




Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:18:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: RE: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !

On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Brett Askinazi wrote:
> Alien's REAL success in origami comes from all of the EXTRA appendages
> and fingers and stuff that they cannot reveal to us mere mortals.

Then Peter Engel must be an alien too. Remember those instructions for the
rattlesnake? Step 27: "This takes patience and several pairs of hands."

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





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:53:24 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Success report: Tiger by Nishikawa Seiji

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Sebastian Marius Kirsch wrote:

> Hm. Hmmmm. Does anyone have the address of the Origami Tanteidan and
> information about how one can subscribe to their newsletter?

Write to:

Origami Tanteidan
c/o Origami Gallery House
1-33-8-216 Hakusan
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113
Japan

They just had their convention this past weekend, so don't expect a
prompt response! I can't recall the subscription price at the moment.
I'll have to check. Also, if you want to subscribe, the best way to send
money is by international postal money order. Any sort of bank draft or
cheque will result in a very hefty surcharge for the Tanteidan (often for
more than the value of the cheque).

          Joseph Wu           It's your privilege as an artist to inflict
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   the pain of creativity on yourself. We can
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  teach you how WE paint, but we can't teach
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami you how YOU paint. There's More Than One Way
                              To Do It. Have the appropriate amount of fun.
                                          --Wall, Christiansen, Schwartz





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 20:07:06 -0300 (ADT)
From: JacAlArt@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

In a message dated 8/26/97 12:58:20 AM, you wrote:

<<Although I don't venture there myself (yet), I must protest all
those protestations of workers who are clearly capable of producing highly
complex works also producing much simpler works!  Can it not also be viewed
as a challenge to an accomplished folder to produce enticing but more
representational models? >>

Dude -- it's not about being MORE representational! I don't care if the
METHOD is "easy" or "mega-super-mondo-complex"! I want teeth, toes,
extremities, fingers, eyes, ears... I don't want to guess or imagine "gee --
I guess that's the face". I want to SEE it in detail! The beauty (to me) is
the ability to reconstruct something from nature in as much detail as
possible -- from one uncut sqaure. Simple fact -- you can't do this with a
simple model! By definition --  a simple model WOULD NOT HAVE THE DETAIL!
Fine -- I won't call them "complex" models. How about "DETAILED" models?
Okay?! Then the Kawahata beetles achieve very few details. It is only with
multiple sheets that a simple detail like LEGS are achieved! No thanks. I
want DETAILED models -- I dont care how you classify the folding sequence.
~Alec





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:09:37 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 JacAlArt@aol.com wrote:

> Dude -- it's not about being MORE representational! I don't care if the
> METHOD is "easy" or "mega-super-mondo-complex"! I want teeth, toes,
> extremities, fingers, eyes, ears... I don't want to guess or imagine "gee --
> I guess that's the face". I want to SEE it in detail! The beauty (to me) is
> the ability to reconstruct something from nature in as much detail as
> possible -- from one uncut sqaure. Simple fact -- you can't do this with a
> simple model! By definition --  a simple model WOULD NOT HAVE THE DETAIL!
> Fine -- I won't call them "complex" models. How about "DETAILED" models?
> Okay?! Then the Kawahata beetles achieve very few details. It is only with
> multiple sheets that a simple detail like LEGS are achieved! No thanks. I
> want DETAILED models -- I dont care how you classify the folding sequence.

Dude--that's not what Kawahata's trying to do. He's TRYING to design
things that are easier to fold. (Unfortunately, like Yamaguchi said, he's
not as good at desiging easier models than he is a designing complex
ones.) Quite simply, don't buy his book if you don't like those models!

As for beauty, your definition of beauty is not only limited in its scope,
it is impossible. As Robert Lang has often pointed out, there are
limitations to how much "realism" can be achieved, and that there are
always decisions that must be made as to what features to include and
what features to exclude. It is not possible to represent every hair on
an animal, not to mention internal organs!

As for simple designs, there is a real art to them: how to boil the
features down to the bare minimum, representing the object being
modelled cleanly and tersely. It is a different discipline in origami
design and includes much beauty that cannot be achieved with
complex/detailed design.

Finally, if you must use long dashes '--', represented by a double hyphen
in ASCII (or on a typewriter), it is not correct to put spaces around it.
It should be touching the words next to it.

          Joseph Wu           It's your privilege as an artist to inflict
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   the pain of creativity on yourself. We can
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  teach you how WE paint, but we can't teach
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami you how YOU paint. There's More Than One Way
                              To Do It. Have the appropriate amount of fun.
                                          --Wall, Christiansen, Schwartz





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:26:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

>Dude -- it's not about being MORE representational! I don't care if the
>METHOD is "easy" or "mega-super-mondo-complex"! I want teeth, toes,
>extremities, fingers, eyes, ears... I don't want to guess or imagine "gee --
>I guess that's the face". I want to SEE it in detail! The beauty (to me) is
>the ability to reconstruct something from nature in as much detail as
>possible -- from one uncut sqaure. Simple fact -- you can't do this with a
>simple model! By definition --  a simple model WOULD NOT HAVE THE DETAIL!
>Fine -- I won't call them "complex" models. How about "DETAILED" models?
>Okay?! Then the Kawahata beetles achieve very few details. It is only with
>multiple sheets that a simple detail like LEGS are achieved! No thanks. I
>want DETAILED models -- I dont care how you classify the folding sequence.

        This, of course, is your prerogative.  By extension, then, you
would also only appreciate a painting of, for example, a person, which
showed every tooth, every hair, every pore on the skin, etc. rather than a
more abstract portrait that, while not a candidate for an illustration in
an anatomy textbook, still is that of a human being and, furthermore,
evokes an emotional or some other desired response in the viewer.  (Correct
me if I am wrong in making this assumption about you.)  Thus, by further
extension, you consider innumerable abstractionist painters to be
worthless, talentless, and not living up to an artistic potential because
their paintings aren't ultra-realistic.

        I am just as impressed as the next person by an incredibly complex,
detailed origami model -- one with teeth, fingers, eyes, etc., and, in
fact, the majority of my creations, and virtually all of the models I fold
for other people, are of this ilk.  However, I can also appreciate that
many folders also create less complex, less detailed models, not because
they are _unable_ to make them, but because they are striving towards a
different goal:  to inspire something deeper and more esoteric than simple
imitation of nature (not that nature in and of itself doesn't contain
abundant innate beauty!)

        Regardless...from the tone of your response, I perceive that your
own tastes in origami are much narrower than my own.  This is not a matter
of "right" versus "wrong" -- neither view is superior to the other.  I only
ask that you recognize that an artist of any medium may have goals and
intentions that do not necessarily jibe with your own tastes.  To each
his/her own; the artist can only (as a famous six-year-old once said) obey
the inscrutable exhortations of his/her soul.

                _,_
           ____/_\,)                    ..  _
--____-===(  _\/                         \\/ \-----_---__
           /\  '                        ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  768-2701
Southern Methodist University
Box 750395                            jdharris@post.smu.edu
Dallas  TX  75275-0395                (Compuserve:  102354,2222)

"Science _does_ have all the answers -- we just don't have all
the science."
                        -- James Morrow





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:33:16 -0300 (ADT)
From: Richard of Foong <ryf@ecr.mu.oz.au>
Subject: RE: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Sebastian Marius Kirsch wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Brett Askinazi wrote:
> > Alien's REAL success in origami comes from all of the EXTRA appendages
> > and fingers and stuff that they cannot reveal to us mere mortals.

When I read this, I thought of a really dodgy comment to say. i'd  better
not say it in this list. :)

>
> Then Peter Engel must be an alien too. Remember those instructions for the
> rattlesnake? Step 27: "This takes patience and several pairs of hands."

Where can I get hold of Peter Engels rattlesnake? It sounds really
interesting. I would mind using my extra hand.

Richard.





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:37:23 -0300 (ADT)
From: Richard of Foong <ryf@ecr.mu.oz.au>
Subject: Request for a model.

Can Anyone suggest any really good looking scorpion models? My friend
really wants one, and now that I think about it, i do to.

Richard.





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 22:01:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: Kim Best <kim.best@m.cc.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Erotic Origami

Janell Jarman wrote:

> Well, I KNEW that, but I still thought maybe you were refering to
> gender.  Afterall KIM, not having met you personally, yours is a mystery
> to me!

Hmmm....  Maybe I'll keep it a mystery...  Unless maybe if your single...Ooops!

> > Personally, I think the use of origami for amorous purposes is great.  I
> > loved Phillips planes story!
>
> Ditto...I never said anything against it. ;)

And I never said, you said anything against it.  :-}

--
Kim Best                            *******************************
                                    *          Origamist:         *
Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System   * Some one who thinks paper   *
420 Chipeta Way #120                * thin, means thick and bulky *
Salt Lake City, Utah  84108         *******************************





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:04:48 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: "Origami for the Connaisseur?"

Daddy-o D'gou wrote:
> The OftC rose is also available in the June '97 issue of NOA magazine.

I think the Japanese version may still be availabe as Top Origami.

> You can get the "real" Kawasaki rose from the origami FTP site.

The one in OftC is also "real".  The one on the FTP site is a different,
newer rose model by Kawasaki.

Janet Hamilton

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





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:12:51 -0300 (ADT)
From: EKC <vpenner@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

Although I have not seen the Kawahata Beetle Book, I would like to
express some of my thoughts on simplicity, realism, and art.
Nature is beautiful, and often an artist tries to represent this
beauty.  There are different ways to do this.  Some artists make their
creations very realistic, others make suggestions of what they are
trying to represent, others try to capture the essence of what they are
trying to represent.
It is the different ways in which we represent or interpret the world
that makes any kind of art, (origami included) appealing.  Otherwise,
why bother folding a flower when you can pick or buy a real one?
Creating a representation of a flower, or a geometric form, or an animal
from a simple piece of paper is what makes origami enjoyable for me.  I
enjoy folding different models for various reasons, and how much detail
there a model has is only one factor in my enjoyment of it.
So even though some people like realism, and lots of detail in a model,
that does not make a model that has less detail, but conveys the essence
of something, worthless.  It just means that it is an interpretation
that appeals to some people more than others.  Just because something is
simple does not mean it is less valid.  On the contrary, to convey
something as complex as a life form in a simple way can be quite a
challenge.
So I salute the artists who work so hard to convey some of the beauty of
our world, whatever way they approach it.

Ellen





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:38:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Success report: Tiger by Nishikawa Seiji

>> Hm. Hmmmm. Does anyone have the address of the Origami Tanteidan and
>> information about how one can subscribe to their newsletter?
>
>Write to:
>
>Origami Tanteidan
>c/o Origami Gallery House
>1-33-8-216 Hakusan
>Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113
>Japan
>
>They just had their convention this past weekend, so don't expect a
>prompt response! I can't recall the subscription price at the moment.

I sent them a fax (their fax number is listed on their web page) last
week, but have yet to hear back from them.  I guess that's why.

-Joel
(joel@exc.com)





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:42:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: German Shepherd model?

Kenneth Lehner wrote:
> Our dog died last week, and I would dearly like to make a
> German Shepherd model for my wife.  Can anyone point
> me to a model which can produce a realistic dog of this
> breed?  A wolf model could be adapted.  Difficulty is no
> obstacle.

I turned up no German Shepherd in the model index, but here is the wolf
listing:

              wolf                             Creator: Isao Honda
                 World Of Origami, p. 146  By: Honda
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into bird base.
                 level: L  #/steps: 15  Folds: sq
                 A modular form needing 2non-uniform unites.
                 Glue is hel

              wolf [wolf]                      Creator: Irmgard
Kneissler
                 Origami - Papierfalten, p. 58  By: Kneissler
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into bird base.
                 level: L  #/steps: 12  Folds: petal,crimp,rev
                 A modular form needing 2non-uniform unites.
                 This model requires cut

              wolf)                            Creator: Kunihiko
Kasahara
                 Viva Origami, p. 88  By: Kasahara
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into precreased base.
                 level: H  #/steps: 31  Folds: rev,collapse,sq

              Werewolf                         Creator: Richard
Saunders/Brian M
                 Horrorgami, p. 57  By: Saunders
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into stretched bird base.
                 level: M  #/steps: 17  Folds: petal,r/e
                 A modular form needing 2non-uniform unites.

              Lone wolf                        Creator: Asahi Isamu
                 Origami Monsters, p. 18  By: Asahi
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into diagonal base.
                 level: L  #/steps: 17

              Lupe Che Apre la Bocca (wolf)    Creator: Franco Pavarin
                 Origami Animati, p. 76  By: Pavarin
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into kite base.
                 level: H  #/steps: 10  Folds: re

              Snapping wolf                    Creator: Samuel Randlett
                 Art of Origami, p. 43  By: Randlett
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into diamond base.
                 level: M  #/ste

              Snapping wolf                    Creator: Samuel Randlett
                 Art of Origami, p. 43  By: Randlett
                 Begin w/ a sq  folding into diamond base.
                 level: M  #/ste

Janet Hamilton

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





Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:47:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: Richard of Foong <ryf@ecr.mu.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

Yeah, having an opinion makes things so much more exciting!!! Are the
gloves off yet??? only kidding...

I think everyone everyone's right... in their own way. I agree with
*everyone*.

Richard.

>
> Dude--that's not what Kawahata's trying to do. He's TRYING to design
> things that are easier to fold. (Unfortunately, like Yamaguchi said, he's
> not as good at desiging easier models than he is a designing complex
> ones.) Quite simply, don't buy his book if you don't like those models!
>
> As for beauty, your definition of beauty is not only limited in its scope,
> it is impossible. As Robert Lang has often pointed out, there are
> limitations to how much "realism" can be achieved, and that there are
> always decisions that must be made as to what features to include and
> what features to exclude. It is not possible to represent every hair on
> an animal, not to mention internal organs!
>
> As for simple designs, there is a real art to them: how to boil the
> features down to the bare minimum, representing the object being
> modelled cleanly and tersely. It is a different discipline in origami
> design and includes much beauty that cannot be achieved with
> complex/detailed design.
>
> Finally, if you must use long dashes '--', represented by a double hyphen
> in ASCII (or on a typewriter), it is not correct to put spaces around it.
> It should be touching the words next to it.





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:18:52 -0300 (ADT)
From: "James M. Sakoda" <James_Sakoda@brown.edu>
Subject: Re: Treasure Ship/Horaizan/Immortals (Long)

>Now to my questions:  So far I've only found two origami models of
>Horaizan.  1. A gomashio wrapper used for weddings in Honda's
>_Noshi_ and 2. a crane and tortoise on a helmet by Yoshinga Ogawa,
>circa 1868-1912 from a 3:2 rectangle in Harbin's _Secrets of Origami_.
>Are there any others?  Do we know how old the Honda example is?
>
>Is the Treasure Ship a Japanese model?  From Takagi's research, we
>know it dates at least from 1700-1716 (thanks again to James Sakoda for
>the dates) and James Sakoda points out its stylistic differences to the
>Chinese Junk -- although the models do share a common base.  Does
>anyone have paper suggestions?  The kami I used was too light.
>Yoshizawa-san used a single-color paper and I'm considering some
>patterns that suggest the New Year or perhaps a foiled paper.
>
tion on other Horaizon models.
>
>Kristine Tomlinson
>ktomlinson@platinum.com
>Waltham, MA, USA

Kristine, I'm glad that some of the information that I translated in
Takagi's is of proactical use to you.  I can't help you on Taoism.  I can't
even find Horaizan in the dictionary and I can only say that Zan is a
character for mountain.  On the Chinese junk it is shown with two short
sails in Murray and Rigney's book, the size of the side of the box or
folded in half to show the backing for the decks or one of each.  Since
there is a triangular piece tucked in when folding from the triple blintz
fold, it is possible to make a saillike point and taller sail, although for
some reason this is generally not done.  I would prefer to have one of the
sails made tall for practical sailing purposes, although I don't really
know what the sail of a Chinese junk looks like.
     I think that a distinction should be maintained between a Chinese junk
and a Treasure boat, which is clearly Japanese in nature.  Kosho Uchiyama
in Origami Zukan has an appaendix of traditional  folds.  The treasure boat
is folded from a blinted double-boat whose sides
are folded back and then opened out to what is called a Omiya or
palace.  To make the treasure boat (Uchiyama calls it a <italic>
tennamasen </italic>, a kind of cargo boat) the side flaps of the
blintz fold are pulled out and in between remains the central part of
the Omiya.  One end is folded into a point while the other is thinned
down to form  the blunt end of the boat.  The two ends are pulled apart
and like a miracle a square deck appears at both ends, with a hole in

the center for storage of goods.  The interesting part of the
construction is the fact in folding the Chinese junk one starts with a
box and fold the sides in half before pulling apart both ends to form
the decks at both ends, so that both boats are clearly similarly
constructed, but with clear difference at the pointed end.  The tenmasen is
a smaller boat than the Chinese junk and generally does not have a sail and
is operated with a pole.  It can be seen in old Japanese period piece
movies, which is why I feel that it is a Japanese boat rather than a
Chinese junk.  One can understand its being called a treasure boat in
Takagi's book in which it is used to decorate clothing, probably worn by
children.
     In folding the treasure boat one should take special care in the
pulling out process.  What I like to do is loosen up the folds when
starting the pulling out process, including opening up the folded in flaps
which become the deck.  After pullilng out part of the ends, it is possible
to put the opened out flaps back into position and continue the pulling out
process.  If you find that origami paper is too weak, use 6 inch foil
paper, which is much stronger.
     I hav e also adapted the dollar bill to fold the treasure boat.
Because the sides remain blintzed the longer dollar bill is not
inappropriate.  It is still a little too long and I simply leave the center
hole greater to take up the slack.  I use Chinese hell bank notes for my
dollar bill folding and this may be partidular significant  since the bills
are burned at funerals.  I assume this is supposed to help the dead in his
journey. In Japan during Obon, Buddhist festival for the dead, sometimes
paper boats are lighted with candles and set adrift on  the water.  Jim
Sakoda





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:53:16 -0300 (ADT)
From: Janell Jarman <jarman@digitalpla.net>
Subject: Re: Erotic Origami

Kim Best wrote:

> > Ditto...I never said anything against it. ;)
>
> And I never said, you said anything against it.  :-}

Oh yeah?  Well, I never said you said I said anything against it!





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 02:06:31 -0300 (ADT)
From: JacAlArt@aol.com
Subject: Re:  Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

In a message dated 8/26/97 6:16:44 PM, you wrote:

<<So even though some people like realism, and lots of detail in a model,
that does not make a model that has less detail, but conveys the essence
of something, worthless. >>

I agree. Simple models are not worthless -- I just don't like them.
~Alec





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:33:07 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steven Casey <scasey@enternet.com.au>
Subject: book review - Fantastic Folds

Book Review : Fantastic Folds

ISBN: 0 297 83546 7 published by George Weidenfeld & Nicolson
The Orion Publishing Group,
Orion House
5 Upper St Martin's Lane
London WC2H 9EA

Recently I had the occasion to shop in Frankston (a bay side suburb in
Melbourne), and popped into Robinson's book shop, I was delighted to find a
new origami book in the art and craft section called Fantastic Folds.

The book is co-authored by Andrew Stoker and Sasha Williamson and is a
visually pleasing book.  Its hard bound and you'll spot it by stunning
photographs on the front cover, featured are models of sea horses, the sun
and the moon folded like jewellery, frogs, and selected gift boxes.

Inside,  the book is divided into three chapters, at the beginning of the
book the authors introduce the basic techniques, symbols, basic folds and
choosing paper. The authors have chosen to introduce a few  non standard
symbols, such as an x-ray line for mountains and valleys, in addition to the
standard x-ray line. New symbols have been devised for indicating a sink and
turn the model over. The quality of the drawings are high, so the non
standard symbols shouldn't be a problem, ( although I wish authors would
stop trying to invent new symbols, when the current one serve very well).

Chapter one, First Folds, contains simple projects, like the A4 Folder, a
series of  Folderlopes (Folded Envelopes), a set of picture frames and
concludes with the classic flapping bird. Colour photographs are included,
at the beginning of each project, and add to the appeal of the models.

Chapter two follows a similar format and is introduced as Further Folds, the
techniques in this section are slightly more advanced than the first
chapter. The first model in the section is a simple jumping frog, similar in
appearance to the classic Chinese and American jumping frogs. Next the
authors present a basic four sided dish (folded from, what looks like ingres
paper), and a Lotus bowl. More practical designs follow,  I particularly
liked the disk holder, a good contemporary idea,  and the gift bag, folded
from marbleized paper.  The authors seem very fond of boxes and have
included no less than four, there's a strip box , an all in one box, a card
box and a pentagonal box, which the authors suggest using as a pencil case.

The last chapter is called Final Folds, and includes advanced techniques,
The most impressive models in this section, are the seahorse, the shark, the
dolphin,  the sun and the moon, and the tree frog.  The Indian Elephant
folded from a bird base, is a disappointment, and is not up to the same
standard as the other  models.  Both the dolphin and the shark use cutting
to achieve the  tail fins, but the finished product is worth it. The  Sun
fold , utilizes the blintzed bird base and has a jewel like quality.

This will book we most likely appeal to beginners or the avid collector
rather than advanced folders, its most striking feature is  its visual
presentation, it's the sort of book you can show your friends to give them
an idea of how artistic and practical  origami can be. No mention is made of
any origami organizations, but a list of paper stokists is included  for the
UK Australia, and USA.

According to the inside jacket Andrew Stoker and Sasha Willianson, have
established their own company named Folds, they supply origami to some of
London's leading stores. They offer a range of origami services, including
design, packaging, sculpture, paper jewellery, origami classes and
demonstrations.

Is anyone in the BOS familiar with their work?

Steven Casey,

scasey@enternet.com.au





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:50:06 -0300 (ADT)
From: Steven Casey <scasey@enternet.com.au>
Subject: Re: German Shepherd model?

At 03:50 PM 26/08/97 -0300, Ken Lehner wrote:
>
>All,
>
>Our dog died last week, and I would dearly like to make a
>German Shepherd model for my wife.

I have a model of German Shepherd, its not diagrammed but I could send step
folds through the mail, email me privately if your interested.

I also have  diagrams for a Scotty, Corgi, Dashund, Pekinese, Labrador and a
few other breeds. Most of the instructions are hand drawn.

A German Shepherd is featured in the fundamental folds section of the
original World of Origami by Isao Honda.

Regards,

Steven Casey
scasey@enternet.com.au
Melbourne Australia





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:36:09 -0300 (ADT)
From: JacAlArt@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

In a message dated 8/26/97 10:04:51 PM, you wrote:

<<It is not possible to represent every hair on
an animal, not to mention internal organs!
>>

hello? Internals? Are we talking about the same thing?





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:22:16 -0300 (ADT)
From: JacAlArt@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

In a message dated 8/26/97 10:04:51 PM, you wrote:

<<Quite simply, don't buy his book if you don't like those models!
>>

Hard to tell when you order direct from Japan! I, of course, am trying to
save others with similar interests the disappointment I felt.





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:45:25 -0300 (ADT)
From: JacAlArt@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

In a message dated 8/26/97 10:04:51 PM, you wrote:

<<Finally, if you must use long dashes '--', represented by a double hyphen
in ASCII (or on a typewriter), it is not correct to put spaces around it.
It should be touching the words next to it.>>

I ain't had none ---  too  ----  much Inglish clases. Soory. Thought this wuz
an Origami Discushion Liszt. ;-)





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:49:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: DLister891@aol.com
Subject: Re: Old European Origami (Reply to David Cohen).

In his posting of yesterday, 26th August, David Cohen comments on my own
 posting on the subject of "Old European Origami" sent as long ago as 20th
August.  in response to an enquiry by Kevin Kinney. Perhaps I may be
permitted to add yet more to my original posting, by way of comment.

I think David is right, in suggesting that 150 years or so ago, paperfolds
were just "one-offs". In fact, I don't think that there was any clear concept
of paper-FOLDING as a separate activity. Paperfolding just merged into the
general ragbag of papercrafts including paper-cutting, paper-construction,
paper weaving and what is now called paper sculpture.

The use of bases was most certainly the central springboard for modern
creative folding, even if its overuse eventually came to restrict creative
paperfolding somewhat. Fortunately creative paperfolding was saved by the
likes of Neal Elias, Fred Rohm and Eric Kenneway, who all  had a healthy
disrespect for standard bases. But bases _are_ important and they not only
play a part in modern origami, but they also have their place in the
historical development of paperfolding.

I used to think that the inception of bases was Margaret Campbell's, under
her name: "Foundation Folds". If you study her book, "Paper Toy Making" (c.
1936) very carefully, you will perceive that she arrived at her concept of
Foundation Folds half way through writing the book! What she should have done
was to have gone back to rewrite the first half of the book in the light of
her concept of Foundation Folds. (I should point out, however, that she was a
very old lady and really only wrote her book for her grandchildren, not for
publication.)

Robert Harbin openly said that he took his idea of basic folds from Margaret
Campbell's Foundation Folds. So, with the publication of "Paper Magic" in
1956, the concept of bases emerged fully fledged. After discussion with
Robert Harbin, Gershon Legman and others Sam Randlett formalised the
organisation of bases  for publication in The Art of Origami. Speaking
personally, I don't go along with everything in Sam's scheme of things, but
that's merely my personal opinion. In particular, I believe he erred by
missing out the windmill base. But then, his ideas were dominated a
perception that all basic folds were radial in form, and marshalled
themselves in the series: kite - diamond - fish - bird - frog. Dr. Vicente
Solorzano also recognised this and called the radial bases "deltoids". He
raised them to the status of a science which he called "deltoidology"!

The windmill base doesn't fit into this scheme (except that I would point out
that John Smith showed me how he had discovered that the bird base can be
topologically transformed by rotation into the windmill base!)  Robert
Harbin, himself, in "Paper Magic" didn't identify the windmill as a basic
fold, he did at least include it in that book under the guise of what he
named the "Multiform". Sam included just a few traditional folds in "The Art
of Origami" but they did not include the windmill or any othe the folds based
on it. Regrettable, the effect of the omission, has been to blight western
folding, because ever since, except in a few books, the windmill base has not
been regarded as a "proper" base. Of course, in Hispanic countries the status
of the Pajarita ensures that in those countries, the windmill, multiform
(call it what you will!) has a higher status. (Sorry for that long
diversion!)

But basic folds antedate even Margaret Campbell. In Japan, they can be seen
in a form which combines them with heavy cutting in the Kayaragusa (Kan no
mado) of about 1850. They appear again in Froebelian paperfolding, where they
are given the name "ground forms" a name that is still used in German for
basic folds. I doubt if Froebel used the term, but "ground forms" were
central to the Froebel folding of the kndergartens. The pity is that the
kindergartens didn't do anything more constructive with the ground forms than
compile endless blintzed flower patterns. A great oportunity for real
creativity in paperfolding was accordingly lost by the teachers ofFroebelian
paperfolding. (It should be pointed out, however, that until the Flapping
Bird was introduced to Europe about 1870, they had no notion about radial
bases, which, despite what I have said, were the stimulus for much of modern
creative paperfolding).

Both Akira Yoshizawa and Kosho Uchiyama employ basic folds in their books
"Origami Tokuhon (1957) and Origami Zukan" (1958) and both show how
transfomations of bases occur. Where they got the idea of bases from, I
honestly don't know. I don't know enough about the few Japanese books of
recreational origami that were published between 1850 and 1955 and I haven't
yet analysed the photographs of models dating from this period that I brought
back from Second meeting of Scientific Origami held at Otsu, Japan in
November, 1994.

Yoshizawa was self-taught. His career closely parallels that of Segovia on
the guitar. Of course, he may have picked up ideas from elsewhere, but the
way he put them together was his own. As with Unamuno, his biggest
breakthough was his discovery of the "sideways turn" in the bird base.
Hitherto, in Japan, this had only been used in the traditional fold of a
bird, which was known as  "the Crow". (Not the same crow as in Harbin's
"Paper Magic" page 51.) While nothing can be absolutely certain, I think it
is highly unlikely that a knowledge of Unamuno's discoveries reached
Yoshizawa. Unamuno's work was largely developed in Argentina. Yet, as David
suggests,  there _were_ Japanese present in Argentina in the early decades of
the 20th Century and I suppose that therefore there was a two-way movement of
people between Argentina and Japan. And I suppose that someone _could_ have
taken information about Unamuno's folding and the sideways turn back to
Japan, where it _could_ have reached Yoshizawa.........!

David mentions the Pyramids. At any rate, the Pyramids are pretty tangible,
so we have _something_ to work on with them, unlikepaper and things made with
paper which, unless carefuly preserved, detriorate in a matter of weeks. But
look at the recent contoversy about whether the erosion of the base of the
Sphinx was caused by water. If it was, it would indicate that the Sphinx was
built at a time when Egypt had a wet climate and that would throw ancient
Egyptian chronology into utter confusion!

We have to accept that history increasingly fades into the mists as we go
backwards in time. The present century has see enormous clearance of the
mists which conceal past ages, with astounding discoveries by archaeologists.
For instance, before the 20th Century began, there was absolutely no
knowledge or even concept of the Minoan civilaization. Our knowlege of the
past has been vastly enlarged. But as we peel off one layer of mystery, so
another is revealed. We can never get back to the naked singularity!

It is the same with the history as so humble a subject as paperfolding.  But
in the history of paperfolding we don't have even the pyramids to signpost
our way.

David Lister

Grimsby, England.
DLister891@:AOL.com





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:56:17 -0300 (ADT)
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: "The" Origami FTP site ?

>> You can get the "real" Kawasaki rose from the origami FTP site.
>
>The one in OftC is also "real".  The one on the FTP site is a different,
>newer rose model by Kawasaki.

Which site is "the" origami FTP site?

Thanks.

-Joel
(joel@exc.com)





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:33:38 -0300 (ADT)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: "The" Origami FTP site ?

+>> You can get the "real" Kawasaki rose from the origami FTP site.

+>The one in OftC is also "real".  The one on the FTP site is a different,
+>newer rose model by Kawasaki.

At the OUSA '97 convention John Smith was delighting in the beauty and
elegance of the "real" Kawasaki rose.  In addition, and I heard this
directly, he claims that Kawasaki does not recognize the Rose in OftC
as his.  Having not yet had the opportunity to query Kawasaki on this in
person, I can only go by what John has related.

+Which site is "the" origami FTP site?

ftp.rug.nl  login as anonymous with your email address as your password.
cd origami/models/rosekawa - there are five PostScript files, one for each
page of the model.  There is a bug in the diagrams, search the archives for
rose if you are interested.  I think the bug is also documented on the bugs
and changes to diagrams page that you can find a link to from Joseph's site.
If I had the URL handy I'd include it, but I don't.  Anyone interested can
do their own leg work.  (I'm on a modem dialup, not an internet link, or
    I would just find and post the URLs.  Don't presume I'm being difficult
    and I won't presume those who can't do their own legwork are being lazy
    snots.)

    -Doug





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:17:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: Contractors Exchange <contract@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: "The" Origami FTP site ?

At 08:56 AM 8/27/97 -0300, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
>>> You can get the "real" Kawasaki rose from the origami FTP site.
>
>Which site is "the" origami FTP site?

go to ftp.rug.nl in the /origami directory. From there, you will find
subdirectories for binary, pdf, or postcript models (where I believe the
rose can be found).

Marc





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:36:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: Teik Seong <tkteik@mbox2.singnet.com.sg>
Subject: Re: Request for a model.

Hi Richard!

>Can Anyone suggest any really good looking scorpion models? My friend

I have folded Engels' 6-7 times already and still not sick of it. :) Its very
     nice, except for its error on step 38.
But others have told me that there are more impressive ones out there. I don't
     know.

Regards,
Teik.





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 02:45:22 +0200
From: maarten@rc.service.rug.nl (Maarten van Gelder)
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

From origami-l@nstn.ca  Wed Aug 27 02:45:20 1997
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:26:20 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

*>Dude -- it's not about being MORE representational! I don't care if the
>METHOD is "easy" or "mega-super-mondo-complex"! I want teeth, toes,
>extremities, fingers, eyes, ears... I don't want to guess or imagine "gee --
>I guess that's the face". I want to SEE it in detail! The beauty (to me) is
>the ability to reconstruct something from nature in as much detail as
>possible -- from one uncut sqaure. Simple fact -- you can't do this with a
>simple model! By definition --  a simple model WOULD NOT HAVE THE DETAIL!
>Fine -- I won't call them "complex" models. How about "DETAILED" models?
>Okay?! Then the Kawahata beetles achieve very few details. It is only with
>multiple sheets that a simple detail like LEGS are achieved! No thanks. I
>want DETAILED models -- I dont care how you classify the folding sequence.

        This, of course, is your prerogative.  By extension, then, you
would also only appreciate a painting of, for example, a person, which
showed every tooth, every hair, every pore on the skin, etc. rather than a
more abstract portrait that, while not a candidate for an illustration in
an anatomy textbook, still is that of a human being and, furthermore,
evokes an emotional or some other desired response in the viewer.  (Correct
me if I am wrong in making this assumption about you.)  Thus, by further
extension, you consider innumerable abstractionist painters to be
worthless, talentless, and not living up to an artistic potential because
their paintings aren't ultra-realistic.

        I am just as impressed as the next person by an incredibly complex,
detailed origami model -- one with teeth, fingers, eyes, etc., and, in
fact, the majority of my creations, and virtually all of the models I fold
for other people, are of this ilk.  However, I can also appreciate that
many folders also create less complex, less detailed models, not because
they are _unable_ to make them, but because they are striving towards a
different goal:  to inspire something deeper and more esoteric than simple
imitation of nature (not that nature in and of itself doesn't contain
abundant innate beauty!)

        Regardless...from the tone of your response, I perceive that your
own tastes in origami are much narrower than my own.  This is not a matter
of "right" versus "wrong" -- neither view is superior to the other.  I only
ask that you recognize that an artist of any medium may have goals and
intentions that do not necessarily jibe with your own tastes.  To each
his/her own; the artist can only (as a famous six-year-old once said) obey
the inscrutable exhortations of his/her soul.

                _,_
           ____/_\,)                    ..  _
--____-===(  _\/                         \\/ \-----_---__
           /\  '                        ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  768-2701
Southern Methodist University
Box 750395                            jdharris@post.smu.edu
Dallas  TX  75275-0395                (Compuserve:  102354,2222)

"Science _does_ have all the answers -- we just don't have all
the science."
                        -- James Morrow





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:03:02 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@sci.fi>
Subject: RE: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !

On 27-Aug-97, Sebastian Marius Kirsch (skirsch@t-online.de) wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Brett Askinazi wrote:
>> Alien's REAL success in origami comes from all of the EXTRA appendages
>> and fingers and stuff that they cannot reveal to us mere mortals.

>Then Peter Engel must be an alien too. Remember those instructions for the
>rattlesnake? Step 27: "This takes patience and several pairs of hands."

My favorite instruction from the book :)

But have you noticed how much toes resemble fingers. There's a lot of
potential down there...

--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

They say I'm negative and indifferent, but I refuse to care.





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:07:46 -0300 (ADT)
From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@sci.fi>
Subject: RE: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !

On 27-Aug-97, Richard of Foong (ryf@ecr.mu.oz.au) wrote:

>Where can I get hold of Peter Engels rattlesnake? It sounds really
>interesting. I would mind using my extra hand.

It's in (Folding the Universe) Origami From Angelfish to Zen.

There's quite nice scorpion too.

--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

They say I'm negative and indifferent, but I refuse to care.





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:15:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: Katharina Grif <Katharina.Grif@uibk.ac.at>
Subject: Re: German Shephed model

 Hi all!
For a short time i found the first austrian origami page in
internet.It is link from J.Wu's page,but in origami.net-so
the link from: http://www.origami.net/homes/jwu/. Thank you very
much,Josef for you care :) The page is really nice,because it
represents a wonderfull austrian folder Peterpual Forcher-and you can
download diagrams of some of his models. AND.. at  the last page of
fox-model diagram( this is a copy from some japanese magazine) you
can find very reallistic german shepher dog model( only a picture).
But if anybody of you can recognize this madazin (may be ORU??) then
you can find the diagram of it model too. In any way i can ask
Clemens,who made this home page about it,when he'll come from summer
vacation in October.

with best wishes,Katharina :)





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:09:58 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 JacAlArt@aol.com wrote:

> <<It is not possible to represent every hair on
> an animal, not to mention internal organs!
> >>
>
> hello? Internals? Are we talking about the same thing?

Of course we are. My point was to question where you draw the line in the
pursuit of "realism" and to show that it is not realistic (metaphorically
speaking) to pursue "realism" in origami (or in any art) because it just
isn't possible.

          Joseph Wu           It's your privilege as an artist to inflict
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   the pain of creativity on yourself. We can
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  teach you how WE paint, but we can't teach
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami you how YOU paint. There's More Than One Way
                              To Do It. Have the appropriate amount of fun.
                                          --Wall, Christiansen, Schwartz





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:15:11 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: The "real" Kawasaki rose (was Re: "The" Origami FTP site?)

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Daddy-o D'gou wrote:

> +>> You can get the "real" Kawasaki rose from the origami FTP site.
> +>The one in OftC is also "real".  The one on the FTP site is a different,
> +>newer rose model by Kawasaki.
>
> At the OUSA '97 convention John Smith was delighting in the beauty and
> elegance of the "real" Kawasaki rose.  In addition, and I heard this
> directly, he claims that Kawasaki does not recognize the Rose in OftC
> as his.  Having not yet had the opportunity to query Kawasaki on this in
> person, I can only go by what John has related.

I cornered Kawasaki on this last year. He specifically stated that the
rose in OftC is his, but that it was an earlier incarnation. I suspect
that he and John had a miscommunication about this. He didn't even
remember the conversation!

          Joseph Wu           It's your privilege as an artist to inflict
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   the pain of creativity on yourself. We can
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  teach you how WE paint, but we can't teach
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami you how YOU paint. There's More Than One Way
                              To Do It. Have the appropriate amount of fun.
                                          --Wall, Christiansen, Schwartz





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:15:33 -0300 (ADT)
From: Joseph Wu <origami@planet.datt.co.jp>
Subject: Contacting the Tanteidan

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

> >Origami Tanteidan
> >c/o Origami Gallery House
> >1-33-8-216 Hakusan
> >Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113
> >Japan
> >
> >They just had their convention this past weekend, so don't expect a
> >prompt response! I can't recall the subscription price at the moment.
>
> I sent them a fax (their fax number is listed on their web page) last
> week, but have yet to hear back from them.  I guess that's why.

Also, they do take a long time to respond to English correspondence. It's
a volunteer operation over there and the number of people who can handle
English is very limited.

          Joseph Wu           It's your privilege as an artist to inflict
  origami@planet.datt.co.jp   the pain of creativity on yourself. We can
 Webmaster, the Origami Page  teach you how WE paint, but we can't teach
http://www.datt.co.jp/Origami you how YOU paint. There's More Than One Way
                              To Do It. Have the appropriate amount of fun.
                                          --Wall, Christiansen, Schwartz





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:57:26 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Peter Engel's rattlesnake

Hi Richard!

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Richard of Foong wrote:
> Where can I get hold of Peter Engels rattlesnake? It sounds really
> interesting.

It is in his book "Origami from Angelfish to Zen", along with other really
stunning models and a great section about creativity. This is definitely
worth getting if you don't already have it.

Peter Engel: "Origami from Angelfish to Zen".
Mineola: Dover, 1994.
ISBN 0-486-28138-8

> I would mind using my extra hand.

I even managed it without having one. (I have to admit that I do resemble
a mere human quite closely---physically, at least.)

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





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:19:27 -0300 (ADT)
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Contacting the Tanteidan

>> I sent them a fax (their fax number is listed on their web page) last
>> week, but have yet to hear back from them.  I guess that's why.
>
>Also, they do take a long time to respond to English correspondence. It's
>a volunteer operation over there and the number of people who can handle
>English is very limited.

Well, I can understand that.  I'm sure it's still faster than if I had
to write the fax in Japanese....

-Joel
(joel@exc.com)





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:17:03 -0300 (ADT)
From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: Peter Engel's rattlesnake

>
> Peter Engel: "Origami from Angelfish to Zen".
> Mineola: Dover, 1994.
> ISBN 0-486-28138-8
>
> > I would mind using my extra hand.

Speaking about hands... :-)
Did anyone ever make the hands on that cover of the Engel book. It's one
cool looking cover!

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





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:51:48 -0300 (ADT)
From: Janell Jarman <jarman@digitalpla.net>
Subject: Re: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !

I am getting really tired of all this stereotyping!  Why must you people
assume that someone with a few extra appendages is an alien???  I'm sure
we've all known humans who have two left feet or who are all thumbs, so
what's wrong with having two right hands or being all fingers?





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:14:00 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Michael G. Wareman" <mike.wareman@oldscollege.ab.ca>
Subject: Re: German Shepherd model?

Hello Steven:

Since I too am an avid dog lover I would like to also receive your
instructions for the German Shepherd.  If it is not too much trouble I
would enjoy seeing the other dog models as well.  My girlfriend  loves
cats, and I have not found too many good cat origami models.  If you have
some good cat models I would like to see them as well!  Maybe we can make
some arrangement for an exchange of information.  I am still learning to do
origami and have not had too much success creating my own models.  But
something should be possible.

Michael Wareman
mike.wareman@oldscollege.ab.ca

----------
> I have a model of German Shepherd, its not diagrammed but I could send
step
> folds through the mail, email me privately if your interested.
>
> I also have  diagrams for a Scotty, Corgi, Dashund, Pekinese, Labrador
and a
> few other breeds. Most of the instructions are hand drawn.
>
> A German Shepherd is featured in the fundamental folds section of the
> original World of Origami by Isao Honda.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Casey
> scasey@enternet.com.au
> Melbourne Australia





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:15:45 -0300 (ADT)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: Folding Time (was:Re: Request for a model.)

Richard of Foong wrote:
> Can Anyone suggest any really good looking scorpion models?

Well, there's Robert Lang's scorpion in "Origami Insects and
their kin". EASY! ONLY 158 STEPS!! <g>. I've seen it folded,
and it looks really impressive. But I haven't tried it yet as
I suppose you need a few extra hands, and about 100 extra hours
to fold it.

Speaking of hours: Has anybody ever cared to check on the time
it takes to fold a specific model? Of course, there are lots
of variables to take into account (experience in general/experience
with this specific model, complexity of the model, number of steps,
etc...), but I sometimes wish I had a clue just how darned LONG it
will take to fold something!

Matthias, investigating folding time





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:34:17 -0300 (ADT)
From: Nick Robinson <nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Request for a model.

Richard of Foong <ryf@ecr.mu.oz.au> sez

>Can Anyone suggest any really good looking scorpion models? My friend
>really wants one, and now that I think about it,

I believe there's one in Mark Bolitho's booklet, available through BOS
supplies...

all the best,

Nick Robinson

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 - now with RealAudio clips!





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:39:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: Janell Jarman <jarman@digitalpla.net>
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

Jerry D. Harris wrote:
> (as a famous six-year-old once said) obey
> the inscrutable exhortations of his/her soul.
>

Who???





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:39:39 -0300 (ADT)
From: Kevin Kinney <kkinney@mail.carolinas.org>
Subject: Cat model (Was German Shepherd model)

...  My girlfriend  loves
>cats, and I have not found too many good cat origami models.  If you have
>some good cat models I would like to see them as well!  Maybe we can make
>some arrangement for an exchange of information.  I am still learning to do
>origami and have not had too much success creating my own models.  But
>something should be possible.
>
>Michael Wareman
>mike.wareman@oldscollege.ab.ca
>

Just to plug a good model that hasn't been mentioned (I think) here,
"Facinating Origami" by V. Palacios, just recently (re-)released, contains
a nifty cat.  Ultrapurists out there will be annoyed that it takes two
sheets of paper glued (!!!) together at the end, but it is still quite
nifty, and very cat-like (Siamese, to be precise).

The book is of models by Adolfo Cerceda, and contains lots of other
relatively simple, but by no means abstract models.  Some are two-piece (I
don't think the famous Pig is in there, but there are several others), some
use odd shapes, and yes, a couple require cuts.  Still worth it, as far as
I'm concerned, if only for that cat..., and some great birds.

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@carolinas.org

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@carolinas.org





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:47:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: Amy Huang <ahuang@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Availability of "Folding the Universe"

Hi there!

        If I may, I'd just like to add a small note to Peter Engel's book. A
while ago, I tried to buy the book, but unfortunately, I was told that the
book is no longer being published. This is too bad since this is one of
those must-have books. Anyway, if anyone is looking for the book, probably
the best place to look would be your local library. I managed to finally
find a copy at my local library.

        Amy
        http://www.angelfire.com/la/Lal
        Join the Ring of Origami Art!





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:54:21 -0300 (ADT)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: Peter Engel's rattlesnake

Hi Sheldon!

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Sheldon Ackerman wrote:
> Speaking about hands... :-)
> Did anyone ever make the hands on that cover of the Engel book. It's one
> cool looking cover!

Actually, Jeremy Shafer has done something like that. I think I saw
pictures of it in some ORU issue. No diagrams, though, as far as I know.

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





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:55:30 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Goveia, William P" <wgoveia@indiana.edu>
Subject: RE: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !

Not usre about the extra appendages, but being a leftie, I woiuld think
having 2 right hands would be an awful handicap...;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janell Jarman [SMTP:jarman@digitalpla.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 1:52 PM
> To:   Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:      Re: John Montroll is AN ALIEN ! !
>
> I am getting really tired of all this stereotyping!  Why must you
> people
> assume that someone with a few extra appendages is an alien???  I'm
> sure
> we've all known humans who have two left feet or who are all thumbs,
> so
> what's wrong with having two right hands or being all fingers?





Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:59:01 -0300 (ADT)
From: jdharris@post.cis.smu.edu (Jerry D. Harris)
Subject: Re: Kawahata Beetle Book

>Jerry D. Harris wrote:
>> (as a famous six-year-old once said) obey
>> the inscrutable exhortations of his/her soul.
>>
>
>Who???

        Why, Calvin, of course!  (Of Calvin and Hobbes...)  8-D

                _,_
           ____/_\,)                    ..  _
--____-===(  _\/                         \\/ \-----_---__
           /\  '                        ^__/>/\____\--------
__________/__\_ ____________________________.//__.//_________

Jerry D. Harris                       (214) 768-2750
Dept. of Geological Sciences          FAX:  768-2701
Southern Methodist University
Box 750395                            jdharris@post.smu.edu
Dallas  TX  75275-0395                (Compuserve:  102354,2222)

"Science _does_ have all the answers...we just don't have
all the science."

                                -- James Morrow
