




Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 16:08:43 -0300 (ADT)
From: Amy <ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Ring of Origami Art

Hi again,

On Sun, 25 May 1997, Tom & Sandy Farley wrote:

> Hi Amy,
>         I went to look at you origami art pages expecting to get quick
> links to a series of origami sites, but found that I kept looping back to
> parts of your page on how to add a site to the ring.  It is similar to the
> set-up for developing a Kiwanis Club web-site only our KITE web-site
> provides templates for a club to fill in for a six-page cycle [or
> mini-ring] of pages  linked through the division site to neighboring clubs
> and through Kiwanis International to clubs around the world.  I do the
> pages for two small clubs now and on each have a link to KITE for Kiwanians
> who want to know how to get their clubs on line, but that is not the main
> purpose of the club pages.

        At the moment, my ring contains *2* sites - the ring homepage
itself and an origami site. For this reason, only *2* sites are displayed.
Perhaps this is why when you keep clicking on "next" or what not, that you
will always see the same *2* sites. When and if the ring contains more
sites, you will see more sites. What is displayed within the ring are ring
members. This is why I'm encouraging origami sites to join the ring - that
way when people surf the ring, more origami sites are displayed. It is not
intentional that you keep coming back to the Ring homepage..it's only
because there are only 2 members! Once the ring contains more sites, then
you will see the full benefits of the webring (ie great origami sites on
the web!).

>         I suggest that first thing at the top of Ring of Origami Art you
> put the real links into that ring followed by a simple line like 'If you
> have an origami page to add onto the ring, come back here and I'll show you
> how easy it is to do that.'  You could even put those instructions on a new
> page called something like 'How to add your site' so that those who just
> want to find the origami don't think they have to register something and
> start trying to add a site to the ring by mistake.
>

        I'm not sure what you mean here. The Ring of Origami Art Homepage
is there for information about the ring - including joining, adding a
site, changing personal information. I hope to soon create an index of
ring members so that people can access origami pages within the ring by
simply looking at which sites are in teh ring. At the moment, it's not
really feasible though because there are only 2 sites within the ring.
Once the ring expands (I hope), then I will create the index. Usually the
reason why people reach the page is for purposes of finding out more
information about the ring and possibly joining. This is why there's a
link back to the homepage in the HTML code - that way if anyone is
interested, there's a quick link back to the ring homepage to find out
more.

        Web-Rings are great for a small movement or focused interest that
> has no central organization to maintain a definative set of links as
> Kiwanis has.  To see what happens as a link site grows look at
> www.quaker.org which Russ Nelson started several years ago as a public
> service and still runs all by himself.
>         Tom

        I agree that a set of links gives a great overall view of sites
dealing with a topic. This is similar to search engines though. I suppose
the difference that webrings provide is the sense of continuity - you can
just keep clicking on "next" for eg and reach a different site. Links
sites and search engines require a person to go back to that page to
access a different link.

        Anyway, I welcome any Origami site to join the ring. If anyone has
questions, I welcome them.. Also, if you join but are dissatisfied for any
reason, I can remove that site from the ring.

        Amy (Ring of Origami Art - http://www.angelfire.com/la/Lal  )

            \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//
            ||                               ||
            ||    ------     Amy Huang                  ||
            ||   ||||||||    ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca     ||
            ||   ||||||||    http://www.ualberta.ca/~ahuang ||
            ||  /        \                             ||
            ||  |   _    |   Faculty of Pharmacy            ||
            ||  |  |_)   |   University of Alberta          ||
            ||  |  | \   |   Edmonton, Alberta, Canada          ||





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 16:24:52 -0300 (ADT)
From: Bruno Jammes <bruno.jammes@multicable.fr>
Subject: Why a paper square ?

We have a discussion on the french origami list about this question :
why do we use mostly square paper for origami ?
It is not the most standard piece of paper, so why ?
Religious considerations ? Symetry ?

Thanks for the answers

Bruno Jammes





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 17:44:49 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@sci.fi>
Subject: Help needed with Engel's alligator

Model: Alligator in Origami from Angelfish to Zen.

Step: 40 - Tuck the four legs into the pockets behind.

Question: What pockets?

Jorma "feeling dense" Oksanen
--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

"It's a good thing the average person doesn't realize
 the awesome destructive power of origami"              Earthworm Jim





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 17:53:11 -0300 (ADT)
From: Amy <ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Ring of Origami Art

Hi again,

On Sun, 25 May 1997, Nick Robinson wrote:

> Amy <ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> sez
>
> >I run the ONLY webring that connects sites with origami/paper
> >folding content.
>
> Sounds interesting, but it's surely just a collection of links? On the
> BOS website, I take the view that it's pointless to try & produce a
> definitive set of links when Joseph Wu's page is as close to this as you
> could wish. The BOS website has a link to his page & that's all.

        Yes, it's true that the webring is a collection of links. However,
the difference between a set of links and a webring is that a webring is a
*continuous* series of links. This means you can travel from one site to
the next with the simple click of the button. A set of links provides a
great overview of many different sites, but you will have to keep going
back to that set of links to go onto the next site.

 >
> It's a full time job to keep links alive & updated, so if Joseph has the
> time, so much the better!

        I agree that Joseph's site has an excellent set of links. I
commend him for taking the time to map out the net for origami sites.

        What I'm proposing here is just another way to surf - another
option for surfers when looking for Origami sites. I just want to create
something in which many origami sites can link to each other and share
their passion for origami.

 > > You (and anyone else) can link
to the BOS site if you wish! >
> all the best,
>
> Nick Robinson
>

        Amy

            \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//
            ||                               ||
            ||    ------     Amy Huang                  ||
            ||   ||||||||    ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca     ||
            ||   ||||||||    http://www.ualberta.ca/~ahuang ||
            ||  /        \                             ||
            ||  |   _    |   Faculty of Pharmacy            ||
            ||  |  |_)   |   University of Alberta          ||
            ||  |  | \   |   Edmonton, Alberta, Canada          ||





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:19:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Going to Wurzburg.

I'm sorry I haven't contributed anything recently. I have been somewhat
over-committed with other things, but i still read everything that is posted.

I, too am going to Wurtzburg. I believe that there are one or two other
members of the BOS, and in addition, John Cunliffe, who is the
founder-organiser of the Envelope and Letterfold Association. He's not a
subscriber to Origami-L, but he is regularly mentioned in postings whenever
envelopes and letterfolds crop up.

And if Matthias should read this, I haven't forgotten the book I have to
bring for him. (Yet!)

David Lister

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com.





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:29:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Malachi Bubba Johnson Brown <MBB3892@tntech.edu>
Subject: Re: Ring of Origami Art

> From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
> My apologies but I do know what a web ring is, I have access to several,
> and as a result I started to recieve junk E-mail,  I apologize If I have
> offended your sensibilities, but none the less did you try to acces the
> web ring, did it give you full access with out requiring personal
> information which can be sold?  before you correct me I suggest you make
> the trial.  As to were I learned about web ring and the liike I believe
> I will take the 5th, though it was some time ago, almost another
> lifetime when I went be psuedonym on line.

I did look at the Origami web ring.  I did not have to fill anything out to
access it.  The only draw back right now is that there are only two sites which
belong, because it is new.

I have used many other web rings in the past and I have NEVER had to give out
any information about myself.  Nor have I ever received junk mail becuase I
visited sites on a web ring.

> This is true ......if you are willing to divulge personal information,
> and forgive me for this but anyone who thinks information is not of
> value is being naive.  It is the one commodity that is allways in
> demand.

Please, give me a URL for a web ring which requires the user to give out
personal information.  I have yet to see one.

> Very simply, it excludes all of those who do not wish to divulge
> personal information on the internet, Many of us enjoy being able to
> browse through all of the wonderful web pages of origami on the net, I
> know that I do, but not at the cost of my privacy.  If this is not an
> issue to you then I urge you to join many many web rings.  Alas I fear I
> willl not.  My life and my privacy are of the utmost importance to me.

You keep harping on this issue, but I have NEVER seen it.

> I think my statement stands,  I feel we do not need to give up our
> privacy to find wonderful sites on the net, if you doubt this go to
> Joseph Wu's page and check out the links.  Also it may not have occured
> to you but in doing this action you eliminate such web pages as Zack
> Browns underground page, While I realize this may seem a plus to purient
> of mind, it also is a way to sanitize and eliminate the works and
> opinions of those with whom you are in disagreement.  The 1st amendment
> while not cover such thing in the letter of its law, the spirit will be
> trampled under foot.

Okay, assuming (against all my experience) that I did have to give out personal
information to be able to use the web ring, I don't understand how it would
"eliminate" Zack Brown's underground origami page, or any other page, for that
matter.  Not only are they probably free to join the ring as well, but I
mentioned before that other means of finding origami pages are still valid
(i.e. lists of links on peoples pages, and search engines).  It is fairly
closed minded to assume that all web pages about a topic will be in a web ring
about that topic, but it is also closed minded to fight against a useful
resource.

> > Also, you don't have to join anything to *use* the web ring, you just have
     to
> > have an internet connection and a browser.
> Wrong, to get access to use a ring requires membership, at least the one
> in question does if you doubt me put it to the trial, I did.  Did you do
> so before your rebutal????

Yes, I did.
As I said, the only problem right now is that it is new, and there are only two
sites on the ring.

> > The only real limitation to a web ring is the number of sites that have
     joined.
> > For a site to join it just takes a few minutes of the webmaster's attention
     and
> > then they are part of the ring.  No junk mail, no score of any kind.
> This point isn't even worthy of debate.

I think this is the point of the debate.

> > Addressing problems that some people have had with this web ring:
> > The web ring join page is mainly for people who want to add sites to the
     ring,
> > the first set of url's is just an example of what the web ring section
     should
> > look like after it has been added.  At the very bottom of the "Ring of
     Origami
> > Art" page is the actual set of links which work.  (Note that there are only
     two
> > sites that have been added, one being the join site:
> > http://www.angelfire.com/la/Lal/index.html)  If you go to this bottom
     section
> > and select the "next site" link it will work perfectly.
> >
> > Just trying to clear up some misconceptions.
> I did earlier today, it simply inform me that I did not have an acount
> and must needs sign up.  If what you say is true then it was added after
> my origional email,  still what does it give you but links just as on
> any other site.

I don't think you wene to the very bottom of the page.  There are two sets of
links, the one further up on the page is just an example of what people joining
the ring will add to thier page, the one at the very bottom of the page at the
url http://www.angelfire.com/la/Lal/ is the working one, which doesn't NOT ask
for any information nor does it ask you to register.

> If I offend in my retoric please forgive, for my intentions are good,
> too often I see this happen.  a nice system of bbs's or web page that
> suddenly decide to cut out any one who is not a contributer, of prudct,
> be it information or files, or diagrams or pictures.  the principle is
> the same, do we wish to include or do we wish to exclude, this is the
> primary question, and I deem it a good one.  I will now retire from my
> soap box and not address this issue again, either in debate or
> disscusion, all I feel the need to say I have said.  Feel free to atack
> or defend my possition, I have staed it for the record and now leave it
> to others to decide.

I think you are still missing the point.  The only think I can advise you to do
is to research web rings a bit more.

  Malachi B-J Brown                --><--               mbb3892@tntech.edu
                      http://gemini.tntech.edu/~mbb3892/
           Sects!  Sects!  Sects!  Is that all Monks think about?





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:50:37 -0300 (ADT)
From: Malachi Bubba Johnson Brown <MBB3892@tntech.edu>
Subject: Re: origami nightmares?

> I would try the webring but my internet provider's web server (in
> Harare) is down again.  Unfortunately the email server is not down, so I
> got to witness one origami-ite flaming another.  Shame.  A very wise
> friend of mine -- oddly, a professor -- has learned never to flame
> anyone in any context.  "Let a thousand flowers bloom," he says.  Okay,
> so he's not very original in his use of the English language.  He
> doesn't fold either, but he edits a neat journal that makes for good
> folding paper.

To be honest, I did not mean for this discussion to turn into a flame war.  I
simply know what a web ring is, and I would like to see one for origami be
successful.  I didn't want it to die in an embryonic stage because of an
unfounded negative attitude being expressed.  I also didn't really want my
first message to the list to be as agressive as it was, but that's just where I
stand.  I apologize for any inconvenience this debate has caused, and I wish
this web ring well.

  Malachi B-J Brown                --><--               mbb3892@tntech.edu
                      http://gemini.tntech.edu/~mbb3892/
           Sects!  Sects!  Sects!  Is that all Monks think about?





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 19:37:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@dorsai.org>
Subject: Web Ring?

Can the poster of the Origami Ring explain to me the purpose of that webring
again. Can't I access most any origami page from Joshep Wu's page?

--
Sheldon Ackerman.......http://www.dorsai.org/~ackerman/
ackerman@dorsai.dorsai.org
sheldon_ackerman@fc1.nycenet.edu





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 19:40:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: Cathy Palmer-Lister <cathypl@generation.net>
Subject: Re: Only if you really want to know how to pronounce Fuse

.......................snip................
>I have been trying to stay away from this discussion because it is not
>directly related to origami, and I know that some people have expressed
>their reservations about carrying extended discussions on tangential
>issues on the list.  But being a linguist and a native speaker of
>Japanese, I couldn't help throwing in my two cents worth

     ....................            etc....................
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  Mitsuhiko Ota
>  Georgetown University
>  Department of Linguistics
>  Washington DC, 20057
>  e-mail:otam@gusun.georgetown.edu
>  $BB@ED8wI'(J
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

Thanks!  I feel I get more than 2 cents worth when it comes from a professional!

                                Cathy





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 21:12:09 -0300 (ADT)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: Why a paper square ?

Bruno Jammes wrote:
>
> We have a discussion on the french origami list about this question :
> why do we use mostly square paper for origami ?
> It is not the most standard piece of paper, so why ?
> Religious considerations ? Symetry ?
Would you believe the answer from one of my favorite movies,

TRADITION!!!!

If any one has a better explanation, post it it's an interesting
Question.

--
>From pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net

***************************************
* Your Life is only what you make it. *
* so make it good. :?)'               *





Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 22:51:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: Amy <ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Web Ring?

Hi Sheldon,

On Sun, 25 May 1997, Sheldon Ackerman wrote:

> Can the poster of the Origami Ring explain to me the purpose of that webring
> again. Can't I access most any origami page from Joshep Wu's page?

        The purpose of the ring is to unite origami sites around the net.
A webring basically allows surfers to travel from one site to the next.
Because this ring focuses on origami, one will only see origami sites when
clicking on any of the clickable options (eg random, next, previous etc).

        The difference between a webring and a set of links is that a
webring is a *continuous* series of links. This is where the real benefit
of a webring lies. Instead of having to return to a set of links to go to
each site listed in that set of links, one can instead travel from one
site to the next with a simple click of the button. There is no need to
keep going back to a site in order to access a different origami site.

        The webring also offers a creative way of surfing. Instead of
using search engines or relying on someone's links, the webring allows a
surfer to be "surprised" each time when going from one site to the next.
You don't know what to expect..

        As noted before, I feel the webring is also a great opportunity
for origami sites to share in their same passion. It is a way of uniting
sites together and to feel apart of something.

        I hope this helps to give a clearer understanding of webrings.
Please feel free to address any further concerns, either on this
discussion group or personally.

        Thanks,
        Amy

            \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//
            ||                               ||
            ||    ------     Amy Huang                  ||
            ||   ||||||||    ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca     ||
            ||   ||||||||    http://www.ualberta.ca/~ahuang ||
            ||  /        \                             ||
            ||  |   _    |   Faculty of Pharmacy            ||
            ||  |  |_)   |   University of Alberta          ||
            ||  |  | \   |   Edmonton, Alberta, Canada          ||





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:46:49 -0300 (ADT)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: Re: Ring of Origami Art

Malachi Bubba Johnson Brown wrote (answering Perry Bailey):
> I don't think you wene to the very bottom of the page.  There are two sets of
> links, the one further up on the page is just an example of what people
     joining
> the ring will add to thier page, the one at the very bottom of the page at the
> url http://www.angelfire.com/la/Lal/ is the working one, which doesn't NOT ask
> for any information nor does it ask you to register.

Yep, and that's what fooled me: The first set of links, with all the
cool graphics etc., gave me an error msg about invalid ID numbers and
such. My paranoid brain thought "Eeek! My ID? NO WAY!" and I quit
without
going ALL the way down. And all that talk about membership confused me
too.
My apologies to Amy. Now that I'm not required to join the ring in
order to surf the ring ("surf the ring"? What a concept<g>), I wish you
good luck with this service.

Matthias, Paranoid Ringsurfer

P.S.: One good thing about this controversy, Amy: All the 500+
subscribers of origami-l want to know more about your Ring now ;-).





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:33:47 -0300 (ADT)
From: pat slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: Re: Why a paper square ?

> Bruno Jammes wrote:
> >
> > We have a discussion on the french origami list about this question :
> > why do we use mostly square paper for origami ?
> > It is not the most standard piece of paper, so why ?
> > Religious considerations ? Symetry ?
> Would you believe the answer from one of my favorite movies,
>
> TRADITION!!!!
>
> If any one has a better explanation, post it it's an interesting
> Question.
>

Engel has the best answer that I have seen in "Angelfish to Zen". The
square is the only geometric shape that is a rhombus and has four
equal angles. It's symetrical in in all directions. Great essay in
that book, I won't try to paraphrase it here!

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:12:21 -0300 (ADT)
From: FayeG@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Before Convention Friday

From: "Kennedy, Mark" <KennedyM@mail.dnb.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:59:43 -0400

Mark Kennedy asked me to post the following.  He will be in New York City
on Thursday and wants to get a group together to try and be on the Today
Show.

E-Mail me at FayeG@ix.netcom.netcom and I'll pass your address to Mark.

>From Mark Kennedy:
Also, For the Friday Morning before Origami USA Convention, I would like
to get a group together for the Today Show.  After each news break on the
half hours from 7 am to 9am, the Today Show interviews the crowd outside
of the window. From last years experience, I have learned that arriving
at 6:45 is to late.  We should arrive at 6:30 in the am. The camera crew
and producers like colorful signs and outfits. Children small or larger
are an attraction. We should bring some Origami models and signs. Last
year, Katie Couric autographed my sign. Since NBC uses the peacock as
their logo - they should make good models.

 Please make mention of the Today Show gathering on the list.
Hopefully, we can get a better spot and get more camera coverage than
last year.





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:44:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Why a Paper Square?

Brunno Jammes asks (25th May), why we mostly use square paper for origami. He
says there has been a discussion on  our sister list, Origami-francais.

This may have arisen indirectly from a brief exchange in Origami-L, at the
beginning of this month which, however, didn't develop as much as I think the
subject merited. (The whys and wherefores of  subject generation and
development in Origami-L are quite incomprehensible). Apparently Bruno didn't
see my own contribution on the subject and I am brasenly having the temerity
and given as a series of disjointed ideas and not in any way as a reasoned
discussion. Some points are more valid than others. James Sakoda criticised
me for coming to a conclusion which was somehow in favour of square paper.
Perhaps in my haste, I had expressed myself badly, but I was certainly not
advocating square paper in preference to any other shape. I was merely trying
to find out why, historically and in practice today, so much folding is done
from a square. My own interests run the whole gamut of folding of every kind,
known and remaining to be discovered.

Here is what I wrote, slightly edited for clarification.

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

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
entitled to adopt whatever rules for folding he or she chooses. A folder can
use, or not use square or any other shape of paper at his or her absolute
discretion.

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 ribbon or
string 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. [That is what I wrote, but
the relevance of symmetry is a very difficult one and I have had further
thoughts about it which I will mention in an addendum.]  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. [And all
praise for those new techniques in all their great variety.] 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 (or, if you like, historical
momentum - it is  the same thing) 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 (for the
manufacturer or shop-keeper) 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 United 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
traditionally been that the paper should be a simple square.

16.  To summarise, the square has become the classical shape of paper for
folding. [by "classical", I meant the universally accepted shape for what we
ordinarily call "origami paper"].

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

As I re-read this after three weeks, there is not much I would want to
change, provided it is accepted as a basis for discussion and not an attempt
to pronounce on the laws of paperfolding.

However, the point about symmetry and the square does make me think again (as
indeed it did when I wrote the above. But since I had already written enough,
I decided to skate round the question. In any case, I'm not a mathematician.)

A square has many summetries. It has reflective symmetry from each of its
four sides, and from each of its four corners. It has rotational symmetry,
too: 90, 180, and 270 degrees in each direction.

Yet other figures have even more symmetry. An octagon, for instance has even
more reflective and rotational symmetry. Yet it does not give the freedom for
folding that get with the square. You cannot, for instance fold a true bird
base from an octagon.

A circle has infinite reflective and rotational symmetry, yet, as my short
using currently known  techniques. (As an aside, I personally think that
there is enormous scope for developlkment of techniques fror folding circular
paper, but such techniques have not yeyt been discovered).

So, it is not entirely symmetry that makes the square so appropriate for
paperfolding. I can only think that it is the peculiar geometry of the
square, and in particular, the fact that 45 degree angles can be generated in
it, and indeed that it gives rise to the bird base, that gives it its great
advantages. Perhaps the more mathematical among the subscribers to Origami-L
will be able to home in on the essentials of the problem.

Apologies to everyone who thinks I have already had my say on this subject
and shouldn't be repeating myself or taking up so much of everybody's mailbox
space.

 As I have previously mentioned, I shall shortly be going to Germany for the
convention of Origami Deutschland and shall be unable to join in the
discussion (if there should happen to be any further discussion!), but I look
forward to downloading my E-mail on my return and reading anything that
anyone has to say.

David Lister

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 16:10:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: Kevin Kinney <kkinney@med.unc.edu>
Subject: Templates

Hi, everyone.
        Bren of Fascinating Folds posted earlier regarding the feasibility
of templates of other shapes than the beloved square.  I sent a message to
her, but it seems I was a lone voice, so I'll post to all of you as well.

        My suggestion for a non-square template is for A4 and A5
size/shapes.  It seems to me that next to the square (as oft-discussed
here), the "A" format is the next-most-popular for folding.

        Now, all of you in civilized countries can just pop down to the
stationery store and pick up A4, but we here in the US have a little more
trouble.  Sure, we can cut a piece of US letter to a format, but we can
also cut it to a square just as easily (easier, for me at least).

        So, what do you think?  Would "A" format be popular with you
template users?  (I don't use templates, I'm still at the stage where
pre-cut origami squares satisfy me.)

        Okay, I thought of another format:  how about a dollar bill-size,
for those who want to practice with something other than legal tender.
Again, you can make it yourself, but not any more easily than a square.

        These, I think, should be easier to produce than triangles,
pentagons, ot n+1-agons.  After all, the angles are still 90 degrees.

        If you like these ideas, let FFolds, or someone else know, not me.
 I'm just theorizing, not planning onmaking the things.

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@med.unc.edu





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:14:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Valerie Vann <75070.304@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Web Ring? (longish)

I'd never heard of a web ring before Amy posted her notice, but then
my surfing time is limited, so I usually just go after the specific
material I need, and don't do much browsing (leave that to the
fortunate souls with T1 links and unlimited access :-).  I've never
experienced particular difficulty in finding what I wanted using
the search services, but I have noted recently that unlike earlier
years, even the "free" registration of a non-commercial site on some
of the major search facilities such as AltaVista **DO** require
personal information, including regular mail addresses and phone.

This seems counter productive to them in my opinion, as I will not
register again under those conditions, and it seems to me that the
more information of **every** type that a service has registered,
the more useful they will be to their users. (They are still
spidering the origami-L archive, however, so be careful what you
put into your posts to the list.)

The ring is an interesting concept. I also was initially confused by the
fact that the "joining up" information came at the top of the page,
and the "real" link was way down at the bottom. After there are
more links, I would suppose Amy would reverse the order, or put
the "joining" material on a separate page. I also was unable to
find any actual origami content on the first link; apparently it is
just the ring home page??

Like most of us with origami pages, I just link in Joseph's Page
(which I call the "Mother Page of the Origami Nation:), plus a
few personal favorites or those specially significant to my page.
That leaves me with fewer links to try to keep current, especially
as one of my sites (Compuserve) is a boring aggravating nuisance
to update.

The ring does seem to have one advantage: one has no control over
others links to one's own pages, but in the case of the ring, since
one must put the HTML code on one's page, someone else could not
add you to the ring.

I do have a couple of concerns/questions about the ring, though
not about "giving out personal information" (which doesn't seem
junk mail (having a mail-to email link on your web site will get
you that, at least for a few months).

After poking around in a few rings, it looks to me as if the
personal info requirement is confined to rings related to such
matters as software development and similar research groups, where
some validation of the source and quality of the link site is
needed if the ring is to be useful to other members. Other instances
are "private" rings of organizations, etc. A similar situation exists
on the Delphi Service where I keep one of my pages; you can run a
private forum (family, friends, special interest group) on Delphi,
complete with passwords and connected private web site.

The linking info on Amy's ring states that those wanting to link
their pages may submit the request to any current member. That
member then has the duty of determining whether the proposed site
is suitable. Why isn't this the duty of the Ringmaster? If one were
turned down by one member, coulnd't one try another? And it seems
awkward to place each member in the sticky postition of passing
judgement on the "appropriateness" of someone else's pages. It
seems to me it would be better and more consistent to confine
new link requests to the Ringmaster, similar to the "moderator"
function of moderated mail lists. I mean if it is Amy's ring,
then as far as I'm concerned, she can accept or decline whoever
she likes, according to whatever criteria she likes, just as
we can pick and choose what sites we link on our pages, and no
one can take offense because they're not included.

In the same vein, the joining info states that the material must
not be innappropriate. This is awfully vague. Perhaps something
more specific could be supplied, such as the nature of the intended
audience? E.g., does Amy hope that the ring will be accessible by
children, especially from school or library computers?
There are many young origami fans, and OUSA applies
certain standards to convention displays, the annual publication,
etc. accordingly. There also seems to be a tacit understanding
here on the origami-L that "adult origami" will be labeled so that
it is easy to identify. In the absence of more specific guidelines
from Amy, how would one member of the ring assess the suitablity
of a new link, except that it be "origami content"?

Also: who maintains the integrity of the links? Is this a function
of the Ringmaster? What happens to the ring if one link goes bad?
I know there is software available that can be used to regularly
test all the links on a page, (perhaps Joseph Wu has access to
something like that), but the rest of us have to do it ourselves
the hard way.

Finally, while I was glad to see a "cooling" off of the tone of
this discussion, I would say that though it did get a little more
heated than is the norm for the typically polite origami-L :-),
anyone who thought it had gotten to "flame war" stage probably has
never been in a **real** flame war. I'm glad Amy seems to be
taking it in stride, and I wish her success with the Ring, though
initially I will probably just include a link to the ring on one
of my pages.

Valerie Vann
75070.304@compuserve.com
valerivann@aol.com
Mostly Modular/Geometric Origami Web Pages:
http://people.delphi.com/vvann/index.html
http://users.aol.com/valerivann/index.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/valerie_vann





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 19:51:00 -0300 (ADT)
From: Amy <ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Web Ring? (longish)

Hi there!

        I'll try to address some of the concerns presented here as I'm
sure some people probably share the same concerns. Also, I'll try to
shorten this up a little bit to relieve the strain on your eyes:)

 On Mon, 26 May 1997, Valerie Vann wrote:
>
> The ring is an interesting concept. I also was initially confused by the
> fact that the "joining up" information came at the top of the page,
> and the "real" link was way down at the bottom. After there are
> more links, I would suppose Amy would reverse the order, or put
> the "joining" material on a separate page. I also was unable to
> find any actual origami content on the first link; apparently it is
> just the ring home page??

        Since this has confused a number of people, I will try to clear
this up in the ring homepage.

        As I've noted before, there are currently 2 sites within the ring.
The first link IS the ring homepage for a number of reasons. The first and
primary reason is because I wanted to "test" the ring. Usually ringmasters
will put the ring HTML code on the ring homepage in order to test that
everything works properly. This sets it up for further additions to the
ring so that there hopefully won't be any problems. The second reason is
because by having the homepage within the ring, surfers can also have the
option of finding out more about the ring.

 >
>
> The ring does seem to have one advantage: one has no control over
> others links to one's own pages, but in the case of the ring, since
> one must put the HTML code on one's page, someone else could not
> add you to the ring.

        Potentially, a ring member CAN add another page to the ring.
Usually in the registration procedure, you are required to paste the HTML
code on the page and e-mail either the ringmaster or a random site within
the ring to add that site to the ring. Acutally, I (ringmaster) am
notified of any queue addition or site addition. So, when someone adds
their site to the queue, I usually immediately check out that site to make
sure that it satisfies the ring requirements (mainly, having origami
content). Then, if the HTML code is properly pasted on the page, I will
add that site to the ring. If that site was added by someone other than
me, I still get notification that a site has been added to the ring. I
will then check that site out to make sure everything is ok. If there is a
problem, I can easily remove a site from the ring back to the queue and
deal with the problem myself.

>
> The linking info on Amy's ring states that those wanting to link
> their pages may submit the request to any current member. That
> member then has the duty of determining whether the proposed site
> is suitable. Why isn't this the duty of the Ringmaster? If one were
> turned down by one member, coulnd't one try another? And it seems
> awkward to place each member in the sticky postition of passing
> judgement on the "appropriateness" of someone else's pages. It
> seems to me it would be better and more consistent to confine
> new link requests to the Ringmaster, similar to the "moderator"
> function of moderated mail lists. I mean if it is Amy's ring,
> then as far as I'm concerned, she can accept or decline whoever
> she likes, according to whatever criteria she likes, just as
> we can pick and choose what sites we link on our pages, and no
> one can take offense because they're not included.

        Actually, if one wants to submit one's site to the ring, one must
add himself/herself to the ring. No one else can do this except the
ringmaster. This rarely occurs unless there's a problem with adding a site
to the ring. The reason why no one else can add sites to the queue
is because information like the password chosen is confidential. Only the
site manager and the ringmaster has knowledge of what was submitted in the
form to add sites to the queue. To transfer a site from the queue to the
ring CAN be done by either the ringmaster or the ring members. I've given
some explanation about this above. However, as I've noted above, I'm
always given notice about queue additions and site additions. So, if a
queue addition occurs, I will check out the site. Also, if a site addition
occurs but was added by someone other than myself, I will check it out
too. So, in effect, I do have control over the ring because I can manage
the rings within the queue and within the ring. If there's a problem I can
easily move sites back to the queue and so on. The reason why I've allowed
queue members to e-mail either the ringmaster or ring members for
purposes of adding sites to the ring is because it gives queue members
more options. If I happen to be away (which isn't going to happen in the
near future anyway) and a quicker response can be achieved by notifying a
ring member instead of the ringmaster, then I encourage a queue member to
ask a ring member to add him/her.

 > > In the same vein, the joining info
states that the material
must > not be innappropriate. This is awfully vague. Perhaps something
> more specific could be supplied, such as the nature of the intended
> audience? E.g., does Amy hope that the ring will be accessible by
> children, especially from school or library computers?
> There are many young origami fans, and OUSA applies
> certain standards to convention displays, the annual publication,
> etc. accordingly. There also seems to be a tacit understanding
> here on the origami-L that "adult origami" will be labeled so that
> it is easy to identify. In the absence of more specific guidelines
> from Amy, how would one member of the ring assess the suitablity
> of a new link, except that it be "origami content"?

        Perhaps I will clear up what I mean by "inappropriate content". In
general, if children can view the site, then I see no problems with the
site. However, I've really never seen any "dirty" origami on the net!

        Ofcourse if a queue member asks a site member, then the site
member will ofcourse make that judgement. If there's any uncertainty, the
ringmaster can be mailed regarding the situation and take over from there.
Anyway, it is rare that a site member has ever had to have this
responsibility of adding a queue member to the ring. In the other ring I
manage (THe Animation Ring) - no site member has ever added a new site to
the ring. This is because I act quickly when getting notification of queue
additions. I review them, then add them if everything is alright. So,
essentially, the ring members have no responsibility at all except to
maintain the display of the HTML code on his/her page.

 >
> Also: who maintains the integrity of the links? Is this a function
> of the Ringmaster? What happens to the ring if one link goes bad?
> I know there is software available that can be used to regularly
> test all the links on a page, (perhaps Joseph Wu has access to
> something like that), but the rest of us have to do it ourselves
> the hard way.

        Maintaining the integrity of the links is the ringmaster's
responsibility. From time to time, I will review sites within the ring to
make sure links are current and that the HTML code is still pasted on the
page. Also, the webring has a function at the ring management page
that allows a "check" that the HTML code is pasted on that
particular site. However, I have also mentioned on the ring homepage that
it is encouraged that when sites change address or no longer want to be
part of the ring that the site must notify the ringmaster of the change.
There is a form at the ring homepage under "Editing your site information"
in which ring members can edit their site URL, e-mail etc if such changes
do occur. In this way, the ring can be updated and hopefully no broken
links are encountered.

>
> Finally, while I was glad to see a "cooling" off of the tone of
> this discussion, I would say that though it did get a little more
> heated than is the norm for the typically polite origami-L :-),
> anyone who thought it had gotten to "flame war" stage probably has
> never been in a **real** flame war. I'm glad Amy seems to be
> taking it in stride, and I wish her success with the Ring, though
> initially I will probably just include a link to the ring on one
> of my pages.
>
> Valerie Vann

        Thanks for the discussion. I'm sure all the concerns that were
brought up were probably shared by many other people. I'm glad that we
were all perhaps a little more "enlightened" by the discussion.

        And, thanks for the good wishes Valerie:) Although the ring may be
small now, in time it WILL grow and the benefit of webrings will become
much clearer:)

        Amy

            \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//
            ||                               ||
            ||    ------     Amy Huang                  ||
            ||   ||||||||    ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca     ||
            ||   ||||||||    http://www.ualberta.ca/~ahuang ||
            ||  /        \                             ||
            ||  |   _    |   Faculty of Pharmacy            ||
            ||  |  |_)   |   University of Alberta          ||
            ||  |  | \   |   Edmonton, Alberta, Canada          ||





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 21:01:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: Seamas O'Brien <Jikkoz@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: ?convention?

Hello,

to anyone and everyone.  Since I've never been to an origami convention, I
know nothing of what goes on there beyond a folding gues. when? where? who?
why?
   OR even simpler:
Is there a web page with convention info for the one in NY?
I should first ask is there a origami convention in NY. :-)
I humbly thank all who read this message and more so to anyone who answers it.

Seamas O'Brien
Jikkoz@ix.netcom.com





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 21:42:59 -0300 (ADT)
From: PErick3491@aol.com
Subject: models

Hello,
I'm newer to the computer than to origami, so if I make a mistake in sending
this, please be patient.  I have a peace activist friend who is currently in
prison.  When she's in prison she teaches the other women some of the simple
folds I taught her a long time ago.  She recently wrote asking for some
diagrams and models, which I will send.  However, she asked for a star folded
from a strip of paper.  Does anyone have the directions for this or
information about where I could find the directions.  I will have to copy
them and send them on.  For myself, could someone tell in what publication I
might find van Goubergens cat.  This sounds like something I might really
enjoy folding.  Thanks.  Pat





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 21:50:55 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steve Theil <theil@htonline.com>
Subject: Origami-L: URL Instant Gratification

Many thanks to Pat Slider for the very interesting information about the
new web site for the Edward R. Hamilton book catalog at:
http://www.hamiltonbook.com

I noticed that Pat did not include the full URL for the Hamilton site or
the Bookexpress site. Since I have noticed this abbreviation process on
other lists that I  belong to, I thought it might be worth mentioning to
those who may not know, that many mail programs now allow the reader to
click on URLs in e-mail and the program will automatically open your
browser, ask if you want to connect, and take you directly to that site.
But they only do this if the complete URL is contained in the e-mail. I
know that MS Internet Mail has this feature, and I think that Netscape
does, too. I understand AOL has a patch you can add to their program to get
the feature, too. Don't know about other mailing programs.

It's a lot easier to use this feature than to write down the web site URL,
get on line, and then type in the address.

Also, if a complete e-mail address is contained in the post, clicking on
that address will open a new message already addressed to the recipient.

Happy surfing,
Linda Theil
theil@htonline.com





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 23:09:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: ?convention?

Seamas O'Brien wrote:
> to anyone and everyone.  Since I've never been to an origami convention, I
> know nothing of what goes on there beyond a folding gues. when? where? who?
> why?
>    OR even simpler:
> Is there a web page with convention info for the one in NY?
> I should first ask is there a origami convention in NY. :-)
> I humbly thank all who read this message and more so to anyone who answers it.

Origami USA just announced their web site.  There is lots of conventioon
information and registration forms.  The URL is
http://www.origami-usa.org/

You can also get some convention tips and info from the following URL -
http://www.netrax.net/~rhudson/con97.html

Janet Hamilton

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





Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 23:17:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: models

PErick3491@aol.com wrote:
> However, she asked for a star folded
> from a strip of paper.  Does anyone have the directions for this or
> information about where I could find the directions.

There is a star folded from 4 strips of paper.  It is commonly known as
the "Swedish Star", but foes by other names also.  Here is info on
instructions and supplies:

Dinna Forget
P.O. Box 312
Brimfield, MA 01010
VHS video showing how to create the 1830s "rosette" basket. The
"rosette" is what we now call the Swedish, Bethlehem, Christmas, etc.
star.
Video with practice strips are $15.95 each.
Paper strips come in four groups:
For May Baskets: 105 strips per package at $2.25.
Group I: Cream white, powder blue, soft pink, mist green.
Group II: Cool blue, dusty rose, moss green, peach.
For Stars: 100 strips per package at $2.25.
Group III: red, green, goldenrod (these are dark "colonial" colors)
Group IV: solid color choice (any one of above)
Paper strip sizes are 1/2 inch and 1 inch.
Include tax: for CT, FL, IL, MA, MD, MN, NJ, NY, PA, and VA residents.
Shipping and handling charges are as follows:
Up to $5.00 add $2.95 (these are US dollars)
$5.01 - $10.0 add $3.65
$10.01 - $20.00 add $4.95
$20.01 - $45.00 add $6.45
over $45.00 add $8.25
Orders outside U.S.A, add $8.50.
For Federal Express, add $7.00.
Sorry, no C.O.D. or cash orders.
Please allow 30 days delivery from receipt of order.
Include your name, mailing address, daytime and nighttime telephone
numbers.

There is also a star formed by making a simple knot in a single strip of
paper, which forms a pentagon, then pushing in the edges of the
pentagon.  Instructions for the "Chinese Lucky Star" are in _The Art of
Origami_ by Gay Merrill Gross.

Janet Hamilton

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