments I'd like to make here... Earlier in his list,
David mentions the variability of the proportions of rectangles
available in shops around the world and the less common, but more
regular availability of square paper is partly self-fullfilling
prophecy.  For similar reasons, currency is popular because it is
ubiquitously available.  That it is also colorful (except in the US as
far as I know!) and very strong are additional assets.  Secondly is the
curious relation between the square, the US dollar bill and the silver
rectangle that I mentioned in another recent message.

Even though this discussion recurs from time to time and even though a lot the
same points are raised each time, I personally find that I learn something new
from each version of it.

-Doug





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:18:57 -0300 (ADT)
From: halgall@netverk.com.ar
Subject: E-mail

I haven't recieved anything from you for over one months. What is wrong?
I wrote to listserver, "which", and "set" to the list,  I do not know other
address for send
menssages.
Thanks.

Patricia Gallo





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 11:33:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: Dino Andreozzi <andreozzi.a@botkyrka.mail.telia.com>
Subject: Re: Drawing

steve179@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I was curious if there's software that many find preferable ( a.k.a.
> easy,inexpensive)       for drawing origami diagrams.
>
> I've tried drawing some of my own (simple) designs and the best thing I've
> found so far is a DOS product called NEOPAINT. You can distort shapes and
> erase lines and add text. You can also save the result as BMP or PCX ( which
> can be converted into other popular formats)
>
> I also own DRAW Plus put out by Serif ( I've used Page Plus from the same
> company for "Desktop Publishing") but although it is easier to use it
> doesn't have the same flexibility.
>
> Does anybody have any favorite(s) ?
>
I use Corel Draw 4.0 and it works very well (after some practising). You
can also export your diagrams in different other formats like GIF, BPM
and so on.

Best wishes

Dino





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 11:55:17 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jeannine Mosely <j9@concentra.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

Doug Philips wrote:

   As far as convenience goes, you are right, in the US finding precut
   A-ratio paper is very hard.  But at least it has interesting
   properties, unlike the 8.5x11 paper (which, by the way, it isn't
   always).

I beg to differ.  8.5x11 has some very interesting properties.

Divide each of the long edges in quarters.  Add creases connecting A
to B and A to C.  The angles CBA and BCA are so close to 72
degrees, you couldn't hope to do better (72.06).  Add two more creases
bisecting the angles CBA and BCA.  Then fold the point A down to touch
the intersection of the last two creases.  Voila, a perfect pentagram!
Add creases connecting the points of the pentagram for a perfect
pentagon.  (Sorry I can't draw the diagonals in ascii.)

              A
     ____.____.____.____
    |                   |
    |                   |
    |                   |
    |                   |
    |                   |
    |                   |
    |                   |
     ____.____.____.____

         B         C

Another consequence of these proportions is that you can cut off one
quarter of the rectangle, and the remaining piece is nearly perfect
for making modules for the first and third stellations of the
dodecahedron, as described on Jim Plank's web site:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~plank/plank/pics/origami/mosely.txt.
The remaining strip can be used to make a different dodecahedral
module that I'll describe another time.

Another, purely coincidental property of 8.5x11 is that it's ratio is
extremely close to the ratio sqrt(3):sqrt(5). (8.5/11 = .7727,
sqrt(3)/sqrt(5) = .7745)  What is this good for?  Two things.

Fold opposite corners of a sqrt(3):sqrt(5) rectangle to touch.  The
crease will cross the long edge of the rectangle at a distance that is
exactly 1/5 the length of the edge from the corner.  (The proof is
left as an exercise for the reader.)

Also, the first stellation of the icosahedron, as detailed by the
mathematician Coexeter in his famous monograph "The Fifty Nine
Icosahedra", has faces which are shallow isoceles triangles who base
angles are 1/2 Arccos (1/4) = atan (sqrt(3)/sqrt(5)).  This is just
the angle between the long edge of the 8.5x11 rectangle and its
diagonal. So these rectangles lead to an easy and natural construction
of a module to make this polyhedron.

I believe that any rectangle has interesting properties, if you will
take the trouble to look for them.  There is a joke among
mathematicians that no number is uninteresting.  The proof is as
follows:  let N be the smallest uninteresting number.  The fact that
it is uninteresting makes it interesting!  Hence, we have a
contradiction.  Q.E.D.

        -- Jeannine ("comedically challenged") Mosely





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 15:22:29 -0300 (ADT)
From: helena@mast.queensu.ca
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

Hey, that's really nice stuff, thank you Jeannine; I was
wondering about this problem of what to do with all this
8 1/2 by 11.
Is this on the web somewhere where I can link to it?  When
I have time I want to collect more math and origami things
on my web page.
By the way, do you know who the dividing paper into thirds
using ruled paper is due to?  I probably ought to attribute
things correctly I mention on my web pages.
Helena

Oh, on folding with squares, the question of "why" seems
similar to the question of "why do we have four basic points
of the compas, rather than just two or three?"  I don't know
why.  8 1/2 by 11 seems like a nice challenge I've not yet
worked up to.  "What can I make with a hexagon" is a nice
problem; "What's a nice way to make something like a hexagon
from a square?" is a nice problem too.





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 16:34:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: GB squares vs. the rest

Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com> sez

>an excellent reason for sticking to squares: A square in the
>US is the same as a square in the rest of the world

I beg to differ - a square in England doesn't misspell our language,
wear loud trousers on the golf course or attend clam-bakes. Since I've
never been to the States, I have based my opinions on a comparison
between Happy Days and our modern sit-com "It 'ain't 'alf 'ot Mum".

all the best,

Nick Robinson

personal email  nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 18:37:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: Cathy Palmer-Lister <cathypl@generation.net>
Subject: Re: Michael Lafosse & cloth-paper

At 12:01 AM 5/3/97 -0300, you wrote:
>Cathy Palmer-Lister wrote:
>> >-Thanks, Janet.  This is turning into a real interesting posibility.  Is
>> the webbing easily available?  I have never heard of this.
>
>The webbing I have used is called Wonder-Under, though there  are many
>other brands.  They are usually available at fabric stores, sometimes at
>general craft stores.  100% cotton, wool, or silk works better than
>poly-cotton blends, and a thinner fabric is easier to work with than a
>thick fabric.
>
>Here is a short description of the technique:
>
.......snip.............

Thanks!  This will be a great summer project!

                        Cathy





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 20:19:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: re: Books on Dinosaurs

>Can anyone give me some title on Dinosaurs?
>Recently I've seen some models really good. I wonder any book can let me
>enjoy the folding of Dinosaurs.

Here's my current list of in-print origami books that contain lots of
dinosaur models:

Origami Fantasy, Kawahata

  Complex models. in Japanese.

Issei Super Complex Origami, Yoshino

  Complex models. in Japanese.

Prehistoric Origami, Montroll

  intermediate to complex

Dinosaur Origami, Kawahata

  intermediate. Many models from two sheets of paper.

Origami Dinosaurs, Momotani

  easy

There is also the Australian title:

Prehistoric Aussiegami, Saunders and Mackness

but perhaps this one is out-of-print now.

I don't have all of these myself, but I can tell you that at least one list
member has recommended each of them before. Which one to get just depends on
the kind of dinosaur models you are looking for....

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 20:22:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: re: books on Dinosaurs

Actually, just discovered there is another dinosaur book at Sasuga now:

{ Origami no Kyoryu - Dinosaur Origami } Kaji, Takashi

Anyone get this one yet?

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 22:10:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Books on Dinosaurs

Pat Slider wrote:
> Here's my current list of in-print origami books that contain lots of
> dinosaur models:

There's also _Fold Your Own Dinosaurs_ by Campbell Morris.  I'm not good
at rating models, but I'd say they are around intermediate.  My 10-year
old got through the hardest ones, with a little help.

Janet Hamilton

--
mailto:Mikeinnj@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj/





Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 22:15:23 -0300 (ADT)
From: Doug Philips <dwp+@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Not folding with squares

In respose to my message about the uninterestingness of 8.5x11 paper,
Jeannine Mosley wrote:
+I beg to differ.  8.5x11 has some very interesting properties.
..
+I believe that any rectangle has interesting properties, if you will
+take the trouble to look for them.  There is a joke among
+mathematicians that no number is uninteresting.  The proof is as
+follows:  let N be the smallest uninteresting number.  The fact that
+it is uninteresting makes it interesting!  Hence, we have a
+contradiction.  Q.E.D.

Touche!  My only response is that the paper sold as "copier/office/notebook"
is not consistently the same shape.  I have found that the width can vary by
+/- 0.25 inches!  Which is why I suggest cutting to 7.75x11 to approximate
A-series paper, rather than suggesting you just lop off 0.75 inches!

Thanks for the proof!  My other "only" response is that I find the silver
(1:sqrt(2)) paper particularly appealing because of its recursive nature.
That appeal may not be very widely shared though. ;-)

Hmmm, lesse, US biz cards are practially perfect for equilateral triangles
and US "office paper" 8.5x11 for pentagons, what US paper product is ideal
for the next in the series (3, 5... 7), 7gons?

    -Doug "curious as a cat" Philips
