




Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 21:09:52 -0400 (AST)
From: Unafolder <Unafolder@aol.com>
Subject: I'd a gotten away with it too if it weren't for you snoopin' kids

the Unafolder has been tragically duped.  A photograph provided by a trusted
source has been proven a fake!  In an attempt to perpetuate rumours of a
secret desire, our very own Allen Parry send me the original photograph
depicting a passionate embrace between himself and Jan Polish.  This vain
attempt to curry her favor has been for naught!  I, the Unafolder have found
the true photograph of the emotional event.

It now rests in place of the forgery,
http://members.aol.com/unafolder/scandal.html

My apologies to the victims of this massacre of feelings.  Desperate times
call for desperate measures.  Beware, Allen, the wrath of the Unafolder!

Una
(besides, Jan is mine, all mine, ha!)





Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 22:38:15 -0400 (AST)
From: TaraDelFue <TaraDelFue@aol.com>
Subject: the unafolder

All right.  Enough is enough.  It's time to get this list back to serious
topics, and stop disturbing other people with this unafolder nonsense.

For those of you who don't know, the Unafolder character is none other than
Joseph Wu.  Didn't any of you wonder why he was the only one of the list who
responded to the messages whose face never showed up on the web page?

Now let's talk about paper.

Tara





Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 23:18:56 -0400 (AST)
From: Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

>
> All right.  Enough is enough.  It's time to get this list back to serious
> topics, and stop disturbing other people with this unafolder nonsense.
>
> For those of you who don't know, the Unafolder character is none other than
> Joseph Wu.  Didn't any of you wonder why he was the only one of the list who
> responded to the messages whose face never showed up on the web page?

  maybe the unafolder doesn't have a picture of Joseph Wu.  :-)

  hey, can we get a picture of Joseph Wu out to the unafolder, anybody???

>
> Now let's talk about paper.
>
> Tara
>

--
 Douglas Zander                |
 dzander@solaria.sol.net       |
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA     |





Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 23:53:44 -0400 (AST)
From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: Skeleton diagrams

><<For those who are interested, I just uploaded diagrams for my "Skeleton"
>model aot the alt.binaries.pictures.origami newsgroup. >>
>
>Is it just me -- or are there 21 of the same file here? They all show up as
>Skeleton9.gif -- at least here on AOL.

Any chance of making a single .pdf available somewhere?

-Joel
(joel@exc.com)





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 02:28:12 -0400 (AST)
From: "James B. Raasch" <jbraas01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: TreeMaker 4.0

> On 08-Dec-97, Rjlang@aol.com (Rjlang@aol.com) wrote:
>
<snip>
> >"TreeMaker Office 97".) Because of the heavy number-crunching, it will
> >probably be v-e-r-r-r-y slow on a 680x0 machine.
>
> Well, I've run TreeMaker 3.6 on a 50MHz 68030 Amiga (!) using shareware
> Mac emulator "Shapeshifter" and I don't think it's too slow to be usable.
> Can't give timings because of a severe HD crash, but I remember it coping
> well at least with simpler bases.
<snip>
> Until then people with *FAST* machines can run it with a decent Mac
> emulator.

There is an EXCELLENT Mac emulator for Linux, DOS/Win95, and I believe OS/2
called Executor.  There is a sample version of it on http://www.ardi.com (runs
for X time, then shuts down), and it seems to handle TreeMaker 3.6 pretty
well.  If you're dying to give TreeMaker a try, Executor is a good bet.

J.B. "Just Another Impressed Engineer, not a Spammer" Raasch





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:21:16 -0400 (AST)
From: Jean Villemaire <villemaire@videotron.ca>
Subject: Cardinal

Des nouvelles d'Origami-Montral / News from Montreal

Nous vous proposons un nouveau modle de tte de cardinal ( diagrammes
en format .pdf ), trs pratique pour des cartes de voeux  l'occasion des
Ftes.  Par la mme occasion, veuillez noter notre nouvelle adresse :

http://econo1.ecn.ulaval.ca:80/~pgon/origami/origami.html

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We offer you with a new model of a Cardinal's Head (diagrams in .pdf format).
 Should be handy for making of cute Season's Greetings cards.  While you're
at it, please take note of our new address and update your link:

http://econo1.ecn.ulaval.ca:80/~pgon/origami/origami.html

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    ___________________
                    |                 |
                    |                 |
                    |                 |
                    |      }---{      |
                    |      |0 ,0      |
                    |     /'\   \     |
                    |    |'''|  |     |
                    |    |'  /  /     |
                    |____|  /_ /______|
    Jean Villemaire     |/-/"-"-|       Le harfang des neiges,
   Montral, QUBEC     |       |       emblme aviaire
                        |_______|       du Qubec

              mailto:villemaire@videotron.ca
                   Origami-Montral :
 http://econo1.ecn.ulaval.ca:80/~pgon/origami/origami.html





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:30:38 -0400 (AST)
From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@sci.fi>
Subject: Re: Exhibit reminder

Replying to my own mail, fun!

>The address where you can send your models is

>Jorma Oksanen
>Hmeentie 6-8 A 4
>13200 HMEENLINNA
>FINLAND

For 8-bit impaired here it is minus dots:

Jorma Oksanen
Hameentie 6-8 A 4
13200 HAMEENLINNA
FINLAND

And even if I asked you to include the creator of the models you
send, I'll be content with just the creator's name :)

Jorma





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:05:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <contract@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Skeleton diagrams

At 06:47 PM 12/8/97 -0400, "Rachel Katz" <mandrk@pb.net> wrote:

For those who are interested, I just uploaded diagrams for my "Skeleton"
models.bin directory. There are 10 files plus a picture of the completed
model (all .gif). The model is somewhat difficult, and the diagrams are
hand drawn, so just be forewarned.>
>
>I saw this model at the home office of OUSA. It is truly incredible! Marc,
how
>large was the paper for the large finished model that I saw?

Thanks! I think you saw the model I used to teach my class with, which was
just caught before I was about to throw it away (most models used for
teaching really go through the mill). I am pretty sure that was a 25"
square (the model ends up at about half the height of the starting square).

Sorry, I have no immediate intenions of making a PDF out of this, but all
the files (except for the first one, which is just a picture of the
completed model) are pretty small and load quickly. I hope you all enjoy it.

Marc





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:13:46 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

>All right.  Enough is enough.  It's time to get this list back to serious
>topics, and stop disturbing other people with this unafolder nonsense.
>
>For those of you who don't know, the Unafolder character is none other than
>Joseph Wu.  Didn't any of you wonder why he was the only one of the list who
>responded to the messages whose face never showed up on the web page?
>
>Now let's talk about paper.

Excellent deduction, Tara. I also didn't respond to messages about Santa
Claus models. Perhaps I'm Santa himself? And I didn't respond to messages
about the delivery (or lack thereof) of The Paper (the OrigamiUSA
newsletter). Perhaps I'm the one holding them up? Ah, that must be it. I'm
a postal worker who has eschewed the ways of AK-47's and am doing my bit of
anarchy against the nation (oops, I'm not even American!) by withholding
origami mailings instead of going on shooting sprees.

Innocent until proven guilty. It's a crucial part of your own judicial
system. If you really know that I'm the Unafolder, then prove it.
Otherwise, stop making unfounded speculations.

For the record:
  Do I know who the Unafolder is? Yes.
  Will I divulge that information? No.
  Am I the Unafolder? No.

(Besides, I would not become a member of AOL unless I was paid to do so...)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:20:51 -0400 (AST)
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: Lewis Simon

I am sorry to report that Lewis Simon has
passed away.
He was a well known designer and folder for the last 30 years
and an honorary member of OUSA. He specialized in geometric folds
especially those involving equilateral triangles. He leaves a
wife and daughter. He was 82.

I have his daughter's address, if anyone needs it.

Rona
gurkewitz@wcsu.ctstateu.edu





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 17:19:00 -0400 (AST)
From: Gary Wayne Vanderbur <gwv@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

*VANDY politely rises to his feet and applauds the wonderful answer from Mr.
Wu.*

"Hear, hear!"  "Good answer"!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: the unafolder

>>All right.  Enough is enough.  It's time to get this list back to serious
>>topics, and stop disturbing other people with this unafolder nonsense.
>>
>>For those of you who don't know, the Unafolder character is none other
than
>>Joseph Wu.  Didn't any of you wonder why he was the only one of the list
who
>>responded to the messages whose face never showed up on the web page?
>>
>>Now let's talk about paper.
>
>Excellent deduction, Tara. I also didn't respond to messages about Santa
>Claus models. Perhaps I'm Santa himself? And I didn't respond to messages
>about the delivery (or lack thereof) of The Paper (the OrigamiUSA
>newsletter). Perhaps I'm the one holding them up? Ah, that must be it. I'm
>a postal worker who has eschewed the ways of AK-47's and am doing my bit of
>anarchy against the nation (oops, I'm not even American!) by withholding
>origami mailings instead of going on shooting sprees.
>
>Innocent until proven guilty. It's a crucial part of your own judicial
>system. If you really know that I'm the Unafolder, then prove it.
>Otherwise, stop making unfounded speculations.
>
>For the record:
>  Do I know who the Unafolder is? Yes.
>  Will I divulge that information? No.
>  Am I the Unafolder? No.
>
>(Besides, I would not become a member of AOL unless I was paid to do so...)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
>t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 17:36:17 -0400 (AST)
From: Helena Verrill <helena@mast.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

Mild Mannered Mr Wu the Unafolder?  Doesn't sound right to me.
But Santa... that sounds plausable.  Can you drop some glassine
down my chimney if you happen to be flying overhead in the near
future?

Helena
helena@mast.queensu.ca





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:31:37 -0400 (AST)
From: jaelle <jaelle1@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

Joseph Wu wrote:

> Excellent deduction, Tara. I also didn't respond
> to messages about Santa
> Claus models. Perhaps I'm Santa himself? And I
> didn't respond to messages
> about the delivery (or lack thereof) of The
> Paper (the OrigamiUSA
> newsletter). Perhaps I'm the one holding them
> up? Ah, that must be it. I'm
> a postal worker who has eschewed the ways of
> AK-47's and am doing my bit of
> anarchy against the nation (oops, I'm not even
> American!) by withholding
> origami mailings instead of going on shooting
> sprees.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty. It's a crucial
> part of your own judicial
> system. If you really know that I'm the
> Unafolder, then prove it.
> Otherwise, stop making unfounded speculations.
>
> For the record:
>   Do I know who the Unafolder is? Yes.
>   Will I divulge that information? No.
>   Am I the Unafolder? No.
>
> (Besides, I would not become a member of AOL
> unless I was paid to do so...)
>

Jaelle stands and adds her applause to Vandy's

Well said Mr. Wu!!!!!!

( smiling)
Jaelle aka Gail





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:41:38 -0400 (AST)
From: Joyce Owen <joyceowen@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: the unafolder (life is too serious)

I like the disturbing silliness.  I'm sure the Unafolder can explain
what this all has to do with origami!

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 18:57:20 -0400 (AST)
From: Joyce Owen <joyceowen@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

Perhaps Ann should get Joseph Wu off the hook.  Sorry Una I just
couldn't take the bait about Joseph's nickname.
Joyce Owen
mother of the folder

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 19:31:06 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

> Jaelle stands and adds her applause to Vandy's
>
> Well said Mr. Wu!!!!!!
>
> ( smiling)
> Jaelle aka Gail
>
>

Let me join Jaelle aka Gail and Vandy in saying - way to go Jo (or would it
be Joe?), (sorry, I don't mean to be too informal but it's what rhymes with
"go").
< This could become a VERY long thread, huh (get my drift ;-) ? >

Have a  `<:-)  (I'm just being seasonal, that's a Christmas hat with
tassel) day,
Jeff Kerwood
jkerwood@usaor.net

p.s. { Sorry about all the "()<>", I seem to be parenthetically (or is that
pathetically?) challenged tonight. }





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 23:39:45 -0400 (AST)
From: Unafolder <Unafolder@aol.com>
Subject: Re: the unafolder

Were I Joseph I might be known as the "Wunafolder"

Nice try, tara, whoever you are.  The Unafolder will not be discovered so
easily.

Una





Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 23:56:26 -0400 (AST)
From: TaraDelFue <TaraDelFue@aol.com>
Subject: AOL WU

Well, well, Mr. Wu.  Wouldn't get on AOL if you were paid, eh?  What about all
of the fine members of origami-l on AOL.  Valerie Vann.  Dorigami?

Even so, I must admit that I know Joseph personally, and therefore immediately
suspected him.  I'm not one to split hairs, but the coin purse he diagrammed
for the annual collection 1996 bore a remarkable resemblance to one that I
taught at convention the year before.

Anyone remember "Yoshizawa vs. Cerceda"?

Tara del Fuego





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:12:07 -0400 (AST)
From: mSaliers <saliers@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: AOL WU

On 12/9/97 at 3:56PM TaraDelFue [SMTP:TaraDelFue@aol.com] wrote:

> Well, well, Mr. Wu.  Wouldn't get on AOL if you were paid, eh?  What about all
> of the fine members of origami-l on AOL.  Valerie Vann.  Dorigami?
>

Over the years I've collected a stack of disks and cd's that AOL has sent me,
each offering 20-50 hours of "free" online time.  So, they *could* be
paying J. Wu to use their service. ;=)

When I used to be on AOL, they had a service where you could look up
information on fellow-AOL'ers.  Have you AOL people already looked up
the "unafolder" ?

Mark S.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gibberish attached.





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:44:18 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: AOL WU

1. You can only "look up" info about other AOL members if
   they want that info in the public directory. Most members
   don't.

2. I mainly joined AOL because they offered more Web space
   than my other IP's (counting work, I have 5 different IP's)

3. AOL has stopped sending tons of disks (which just about
   bankrupted their supplier, who was left with massive
   inventory), but they were keeping my office in floppy
   supplies for years. When they finally switched to CDs
   we started using them for coasters in the conference rooms.

4. If somebody is trying to start a flame war here, please leave
   me out of it; and if it is a non-origami related
   flame war, please go somewhere else with it.

Valerie Vann
valerivann@aol.com
valerie_vann@compuserve.com





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:57:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@dorsai.org>
Subject: Re: AOL WU

>
> 4. If somebody is trying to start a flame war here, please leave
>    me out of it; and if it is a non-origami related
>    flame war, please go somewhere else with it.

A flame starts  when someone responds to a message and announces that
they do not want a flame war.

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





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:07:10 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: FW: AOL WU

On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 7:56 PM, TaraDelFue [SMTP:TaraDelFue@aol.com]
wrote:
> Well, well, Mr. Wu.  Wouldn't get on AOL if you were paid, eh?  What about
> all
> of the fine members of origami-l on AOL.  Valerie Vann.  Dorigami?

Oh, no offence to them. I just wouldn't use AOL myself unless there were some
good reason for it.

> Even so, I must admit that I know Joseph personally, and therefore
> immediately
> suspected him.  I'm not one to split hairs, but the coin purse he diagrammed
> for the annual collection 1996 bore a remarkable resemblance to one that I
> taught at convention the year before.
>
> Anyone remember "Yoshizawa vs. Cerceda"?

If you want that design, take it! It's so simple that I'm sure someone's
thought of it before. Still, usual practice is that the earliest *documented*
occurrence of a design gets to take credit. But, no matter. Okay, everyone. Go
for the coin purse. 8)

Joseph Wu, Origami Artist & Multimedia Producer
T: (604)730-0306 x 105    F: (604)732-7331   E: josephwu@ultranet.ca
W: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:41:27 -0400 (AST)
From: Paul Vandine <pvandine@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: FW: AOL WU

I sense a note of sarcasm Joseph <G>, but if you are sincere, bravo!
Even though most folders will back there original folds, it takes a
big man to be so selfless, if it was sarcastic, also, bravo!  Let Tara
prove it!

Laterz

Paul

===
World Peace Through Origami

> Still, usual practice is that the earliest *documented*
> occurrence of a design gets to take credit. But, no matter. Okay,
everyone. Go
> to your annual collections and scratch out my name and put in "Tara
del Fuego"
> for the coin purse. 8)
>
> Joseph Wu, Origami Artist & Multimedia Producer
> T: (604)730-0306 x 105    F: (604)732-7331   E: josephwu@ultranet.ca
> W: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca
>
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:36:47 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: FW: AOL WU

>I sense a note of sarcasm Joseph <G>, but if you are sincere, bravo!
>Even though most folders will back there original folds, it takes a
>big man to be so selfless, if it was sarcastic, also, bravo!  Let Tara
>prove it!

A note of sarcasm, yes, but it was sincere. If Tara wants that model, so be
it. It's not innovative, and so I don't really care much for it. In
reality, I whipped it up at the 1995 OrigamiUSA convention because I needed
something to carry my change in and several people liked it so much that
they insisted it be included in the 1996 Collection. Whatever.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:57:36 -0400 (AST)
From: reeds@openix.com (Reeds Family)
Subject: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

>
>Over the years I've collected a stack of disks and cd's that AOL has sent me,
>each offering 20-50 hours of "free" online time.  So, they *could* be
>paying J. Wu to use their service. ;=)
>

>Mark S.
>
We have a heap of such CDs at the moment, and they aren't accepted by our
county plastic recycling. Has anyone come up with ingenious uses for them
(beyond the obvious coaster)  that exploits their lovely shiny surface,
etc. Can they be cut easily? Suggestions for turning them into holiday
decorations or gifts would be very welcome.
Thanks
Karen
reeds@openix.com





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:11:06 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

>We have a heap of such CDs at the moment, and they aren't accepted by our
>county plastic recycling. Has anyone come up with ingenious uses for them
>(beyond the obvious coaster)  that exploits their lovely shiny surface,
>etc. Can they be cut easily? Suggestions for turning them into holiday
>decorations or gifts would be very welcome.

Well, our company Christmas tree features shiny CDs as decorations (amongst
other things). It only stands to reason since we produce multimedia
CD-ROMs... 8)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:26:19 -0400 (AST)
From: Paul Vandine <pvandine@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

I have seen peop;e attach clock working through the hole and numbered
the face of the CD and sell them as clocks!, I like to use them as
frisbees!  Try attaching one to the back of your childs' bike, makes a
good reflector as long as it's clean!

How about making a model bike frame and use 2 cd's as wheels!

The ideas are endless!  CDs in a pinch can be used as an emergency
mirror.  Say you're on the way out and all that's available is a CD,
quick make-up check and on the way!

<G>

Want more ideas??

Let Me Know!

Paul
===
World Peace Through Origami

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:35:21 -0400 (AST)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

I use old or unwanted CDs to mount Origami.  Just go down to the local
walmart or whatever and buy a pack of the self adhesive labels big enough to
cover the hole and the less than pretty area around it (I use certificate
labels) then Glue your piece to it!  I just use Elmers glue all, it seem to
work fine, and voila! a model mounted on a pretty refective surface that
cost you nothing to buy but looks terrific!
Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Reeds Family <reeds@openix.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 5:19 PM
Subject: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

>
>>
>>Over the years I've collected a stack of disks and cd's that AOL has sent
me,
>>each offering 20-50 hours of "free" online time.  So, they *could* be
>>paying J. Wu to use their service. ;=)
>>
>
>>Mark S.
>>
>We have a heap of such CDs at the moment, and they aren't accepted by our
>county plastic recycling. Has anyone come up with ingenious uses for them
>(beyond the obvious coaster)  that exploits their lovely shiny surface,
>etc. Can they be cut easily? Suggestions for turning them into holiday
>decorations or gifts would be very welcome.
>Thanks
>Karen
>reeds@openix.com





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:15:00 -0400 (AST)
From: jaelle <jaelle1@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

Reeds Family wrote:

> >
> >Over the years I've collected a stack of disks
> and cd's that AOL has sent me,
> >each offering 20-50 hours of "free" online
> time.  So, they *could* be
> >paying J. Wu to use their service. ;=)
> >
>
> >Mark S.
> >
> We have a heap of such CDs at the moment, and
> they aren't accepted by our
> county plastic recycling. Has anyone come up
> with ingenious uses for them
> (beyond the obvious coaster)  that exploits
> their lovely shiny surface,
> etc. Can they be cut easily? Suggestions for
> turning them into holiday
> decorations or gifts would be very welcome.
> Thanks
> Karen
> reeds@openix.com

   I have looked for ugly music boxes which have
something that turns as it plays.
Taken the ugly off and glued the shiny side of the
cd onto it. Folded swans, ducks,
Dragons, unicorns, whatever onto the cd. The
lightly sprinkled them with Diamond
dust glitter. They are really guite pretty. I have
added small things such as tiny trees
and painted snow. Cotton clouds. etc to give them
a sense of place.

Hope that helps.
Gail





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:15:29 -0400 (AST)
From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@crocker.com>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

------ =_NextPart_000_01BD05B0.7C1E85C0

On December 10, Joseph Wu wrote:=20

> . . . . Still, usual practice is that the earliest *documented*=20
> occurrence of a design gets to take credit. . . .

and again:

      > . . . . If Tara wants that model, so be
> it. It's not innovative, and so I don't really care much for it. . . .

Given the (to me) surprising deference to "the creator" (as distinct =
from "the folder") shown on this list in recent times (and if you don't =
know what I'm talking about, consider yourself lucky!), perhaps we =
shouldn't be satisfied to let Joseph Wu get off with allowing someone =
else to claim a model he considers "not innovative" and doesn't "really =
care much for". Oog! I hardly know where to begin! What's "innovative"? =
Who decides? Who cares whether you "care much" for it. Does this mean =
that if I am handed a model that was sent in a box without accompanying =
instructions to someone known to both me and the person handing me the =
model, it's okay for me to pull it apart if the sender "doesn't care =
much for it", but not if (s)he considers it "innovative"? Really - I'd =
like to know - really I would. I've become ever so sensitized to how =
important "the creator" is to this whole business - really I have!

I think the really interesting question, though, is what Joseph means by =
"*documented*". Does this mean "diagrammed"? "Taught"? "Taught at a =
[OUSA/BOS/???] 'official' gathering"?. If Tara taught the model at a =
previous convention, does that constitute "documentation"? Or is it just =
Joseph's diagrams that make the real thing?

This is a real question.  I discovered a way to make a 30-pointed star =
out of a waterbomb base (pretty neat, if I do say so myself) some years =
ago, and I polled what I knew of the origami community to see if it was =
original. The unanimous answer was "I think it is". It wasn't till I met =
Robert Neale and showed him my creation, and he rummaged in a box and =
pulled out a model identical to mine, that I realized that I was not the =
myself the "popularizer"). I think it is both right and proper that I =
give him credit for creating - but not popularizing - this model, even =
though I have never seen any reference to it in his published works. By =
Joseph's criterion, perhaps I am a naive fool for not claiming this =
myself.

I could cite a number of other examples, which should surprise no one. =
Joseph - if someone else thought of this first, why do you hide behind =
"not innovative" in giving her credit? And if she didn't, why don't you =
stand up for your rightful credit?

Mike "Just trying to figure out if all this really makes sense" Naughton

------ =_NextPart_000_01BD05B0.7C1E85C0
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD05B0.7C1E85C0--





Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:41:06 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 6:15 PM, Michael J. Naughton
[SMTP:mjnaught@crocker.com] wrote:
> Given the (to me) surprising deference to "the creator" (as distinct =
> from "the folder") shown on this list in recent times (and if you don't =
> know what I'm talking about, consider yourself lucky!), perhaps we =
> shouldn't be satisfied to let Joseph Wu get off with allowing someone =
> else to claim a model he considers "not innovative" and doesn't "really =
> care much for". Oog! I hardly know where to begin! What's "innovative"? =
> Who decides? Who cares whether you "care much" for it. Does this mean =
> that if I am handed a model that was sent in a box without accompanying =
> instructions to someone known to both me and the person handing me the =
> model, it's okay for me to pull it apart if the sender "doesn't care =
> much for it", but not if (s)he considers it "innovative"? Really - I'd =
> like to know - really I would. I've become ever so sensitized to how =
> important "the creator" is to this whole business - really I have!

Well, to deal with the issue, let me re-say what I said: I would not be
surprised if someone else had already come up with that design, so if Tara had
really come up with it first, then Tara can have it. That's what I mean by not
"innovative". It is something that any number of people could have come up
with, so there was no real innovation on my part to come up with it. I know
that still sounds high-handed of me, but I do not see that model as being an
important part of my repertoire, so I don't much care what happens to it. This
was not meant to be generalised; this is just how I feel about a particular
model.

> I think the really interesting question, though, is what Joseph means by =
> "*documented*". Does this mean "diagrammed"? "Taught"? "Taught at a =
> [OUSA/BOS/???] 'official' gathering"?. If Tara taught the model at a =
> previous convention, does that constitute "documentation"? Or is it just =
> Joseph's diagrams that make the real thing?

Documented can mean many things, as you suggest. Diagrams are easiest to prove,
but having taught it should be proof enough. Besides, the diagrams for that
model were redrawn from some very rough sketches that I originally made, so I
really can't take credit for the diagrams that appear in the Collection,
either. Given that we have no official registration body for new folds (and I
hope we never do), we must rely on a certain amount of honour and trust in
these matters.

> This is a real question.  I discovered a way to make a 30-pointed star =
> out of a waterbomb base (pretty neat, if I do say so myself) some years =
> ago, and I polled what I knew of the origami community to see if it was =
> original. The unanimous answer was "I think it is". It wasn't till I met =
> Robert Neale and showed him my creation, and he rummaged in a box and =
> pulled out a model identical to mine, that I realized that I was not the =
> originator (his model at the time was probably 20 years old - I now call =
> myself the "popularizer"). I think it is both right and proper that I =
> give him credit for creating - but not popularizing - this model, even =
> though I have never seen any reference to it in his published works. By =
> Joseph's criterion, perhaps I am a naive fool for not claiming this =
> myself.

Nope. Not at all. That's where the honour and trust come into play. You could
always say something along the lines of "independently discovered and
popularised by" you.

> I could cite a number of other examples, which should surprise no one. =
> Joseph - if someone else thought of this first, why do you hide behind =
> "not innovative" in giving her credit? And if she didn't, why don't you =
> stand up for your rightful credit?

I don't know if someone thought of it first or not. Tara has made a claim. I
could either fight that claim or else give in. Since I do not care about that
model, I give in, even though I have no proof (or even evidence) for whether or
not Tara came up with the design first. It simply is not worth my time or
effort. The "not innovative" was explained earlier and sums up why I do not
care about the model.

> Mike "Just trying to figure out if all this really makes sense" Naughton

<OPTION NAME="truth" VALUE="on">
Then allow me to elucidate. No more hypothetical situations here. "Tara" did
not create that model first. "Tara" was being deliberately inflammatory with a
hypothetical situation posed as the truth and I took the bait. Maybe someone
did create the model first. I don't know. But "Tara" certainly didn't.

But it's kinda fun, isn't it, how these discussions of serious topics have
grown out of the silliness of the Unafolder's messages?
</OPTION>

Joseph Wu, Origami Artist & Multimedia Producer
T: (604)730-0306 x 105    F: (604)732-7331   E: josephwu@ultranet.ca
W: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:44:23 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

Drill holes in the edges and tie/crochet/tat them together into
a high tech "quilt" wall hanging.

Turn wooden spindles, insert thru the center to make tops.

Use instead of cardboard circles as the forms for making
yarn pom-poms for wooley winter hats.

val





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:52:56 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

At 10:15 PM 12/10/97 -0400, "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@crocker.com>
wrote:

[questioning what it is to be the creator/the innovator]
I feel that if I came up with a model, ether through serendipity or through
carefull planning, to use the term made popular in origami circles, I will
refer to myself as being the "creator" of that model. If, in the future it
is discovered that someone else has done sommething very simmilar (or the
same), I think it is exciting to make note that two (or more) people ended
up at the same end of a creative path. This has happened to me once in the
case of a simple model I came up with a few years ago. Years later, the
Hungarian prodigy, Peter Budai came up with a remarkably simmilar model
(which he sent to me). It is not his fault that he was born later than me,
and did not have the head start in comming up with this model. As far as I
am concerned he was just as creative as I was. He might have even been more
creative than myself, since I stole a technique for this model (of a ram)
from a model by Kenneth Kawamura.

As a side note, it does not matter if anyone likes what I created
(including myself); as long as the folds are unique and were not stolen
from another person's work, my model will be regarded as my creation (for
this reason, I hide some of the things I have came up with).

Bei8ng labled "innivative" seems to be based on the public's awareness of
the techniques involved. The less that is known, the more innovative the
technique. Everything is derived from other things one way or another, but
those especial;ly creative folks (you know who you are), manage to extend
their technique beyond recognition from where it was derived from.
>
>I think the really interesting question, though, is what Joseph means by =
>"*documented*". Does this mean "diagrammed"? "Taught"? "Taught at a =
>[OUSA/BOS/???] 'official' gathering"?. If Tara taught the model at a =
>previous convention, does that constitute "documentation"? Or is it just =
>Joseph's diagrams that make the real thing?
>

I have always felt that regardless of the medium, if it is made public, a
work can be regarded as documented. To also reveal the process by which a
model is made (as opposed to just publicly displaying the finnished model),
will make the uniqueness that much more apparent (You can arrive at very
simmilar end results with very different folding structures).

>This is a real question.  I discovered a way to make a 30-pointed star =
>out of a waterbomb base (pretty neat, if I do say so myself) some years =
>ago, and I polled what I knew of the origami community to see if it was =
>original. The unanimous answer was "I think it is". It wasn't till I met =
>Robert Neale and showed him my creation, and he rummaged in a box and =
>pulled out a model identical to mine, that I realized that I was not the =
>originator (his model at the time was probably 20 years old - I now call =
>myself the "popularizer"). I think it is both right and proper that I =
>give him credit for creating - but not popularizing - this model, even =
>though I have never seen any reference to it in his published works. By =
>Joseph's criterion, perhaps I am a naive fool for not claiming this =
>myself.

Again, this is a case wher a guy used his age to advantage. You can still
claim creation, but it would be appropriate to also give credit to the guy
who came up with it first. If you can feel comfortable in approaching
Robert about this, he might be willing to share the credit. Perhaps
"Created be Robert Neal, and later independantly created my Michael
Naughton" might work? Of course we are dealing with personalities and egos
her (and worse yet, possesive publishers), but I think it is worth laying
everything up front.

>Mike "Just trying to figure out if all this really makes sense" Naughton

Opinions never seem to make sense, unless you are in agreement.

Marc





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 01:03:42 -0400 (AST)
From: Colin Pye <cp@atcon.com>
Subject: Re: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

I was thinking of collecting enough of them to tile a ceiling, and then
using a small halogen lamp to reflect light off of them, and onto a wall...
the main problem is I havn't found a large number of CDs that I don't care
about.

Does anyone have suggestions for sources of large quantities of CDs?

Colin
cp@atcon.com





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 01:54:03 -0400 (AST)
From: Joyce Owen <joyceowen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit? (actually silliness)

I have to defend the Unafolder again.  Silliness is important. I do wish
the Unafolder would break his silence and explain to all the importance
of his work to all origami folders.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 02:11:59 -0400 (AST)
From: Joyce Owen <joyceowen@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

The question of credit is important to me.  My 13 year old son
continually modifies others designs to suit his preferences.  I'm sure
this hobby will grow with him.  I want to give him proper guidance.
Also he has almost convinced me to create a web site for him.  Of
course, I will ask permission of any known creater, but what of his
modifications.  Someday I'm sure he design his own.  I want to teach him
the best ethical methods.  Please suggest guidance.
Joyce Owen
mother of the folder

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:33:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Gary Wayne Vanderbur <gwv@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Whose Credit? (LONG REPLY)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

>On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 6:15 PM, Michael J. Naughton
>[SMTP:mjnaught@crocker.com] wrote:
>> Given the (to me) surprising deference to "the creator" (as distinct =
>> from "the folder") shown on this list in recent times ......

>Well, to deal with the issue, let me re-say what I said: I would not be
>surprised if someone else had already come up with that design, so if Tara
had
>really come up with it first, then Tara can have it.   ......

<snip>

>> Mike "Just trying to figure out if all this really makes sense" Naughton
>
>Joseph Wu, Origami Artist & Multimedia Producer
>T: (604)730-0306 x 105    F: (604)732-7331   E: josephwu@ultranet.ca
>W: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca
>

*VANDY, not being able to endure his silence any further, steps upon his
soap box and speaks ...*

To all whom are following this thread,

I have been "in the fold" (so to speak) for 10 years now having started
folding in the Summer of 1987.  Since then, I have accumulated a great deal
of different Origami material from a variety of source -- both Domestic USA
and International.  I consider my Origami skills as moderate to advanced,
though I would never attempt to put myself on the same plane or level as Mr.
Lang, Mr. Wu, Mr. Montroll, etc.,  or any other distinguished  folders of
any nationality.  (My apologies for not listing every master I could think
of or should have ... )

As to the current thread, It seems apparent to me that Mr. Wu has very
eloquently stated and defended his position concerning the purse model and,
I believe, has further defined and solidified a position for the origination
and "claiming" of an Origami model.  I have followed with interest both the
replies of Mr. Naughton and (pardon me for being unsure of your gender) Tara
del Fuego, but must side with Mr. Wu and his well written answer.

I, myself, thoroughly enjoy relaxing with one of the masters creations.  A
very large part of my enjoyment comes from studying the diagrams and
wondering (sometimes in utter amazement) how they were ever able to pull
from their gray matter the creativeness to devise what sometimes certainly
appear to be fiendish and diabolical ways to fold a piece of paper.
Nonetheless, the end result bears out the talent of the creator when the
finished model stands (or sometimes, leans) in front of me.

As to "taking the credit" for a creation, It is my opinion that honor *MUST*
play an important role.  While I will not go as far as to say Origami is a
"gentlemen's (or ladie's) sport", I believe the same sore of camaraderie and
codes apply when it comes to models, their creation and their creator.

As Ms. Joyce Owens wrote, her "13 year old son continually modifies others
designs to suit his preferences."  I, too, enjoy modifying the models I try
folding, especially when I think the modification enhances the end result.
Sometimes, the modification adds to the beauty and overall "look" of the
model.  Sometimes the modification distracts from and makes the finished
model look "bad" or "tacky".  Does this mean that I have created a "new"
Origami fold or model?  Absolutely not!  Does this mean that I have affected
a modification that, in my opinion, adds to the model?  Absolutely!  Will I
benefit from or announce to the (Origami) world I have perfected a change
and should have accolades and adoration heaped upon me?  Of course not!  In
my humble way, by the addition of my modification,  I have allowed myself to
enter into the mind of the creator and view some of the seemingly random and
/ or deliberate thought processes behind the creation of a particular model.
However -- and this is, I believe, *THE* most important part -- the model
still belongs to the creator and should not be viewed as a new Origami fold
or model.

In conclusion, let me restate that I believe Mr. Wu to be "right on" in his
answer and stand by him as well as step to his defense.  Mr. Naughton may
very well be a "populizer" of a model; however, there is still a creator of
the original model.  Tara del Fuego may claim and /or insist upon taking
credit for a model's creation, but is it really necessary to defame or
otherwise tarnish the name of a person in order to "grab glory" for oneself?

It would be very nice if we could all enjoy what the masters have given us
and strive towards understanding their folds and models.  The inner peace,
joy and sense of satisfaction one gets when completing a model (complex or
not) should well overshadow any petty "nit-pickings" of "it's my football
and if I can't play with it, I'm taking it and me home!"  In other words,
let's all enjoy each other ... enjoy what we can learn from and give to each
other ... and, finally, remember that we all are part of this global
community called Earth and should work with each other, not against each
other.

*Exhausted, VANDY steps off his soapbox and wearily walks away hoping he has
been able to make his point ... "





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:31:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Brett Askinazi <brett@hagerhinge.com>
Subject: RE: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

You could paint all of your old 45's silver ;)

B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   Colin Pye [SMTP:cp@atcon.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, December 10, 1997 11:04 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list
Subject:        Re: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

I was thinking of collecting enough of them to tile a ceiling, and then
using a small halogen lamp to reflect light off of them, and onto a wall...
the main problem is I havn't found a large number of CDs that I don't care
about.

Does anyone have suggestions for sources of large quantities of CDs?

Colin
cp@atcon.com





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:22:10 -0400 (AST)
From: Darren Cumbie <slinkmaster@hotmail.com>
Subject:

Does anyone know of any books that contain good reindeer models or maybe
some sleigh models?
Thanks,
   Darren

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:26:19 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10:12 PM, Joyce Owen
[SMTP:joyceowen@hotmail.com] wrote:
> The question of credit is important to me.  My 13 year old son
> continually modifies others designs to suit his preferences.  I'm sure
> this hobby will grow with him.  I want to give him proper guidance.
> Also he has almost convinced me to create a web site for him.  Of
> course, I will ask permission of any known creater, but what of his
> modifications.  Someday I'm sure he design his own.  I want to teach him
> the best ethical methods.  Please suggest guidance.

I think most people who design models started with modifying other people's
models. It's a good way to learn. Encourage him to continue, and then to begin
doing designs of his own. There's nothing unethical about modifying; there IS
something unethical about modifying and then claiming it as your own. If it's
substantially different (e.g. taking someone's frog and turning it into a milk
truck), then you are pretty safe in claiming it as a new design. (I remember
receiving similar advice from Robert Lang about 4 or 5 years ago...)

Joseph Wu, Origami Artist & Multimedia Producer
T: (604)730-0306 x 105    F: (604)732-7331   E: josephwu@ultranet.ca
W: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:27:26 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: Whose Credit? (LONG REPLY)

On Thursday, December 11, 1997 5:34 AM, Gary Wayne Vanderbur
[SMTP:gwv@mindspring.com] wrote:
> I consider my Origami skills as moderate to advanced,
> though I would never attempt to put myself on the same plane or level as Mr.
> Lang, Mr. Wu, Mr. Montroll, etc.,  or any other distinguished  folders of
> any nationality.  (My apologies for not listing every master I could think
> of or should have ... )

Please! We're all human here. No need to deify anyone! (Besides, Robert and
John are light-years ahead of me! ;-) )

> Does this mean that I have created a "new"
> Origami fold or model?  Absolutely not!  Does this mean that I have affected
> a modification that, in my opinion, adds to the model?  Absolutely!  Will I
> benefit from or announce to the (Origami) world I have perfected a change
> and should have accolades and adoration heaped upon me?  Of course not!  In
> my humble way, by the addition of my modification,  I have allowed myself to
> enter into the mind of the creator and view some of the seemingly random and
> / or deliberate thought processes behind the creation of a particular model.
> However -- and this is, I believe, *THE* most important part -- the model
> still belongs to the creator and should not be viewed as a new Origami fold
> or model.

It depends. A sufficiently modified model could be viewed as an original
design. The line is not always clear, though. Here are some examples:

1. The first model I ever "designed" was a unicorn that was based on one of
Kasahara's horses. Was it an original design? No. It was still Kasahara's
horse, but I had modified it so that the mane became a horn. So, while I can
say that I had modified Kasahara's horse into a unicorn, I cannot say that I
had designed a unicorn.

2. Using the base that Peter Engel came up with for his centipede, I designed a
centaur. That could be considered a "modification", but it departs so radically
from the original that I can safely claim it as my own design. Indeed, I seldom
(if ever) come up with a truly original folding method. My repertoire of folds
is culled from techniques I see, and my true talent is in reusing them in
"innovative" ways. Contrast this with Robert and John who consistently come up
with new folding methods and sequences and you'll see why I consider them to be
better designers than myself.

One more thing: if you modify a model and your modification really improves the
model, then by all means let others know about it! Even the original designer
can benefit from a fresh take on their model. You may have even solved a design
problem that the designer could not solve.

> In conclusion, let me restate that I believe Mr. Wu to be "right on" in his
> answer and stand by him as well as step to his defense.  Mr. Naughton may
> very well be a "populizer" of a model; however, there is still a creator of
> the original model.

Well, Michael was not only a populariser, but actually independently created
the model. That still counts for something!

> It would be very nice if we could all enjoy what the masters have given us
> and strive towards understanding their folds and models.  The inner peace,
> joy and sense of satisfaction one gets when completing a model (complex or
> not) should well overshadow any petty "nit-pickings" of "it's my football
> and if I can't play with it, I'm taking it and me home!"  In other words,
> let's all enjoy each other ... enjoy what we can learn from and give to each
> other ... and, finally, remember that we all are part of this global
> community called Earth and should work with each other, not against each
> other.

Amen. (Although I still think you deify the designers a bit much. Respect and
appreciate, by all means, but remember that we're all regular people here!)

Joseph Wu, Origami Artist & Multimedia Producer
T: (604)730-0306 x 105    F: (604)732-7331   E: josephwu@ultranet.ca
W: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:33:49 -0400 (AST)
From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@ahand.unicamp.br>
Subject: Re: looking for reindeer/sleighs

Hi Darren,

Some notable books with reindeer/sleigh models:

Engel's "Folding the Universe" (reprinted as "Origami from
Angelfish to Zen", Dover), detailed and elegant reindeer, even forked
antlers - complex and difficult

D. Brill's "Brilliant Origami", Japan Publications: high-intermediate
reindeer, a sleigh, Santa and gift packs (no, not *everything* from a single
sheet :-) ) - probably your best bet here.

J. Montroll published a complex and detailed reindeer in an OrigamiUSA
annual collection.  You can also tweak the similar deer in "North
American Animals in Origami", Dover [note: I am quite sure, but I
may have swapped models here - deer in collection, reindeer in book]

Lang's "Complete Book of Origami", Dover: reindeer from a 2x1 rectangle.

Several deer models could convincingly pose as reindeers, like those
in Kasahara & Maekawa's "Viva! Origami"

Every book mentioned but "V!.O" and the OUSA annual is in print and
is easily available.

        Sincerely,
        Carlos
        furuti@ahand.unicamp.br www.ahand.unicamp.br/~furuti





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:40:20 -0400 (AST)
From: Brett Askinazi <brett@hagerhinge.com>
Subject: RE:

I would suggest David Brill's Book; "Brilliant Origami"

B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   Darren Cumbie [SMTP:slinkmaster@hotmail.com]
Sent:   Thursday, December 11, 1997 10:22 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list
Subject:

Does anyone know of any books that contain good reindeer models or maybe
some sleigh models?
Thanks,
   Darren

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:40:36 -0400 (AST)
From: A.Welles@student.kun.nl
Subject: Re: reindeers

Hi,

There are some (rein)deers in the following books:
- Brilliant Origami by Dave Brill
- North American Animals in Origami by John Montroll
- Origami Zoo by Robert Lang and Stephen Weiss (I think the design is by
  Robert Lang....)
- The Complete Book of Origami by Robert Lang
- Viva! Origami by Jun Maekawa (both a standing and a truly excellent
  sitting one)

But all of these are relatively difficult to fold! But worth the effort!

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





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:52:10 -0400 (AST)
From: A.Welles@student.kun.nl
Subject: RE: Whose Credit?

Hi,

I think most people's first step on the 'designing-path' is adjusting or
using other peoples'models. I did that too. It's a great way to develop
your own style. But when it comes to the credit, my opinion is like as
followed:

It really depends how different your design is from the original. I think
Robert Lang once said (in a forword of one of his books.. correct me if
I'm wrong!) that there's a big difference in turning a deer into a moose
on the one side and turning a fish into a cat on the other.

There's nothing wrong with using an existing base. That's not what I
prefer, but there's nothing wrong with it. We did it for years by using
the Bird Base, Fish Base and Frog Base. The big difference is, though
these elementary bases are quite obvious.

Keep in mind, that most current designs make use of standard procedures.
Each design is a just a way of combining several combination folds
(squash folds, petal folds, reverse folds, etc.).

When it comes to credits: when a model uses a rather complicated and
uncommon (isn't all Origami a bit uncommon?) base, developed by Mr. X and
you are Mr. (or Mrs.)Y. Then say: design: Mr. Y, after an original design
of Mr. X. Sorry for being so vague, but I guess you see my point.

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





Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:17:38 -0400 (AST)
From: Dennis Brannon <brannon@jamin.enet.dec.com>
Subject: RE: TAN:ingenious uses of freebie CDs

I've seen freebie CDs melted to form masks that are hung on the wall.
Because of the bubbling effect its hard to see that they were originally CDs.

dennis
--
Dennis Brannon
dennis.brannon@digital.com
Ayer, MA USA
