




Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:56:44 -0400 (AST)
From: Unafolder <Unafolder@aol.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>
>Will the tone of the list change? Will origami-l suddenly become the voice
>of DNA's new magazine?

We'll all be hocking wax-paper five-fold cups online, and start worshipping
binary objects.

>
>What kind of hardware and software can DNA really afford? Do they really
>have the capital to support a mailing list? I'm sure MIT has the required
>computing power and a good listserver program. I don't know this about DNA.
>(Feel free to tell me so :->.)

The good listserver program has added and subtracted the real me so many times
from the list that I was forced to go underground.

>
>What happens if DNA goes under in a year or two?
>
Umm.. protest cranes from list members flood the mailboxes of ex-DNA CEO's,
forcing a worldwide paper shortage that causes all origamists to switch to
clay as a medium of artistic expression?

>And by the way, I know of one mailing list, the bibliophile mailing list,
>that you do indeed have to subscribe to with your checkbook.
>
Send all checks to the Unafolder.

>Will DNA have the right to reprint all our postings as they see fit?
>Perhaps they will be couteous and ask first, but I suspect they have the
>legal right to use the postings in their magazine. Of course, our postings
>are public already on the web, but giving a company the rights over them
>does bother me.
>

I'll start to be concerned when Time magazine does a cover story featuring
"neat-o tricks on cutting proportions for Lang's models"

Una





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:25:22 -0400 (AST)
From: Unafolder <Unafolder@aol.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>How secure is DNA's network environment? Multiple T3's or higher through
>multiple ISP's; redundant and hardened in probably every immaginable
>way?

I hear they have a little guy with a cast iron sklllet that guards the
bandwidth, ever-vigilant for intruding bits.

>The list would move somewhere else. I'm more concerned with Joseph Wu
>moving on. Will the list be 'owned' by Joseph Wu or DNA? If he leaves
>the company, what is the state of the list? Who 'owns' the archives?
Joseph owns everything!  Next thing you know, he'll be charging admission to
the OUSA home office, and putting his picture on the Lending Library Cards!

> But perhaps Anne Lavin prefers the DNA option as well.
>

Joseph has Anne in his back pocket, with a packet of dark ,dark kami!  Or as
he is better known, "Der KamiCzar"

Download the 40mb of archives now while you can!

Una





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:32:26 -0400 (AST)
From: michael gebis <gebism@std.teradyne.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
>>>>> wrote the following on Wed, 7 Jan 1998 19:52:43 -0400 (AST)

  >> From: michael gebis <gebism@std.teradyne.com>
  >>
  >> Perhaps those who are leary would feel more comfortable if we had
  >> a good charter (to spell out what is and is not appropriate) in
  >> place.
  >>
  >> If forced, I'd suggest something short and simple like: --
  >> Origami-L is an unmoderated public mailing list for origami
  >> related discussion by the online origami community.  On-topic
  >> advertisements are permitted, but should be short and
  >> informational.  --

  Jeff> Who would "pass into law" the charter, who would enforce it
  Jeff> and who would dole out punishment ;-) ?

  Jeff> Jeff Kerwood jkerwood@usaor.net

The Man, of course[1].

We could ennumerate punishments, enforcements, and responsibilities all
day long, and before long, we would have our own micro-government in place
to police origami-l.

Then again, authority comes from the governed.  If for some reason, Joseph
Wu decided to try to become "Emperor of all that is Origami-L" I think
a sufficient number of people would say "This sucks, it's not even
close to charter, let's form origimi-l-2."

On the other hand (or is this the third hand[2]?) we're coming up with
complex solutions to simple non-problems.  Joseph Wu is not going to
be a fascist.  As long as there's a statement saying "This list is for
all the people of the world" I would feel comfortable that the members
of the list would keep it that way.

[1] See The Onion's "Man of the Year."
[2] This would be really nice to have when folding a Lang.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:36:24 -0400 (AST)
From: Unafolder <Unafolder@aol.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

Does that mean we need officers now?  And a paperliamentarian?  And a
chaplain?  What should the official religion be for Origami-L?  Who picks the
logo?  Will candidates be subject to an eligibility period before they can
become officers?  Who's going to design the logo?  Will decisions be made by
majority vote, 2/3, 3/4, or will an electoral college be chosen to make the
tough decisions for us?  Will referendums be available, or will they be folded
before they make it to the floor?

Where will we have the official Listserver softball game?  Who's going to
coach?

These are difficult questions.

Una





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:40:17 -0400 (AST)
From: STEVE179@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Montroll Pelican

Hi. I'm trying to work thru Montroll's "Birds in Origami".
At step 14 of the Pelican (page 19) whenever I try to crimp fold the tail the
paper rips. It seems like there are too many layers. I'm using 6" foil paper.
Is the paper my problem or do the folds have to be sharper ?...I'd appreciate
any input. Thanks.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 22:31:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Kim Best <Kim.Best@m.cc.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Unafolder wrote:

> I say, "To what end?"   As an official member of the Lowlife Capitalist Club,
> I can think of very little advantage for a spammer to capture the market of
> online paperfolders.  We are important only to each other.

Hey!  Don't give any one ideas!

I can just see it now

$$$ Make Big money folding envelopes $$$

and

!!!! Pick up big breasted women using origami !!!

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: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 22:50:52 -0400 (AST)
From: Michael Clark <mdc@ivc.com>
Subject: Re: A new home for origami-l?

I'd like to add my 3.67 DeutscheMarks worth to the discussion.  One of my
companies - Digital Aspect - a web design firm, hosted, for a while, a mail
list like origami-l, but dedicated to web design.  We did so because we
were interested in maintaining a forum for free and open discussion of
web-design issues.  No ads, no bias, no spam.  Freely given, gratefully
accepted. I think we should give Joseph and DNA the benefit of believing
that they share the same motivations, at least until proven otherwise.

Lederhosen,

<<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>>
Michael Clark                <> The boy, ah say, the boy's
IVC,Inc.                     <> about as sharp as a
Apex, North Carolina         <> bowlin' ball!
mdc@ivc.com                  <>           - Foghorn Leghorn
http://www.ivc.com           <>





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 23:03:44 -0400 (AST)
From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

At 10:31 PM 1/7/98 -0400, Kim Best <Kim.Best@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>!!!! Pick up big breasted women using origami !!!

Will this "paper bra" thread ever end?

Marc





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:18:31 -0400 (AST)
From: Chinh Nguyen <chinhsta@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Montroll Pelican

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 STEVE179@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Hi. I'm trying to work thru Montroll's "Birds in Origami".
> At step 14 of the Pelican (page 19) whenever I try to crimp fold the tail the
> paper rips. It seems like there are too many layers. I'm using 6" foil paper.
> Is the paper my problem or do the folds have to be sharper ?...I'd appreciate
> any input. Thanks.

Try at least 7" paper.  This model gets fairly thick, and you'll be a
happier camper if you just use large paper.





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 01:51:21 -0400 (AST)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l? (LONG)

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Joseph Wu wrote:
> We will probably add a single line to each message pointing to a web page
> that gives the information that Maarten gives in his monthly admin postings
> and also provides the search service. I would think that that would be
> acceptable?

No. FAQLs and other monthly (or bi-monthly, if they are small enough) postings
are welcome, but don't tamper with my postings.

> 3. [...] We don't control who can become a member (although if we do get
> someone who is causing a major disruption, we could block them from
> joining).
[...]
> DNA will not take an active role in policing the list content. I will
> personally take an active role in doing this, but only as a regular list
> member.

Sorry, but this doesn't seem to fit together. Clarify, please.

> nor will there be ads in the mailing list.

.. other than the usual ones. BTW: I cannot remember that Joseph ever posted
an ad to the list.

Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 04:45:45 -0400 (AST)
From: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@health.wa.gov.au>
Subject:

Thank you, oh great unafolder, for getting to the point of all this
serious stuff.  You have inspired me to think of two further
opportunities for commercialising origami - one is to make foldable
underwear - so useful for camping or escaping from cuckolded partners
(and if your legitimate partner finds a crumpled piece of paper in your
briefcase, she/he will be none the wiser).
Secondly this has led me on (some of you may follow my logic - and if
you don't , please feel grateful), why not edible origami?  Rice paper
is too crackle, how about flattened dried fruit, or those revolting flat
fruit things that are sold to our kids as being nutritious and healthy?
There, I have thrown down the gauntlet!  Let the competition begin!
Clare Chamberlain
Planning Officer
Healthcare Investment Unit
Program Purchasing
Health Department of Western Australia
189 Royal Street, EAST PERTH, WA 6004
Clare.Chamberlain@health.wa.gov.au





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:48:33 -0400 (AST)
From: tomh@groupworks.com (Tom Hill)
Subject: Re:

Chamberlain, Clare wrote:

> Thank you, oh great unafolder, for getting to the point of all this
> serious stuff.  ...

> Secondly this has led me on (some of you may follow my logic - and if
> you don't , please feel grateful), why not edible origami?  Rice paper
> is too crackle, how about flattened dried fruit, or those revolting flat
> fruit things that are sold to our kids as being nutritious and healthy?
> There, I have thrown down the gauntlet!  Let the competition begin!

Well, ok. I guess I've been a lurker long enough...

I got two books as Christmas presents: Montroll's African Animals, and Mary
Bell's Complete Food Dehydrator Cookbook. Now, I think I'll try cutting a
large thin slice of Beef, folding it into a crane, and putting it in my
dehydrator to make "edible origami". Here's an even better idea: Is there a
turkey in the Montroll bird book? I'll make a "Jerky Turkey".

Sorry, I couldn't resist. All this back and forth about moving the list is
just too much for me. I say, let's give the two contenders each a single
piece of paper and let the one who can create the most different animals
with it before it rips be the new host. (Just kidding). I think it sounds
like either one of you would do a great job, so why don't the two of you
discuss it by email, and let the rest of us know which one of you wants the
job more.

Peace,

Tom Hill





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 12:40:04 -0400 (AST)
From: Howard Portugal <howardp@fast.net>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

I vote for Joseph to take over the list based on his long commitment to the
Origami community.
--
Howard Portugal   |  When you have eliminated the impossible,
West Chester, PA  |  whatever remains, however improbable,
howardp@fast.net  |  must be the truth.
    |  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    |  Sherlock Holmes, in The Sign of Four, ch. 6 (1889).





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 12:57:01 -0400 (AST)
From: DonnaJowal <DonnaJowal@aol.com>
Subject: Unicorn?how to dye the back of foil

Maldon asked that I share the process of dying(or dyeing?) the paper backing
of foil to produce a unicorn with a colored paper body and a foil horn.

When I took the unicorn class we used colored artist's ink, available from art
supply stores, with a cotton ball (held with a clip-type clothes pin, or use
rubber gloves) to dye the paper side.  It was probably almost ten years ago,
so I'm vague on the actual technique (i.e., "wet" versus "dry", even one way
strokes, then turn 90 degrees and do even one way strokes in the opposite
direction).  You should be able to do this with any paper backed foil.  I've
found that after it dries it's actually nicer to fold thatn it was before.
You don't need to make use of the foil side as in the unicorn horn;  even on a
single colored model, when your folding is a little off, instead of white
edges you get a nice metallic gleam that can be quite lovely.

There are other ways to color the back of foil.  I took foil paper to a
marbling class and colored the back by that method.  Mark Kennedy taught
several classes in dyeing the back of foil with liquid water colors.  He tends
to keep the paper from getting soaked and uses multiple colors with high
contrasts.  I use his method but keep the paper very wet, mix the plain colors
with the pearlized colors and let it all bleed together for a look that has a
slight shimmer of irridescence.

There is also backcoating, or laminating tissue to the back of foil.

Origami USA publishes a booklet called "Decorating and Enhancing Paper for
Origami", which is available by mail order for about $10.  It also includes
using rubber stamps.

It's a lot of fun and you can develop your own techniques after you learn
about the types of processes and materials involved.  You really can make your
models look much better, especially if you like to use foil but don't like the
shiny look.

Have a good time,

Donna





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 14:26:34 -0400 (AST)
From: MSPARKS@pinkertons.com (MATTHEW SPARKS 05-025)
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l=?US-ASCII?Q?=3F?=

Here are my thoughts on re-hosting the origami list.

It matters in absolutely no way who hosts the list.

When I joined the list I didn't worry about who "owned" it, why should I   now.

On a list my "vote" equates to whether or not I stay subscribed, nothing   more.

Things written to a list are always copied, cut, pasted, commented on   anyway
so why do I care who "uses" it, hopefully they'll keep my name attached,   but
     if
they don't, oh well.

If the list is run "poorly", I will unsubscribe and join another, or   start my
     own.

Running lists is a hassle, If someone wants to do it, fine with me.

Matthew Makaala Sparks                          Desk (818) 380-8712
Senior Technical Support Specialist             Fax  (818) 380-8677
Pinkerton Security & Investigation Services
15910 Ventura Blvd.; Suite 900
Encino, CA  91436                               Ham Radio KE6GVI
  email = MSparks@Pinkertons.com
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Say "Plugh"...                                 "XYZZY"





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 14:34:26 -0400 (AST)
From: James Fowler High School Library <fowlerj1@cadvision.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

My two cents worth. Not being much of a computer expert this may not be
possible, but could we have the best of both worlds and provide the list on
MIT, administered by Joseph. Perhaps MIT would need an on-site person, so it
would not be feasible. I concur with Pat Slider re copyright issues, and
though it is so easy to say let Joseph take care of it, we do need to realize
that at the moment we have an open forum for discussion and a commercial
venture no matter how altruistic its original intentions cannot be guaranteed
to be totally impartial forever.

More grist for the mill. In this very open arcitecture, I wonder who will make
the final decision. After all, when both nobody and everybody owns something
(as in the Origami listserv), there is a certain sense of anarchy prevailing.
I guess if we don't like what happens we can always create a new listserv.
(What a terrible thought. The present list serv meets my needs so well, I hate
to see this problem arise.)

Nigel Pottle
npottle@cbe.ab.ca (personal address as opposed to business address.) If you
wish to dialogue with me directly please use my personal address.)





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 15:44:54 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: NORM: Who posts most?

>Of course several of us who are in the high numbers have been
>subscribed using different addresses at different times, so the
>number that the listserv provides in its "statistics" listing is not
>our all-time total.

An interesting point is that the server does not keep all of its old
records. I did a check myself and found out that I had posted 340 messages
from my account in Japan, but there is no record whatsoever for my postings
from my university account before that.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 15:47:12 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l? Response to Valerie Vann (LONG)

>if the list is
>unmoderated, then by definition & custom, no one, not even the
>owner, has the right to censor messages or restrict membership.

I think I've made it very clear that this will remain true.

>However, it appears that the "vote" is running in favor of
>Joseph Wu and DNS assuming list operation and hosting. So I have
>a few suggestions:

There has been no "vote", really. Just discussion. A decision will have to
be made, obviously, but we don't know what the timeframe for this change
will be yet. I don't think we're in that much of a hurry, really.

>1. A special effort be made to contact long timers on the list
>to make them aware of that the list is going to be moving. There
>are a number of people who due to the season, etc. are not
>currently monitoring the list closely, or are temporarily off the
>list. I think they deserve to be informed.
>
>(I have CC'd this message to a number of people who may not be closely
>monitoring the list presently; if you receive a duplicate, I do
>apologize.)

Why? The list membership will be transferred to the new server (wherever it
is).  All of those people will continue to be on the list. And NTSN can
easily redirect any origami-l mail sent to it directly to the new server.
Administration requests to NTSN can be automatically handled with a message
saying where the new administration of the list can be found.

>2. I would like to see Anne LaVin continue to be the official
>"owner" of the list, and if possible, maintain a mirror archive
>of the message traffic at MIT. Then if the new host doesn't work
>out or some issue of commercialism arises, as "owner", she would
>have the right to look for a new home for the list, and there
>would be a backup for the message archive.

This is also a non-issue, really. If anyone is unhappy with the way the
list is run at any location, they can easily set up their own list anywhere
they choose. The archives are freely available, too, so those won't be
lost. Look at what happened when the number of francophones increased on
this list: they spun off a new list themselves to discuss origami in
French. Hosting a list is simply that: hosting. The system is an anarchy,
and anyone trying to impose their will on everyone else will quickly find
themselves out in the cold.

>3. I wouldn't have a problem with DNA posting the odd announcement
>about their magazine and other origami related material (just as
>I have no problem with the occasional posts from Kim's Cranes and
>Fascinating Folds, or people offering books for sale). I WOULD have
>a BIG problem with any other use of the list by the hosting
>organization.

See my response to point (2).

>4. I am hoping that a new home will also result in our having the
>advantage of newer listserver software. For example, one of the other
>mail lists I subscribe to has an archive that is accessible by web
>browser, with messages presented by subject (thread) or date. That
>list has a high volume of attached graphic files, and in the archive
>these are linked to the messages themselves, so that you don't lose
>track of what goes with what. (I know some others on origami-L are
>also on that list; if Joseph is interested in what software is
>being used, I could ask about it. The list itself is "private",
>not open to public subscription, and the archive site requires a
>user name and password.)

Yes, please do find out what software is being used. We have access to
several different listserver packages, but none of them are the latest
versions. The problem is that many of the formerly free packages have been
picked up by companies and are being sold at exhorbitant rates. We cannot
justify purchasing licenses for expensive software at this time (since our
venture has not started to make any money yet).

>5. MIT and Anne LaVin would therefore be my first choice for a new
>home. Either way, though I would prefer that Anne remain "owner",
>we should have a firm commitment IN WRITING (posted to the list) from
>the new host that commercial use will continue to be confined to
>relevant announcements, that the list will be unmoderated, uncensored,
>and open to all, and that the archive will be maintained verbatim, uncut
>and uncensored, freely accessible by anonymous ftp or web browser.

I've already given that.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:04:10 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>Joseph, everyone, i'm sorry if i ignited some of these complaints which seem
>really stupid... My hands usually do the typing --not my head :>-- and
>sometimes i mistype a complete word.. When i wrote about advertisements i
>meant about announcements of updates to web pages, and stuff like that.

Don't worry about it, Chris. This issue will have to be worked out through
lots of discussion anyway, so contributions from everyone are welcome!
(Including some of the inane ones from the Unafolder.)

>    Also, what is this (pardon my rudeness) whining about the list going
>from a supposedly public domain into a private domain?  One, so far i
>haven't really seen any bad things that would happen with this switch except
>people changing their links page, and maybe some confusion in the beginning.
>But I sincerely doubt, and correct me if i misunderstood this, that going to
>a private domain means we'll have to pay to be on the list.

The list will remain in the public domain. That is the nature of the list.
The change is only in the hosting site. No fees will be charged.

>Commercial
>sites are usually FASTER than other sites, and all that matters to me is
>faster, because sometimes i see replies to posts, before i actually see the
>original post!  And if we can get around some of these times when the list
>might kick you off, etc.. I'm all for it and I say we switch.

Well, the timing is not due to the server, but due to lags in transmissions
between the server and your computer. Messages can travel by different
routes, and some can be delayed more than others.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:05:50 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>I vote for Joseph to take over the list based on his long commitment to the
>Origami community.

Well, if it comes down to that, Howard, there are many others out there
with much longer commitments. I've only been a part of that community since
1994, although I've been folding for much longer. I guess I just have a way
of making enough noise to be noticed. Anne was one of the founders of
origami-l back in 1987...

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:07:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>My two cents worth.

Since this is an Americocentric list, you'll need 3 of our cents to give
your 2 cents worth. Ironic, since the host is in Canada...  ;)

>Not being much of a computer expert this may not be
>possible, but could we have the best of both worlds and provide the list on
>MIT, administered by Joseph. Perhaps MIT would need an on-site person, so it
>would not be feasible. I concur with Pat Slider re copyright issues, and
>though it is so easy to say let Joseph take care of it, we do need to realize
>that at the moment we have an open forum for discussion and a commercial
>venture no matter how altruistic its original intentions cannot be guaranteed
>to be totally impartial forever.

Actually, the option you mention has been discussed by Anne and myself. We
are both waiting for NSTN to give us more info on their schedule before we
proceed. In the meantime, we can all discuss to our hearts' content.

As for copyright issues, the archives are openly accessable. Anyone can
take that info at any time and use it as they will. I don't think there is
a legal precedent for the ownership (or even for the copyrightability) of
mailing list archives. So that is really a separate issue from who hosts
the site.

>More grist for the mill. In this very open arcitecture, I wonder who will make
>the final decision. After all, when both nobody and everybody owns something
>(as in the Origami listserv), there is a certain sense of anarchy prevailing.
>I guess if we don't like what happens we can always create a new listserv.
>(What a terrible thought. The present list serv meets my needs so well, I hate
>to see this problem arise.)

But that is the best guarantee you have that the new host will not try
anything stupid with the currentl list.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:13:13 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: New home for the list

>Sorry, I couldn't resist. All this back and forth about moving the list is
>just too much for me. I say, let's give the two contenders each a single
>piece of paper and let the one who can create the most different animals
>with it before it rips be the new host. (Just kidding). I think it sounds
>like either one of you would do a great job, so why don't the two of you
>discuss it by email, and let the rest of us know which one of you wants the
>job more.

Anne and I had a nice long phone conversation last night. She is concerned
about the amount of time she would have to devote to administering the
list, although computing resources are not a problem. We have discussed the
option of having me administer the list while it ran off of an MIT
computer, but we have some logistical questions to settle first. Basically,
Anne does not seem to care where the list is hosted. We both understand
that it is really not an issue who hosts the site. The reason that DNA
wants to host the site (and I've mentioned it before) is because it would
provide yet another visible link between us and the origami community. This
may be helpful in convincing investors/advertisers/whomever that we are
committed to this magazine project and have a great interest in making sure
it is successful. Beyond that, this is actually a losing proposition for us
since we will have to divert resources (both human and equipment) to serve
this purpose.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:21:18 -0400 (AST)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: NO: Another home for origami-l? (shortish)

Here's my opinion on the whole subject of hosting the mailing list.
Please note that I'm a paranoid netizen who sees censorship conspiracies
everywhere and wades through tons of unwanted advertisement e-mails, so
I might be slightly biased.

First, thanks to Anne and Joseph for both offering to host the list. I
don't really care who/what/where hosts origami-l as long as it stays
independent and nobody but the list members decide what is posted and
what is acceptable.

Joseph stated that "if we do get someone who is causing a major
disruption, we could block them from joining".
This is exactly what I mean by "independent". I don't want anybody
blocked for any reasons, because deciding what "a major disruption" is
should be OUR business and not that of the listowner. Some people
considered Casalongas or the Unafolders posts "a major disruption" ...

Joseph writes that origami-l is a selling point to the advertisers. He
also states that there will be no ads to origami-l. Sort of a mixed
message.

Joseph Wu wrote
> Yes, the list of addresses can be protected from outsiders. However ANY
> LIST MEMBER can also get a list of addresses.
Some listservers don't allow you to get a list of the members at all!

All in all, I'd rather we had someone host this list who has no
commercial ties to origami at all. I do trust Joseph and his company not
something like that (trying to translate a citation from the bible).
It would have made sense to me if the owner of origami.net had offered
to host the list, but that doesn't seem to happen.

OK, if I had a vote, I'd vote for MIT.

Matthias





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:23:07 -0400 (AST)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: A new home for origami-l?

Joseph Wu wrote:
>Valerie Vann wrote:
> >if the list is
> >unmoderated, then by definition & custom, no one, not even the
> >owner, has the right to censor messages or restrict membership.
>
> I think I've made it very clear that this will remain true.

Not quite. In an earlier message, you wrote that "if we do get someone
who is causing a major disruption, we could block them from joining".

Just playing devil's advocate here :-).

Matthias





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:40:20 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: NO: Another home for origami-l? (shortish)

>Joseph stated that "if we do get someone who is causing a major
>disruption, we could block them from joining".
>This is exactly what I mean by "independent". I don't want anybody
>blocked for any reasons, because deciding what "a major disruption" is
>should be OUR business and not that of the listowner. Some people
>considered Casalongas or the Unafolders posts "a major disruption" ...

>>Valerie Vann wrote:
>> >if the list is
>> >unmoderated, then by definition & custom, no one, not even the
>> >owner, has the right to censor messages or restrict membership.
>> I think I've made it very clear that this will remain true.
>Not quite. In an earlier message, you wrote that "if we do get someone
>who is causing a major disruption, we could block them from joining".
>Just playing devil's advocate here :-).

Sorry. What I meant by "major disruption" was anything that disrupted the
services of the host machine. Therefore, any attempts to crash the server
with spamming, huge files, or similar abuse would result in blockage. A
warning would be given first. I think that this is reasonable. "Major
disruption" does not include anything said by anyone. The list members will
have to police that sort of thing themselves.

>Joseph writes that origami-l is a selling point to the advertisers. He
>also states that there will be no ads to origami-l. Sort of a mixed
>message.

As I've said, this is more in the way of establishing credibility than
anything else. The list will remain advertising-free.

>Some listservers don't allow you to get a list of the members at all!

Right. Several others have already pointed this out. It is usually a
setting on the listserver. I was assuming that, since I had already stated
that we would maintain the status quo, people would continue to want the
list accessible to members.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 16:56:26 -0400 (AST)
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Re: NO: Another home for origami-l? (shortish)

On  8 Jan 98 at 16:21, Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:

> Joseph Wu wrote
> > Yes, the list of addresses can be protected from outsiders. However ANY
> > LIST MEMBER can also get a list of addresses.
> Some listservers don't allow you to get a list of the members at all!

Joseph and I have been chatting [off list] about this.  Joseph made his
statement *BECAUSE*THE*CURRENT*LIST*ALREADY*WORKS*THIS*WAY* and he
promised not to change anything.  I've opined to him that I think it is a
bad idea and, indeed, I set up the mailing lists that I administer so that
*no*one* can get the list of email addresses other than by emailing me [as
the administrator] and asking.

If you believe [as do I] that that would be a better way to do things,
then regardless of whether the list is set up at MIT or DNA it can be
arranged so that the email-address-list is blocked.

[on a more cynical note, I suggested to Joseph that if/when he sets up the
list at DNA, he just disables the 'LIST' command and waits to see how long
it is before anyone notices... and when someone does, -they- could then
step forward and explain just why they need the address-list [and why
asking the list admin for a copy isn't a sufficient path for getting it].

  /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:04:18 -0400 (AST)
From: michael gebis <gebism@std.teradyne.com>
Subject: Re: A new home for origami-l?

>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
>>>>> wrote the following on Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:23:07 -0400 (AST)

  Matthias> Joseph Wu wrote:
  >> Valerie Vann wrote: >if the list is >unmoderated, then by
  >> definition & custom, no one, not even the >owner, has the right
  >> to censor messages or restrict membership.
  >>
  >> I think I've made it very clear that this will remain true.

  Matthias> Not quite. In an earlier message, you wrote that "if we do
  Matthias> get someone who is causing a major disruption, we could
  Matthias> block them from joining".

  Matthias> Just playing devil's advocate here :-).

What's to stop a list administrator at _any_ site from engaging in
despotism like this?





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:10:56 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l? Response to Valerie Vann (LONG)

Joseph writes:
<<There has been no "vote", really. Just discussion>>

That's why "vote" is in quotes in my message. There is no formal
procedure as far as I can determine for relocating a list. NSTN
could just dump the archive and take it off their listserver as
far as I tell. If they want to be nice about it, then the fate
of the archive and relocation decision is apparently up to the
list owner.

Valerie





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:14:07 -0400 (AST)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: New home for the list

Joseph Wu indited:

+it is successful. Beyond that, this is actually a losing proposition for us
+since we will have to divert resources (both human and equipment) to serve
+this purpose.

It is that last point that has me more concerned than any possibility
of hi-jacking the list for nefarious commercial purposes.

Lets assume that DNA becomes the host for origami-l.  As proposed, DNA
won't make anything directly from being host, and will in fact incur
some expenses (hopefully small).  If/When they get hit with an economic
crunch origami-l will either get booted, or left to wither.  But that
is no worse that the irritating unsubscribe/postpone behaviour that the
nstn and its seemingly absent administrator do now.

I can't get really up in arms about DNA being commercial when NSTN is
already.  We could do a lot worse than EITHER Joseph or Anne.  My
concern is only that the transition be as smooth as possible.

-D'gou





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:27:29 -0400 (AST)
From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@sci.fi>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

>A serious note from the Unafolder:

>The current list of members is available by sending a command to the
>listserver NOW.  Some insidious capitalism pigfolder could easily sell the
>list of subscribers to origami-l ,and could have for years.

>I say, "To what end?"   As an official member of the Lowlife Capitalist
>Club, I can think of very little advantage for a spammer to capture the
>market of online paperfolders.  We are important only to each other.

I just received mail from BLAZEMONGER sales department, offering a
massive 0.001% discount on their new "it's BLAZEMONGER, it's BIG!"
-paper, which is as thick as it's wide. 10 sheets only $150, fully
voluntary, only thing is that if I don't buy, they send Luigi and Vito
to break my kneecaps.

Uh, too much coffee isn't good for me :)

Jorma





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:30:35 -0400 (AST)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: NO: Another home for origami-l? (shortish)

+[on a more cynical note, I suggested to Joseph that if/when he sets up the
+list at DNA, he just disables the 'LIST' command and waits to see how long
+it is before anyone notices... and when someone does, -they- could then
+step forward and explain just why they need the address-list [and why
+asking the list admin for a copy isn't a sufficient path for getting it].

Given the number of problems (postpone/unsubscribe) that origami-l has
had, LIST is a very good way to find out if you are still on, and if
so, under what address.  I suppose in the best of all possible worlds
those problems wouldn't happen... but if Joseph really is going to keep
the new list the same as the old then he'll have to manually postpone
and unsubscribe people to keep preserve the same level of service. ;-)
;-)  Given that there is no restriction on who can access the archives,
nor on what can be done with them, I see this is as more of locking
windows while leaving the doors wide open.

-D'gou





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:36:17 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l? Response to Valerie Vann (LONG)

Joseph writes:

<<Why? The list membership will be transferred to the new server (wherever it
<<is).  All of those people will continue to be on the list. And NTSN can
<<easily redirect any origami-l mail sent to it directly to the new server.
<<Administration requests to NTSN can be automatically handled with a message
<<saying where the new administration of the list can be found.>>

Well, it *appeared* as if there were some sort of informal democratic
procedure occuring here, with list members having an opportunity to state
their opinion on the matter of a new home. My suggestion had nothing to
do with the mechanics of the listserver transfer. It was prompted by the
fact that due to the timing, i.e. a season when many listmembers are
not paying close attention to the list, that it is *just possible* that
some of those folks might appreciate an opportunity for some input to
the process, rather than just suddenly finding the list has been moved
to a different environment (or what seems to some of us as a different
environment philosophically.)

While I will most probably go along with whatever the outcome is, I
would be unhappy with having it just thrust down my throat with no
opportunity for discussion or input, and I suspect there are others,
including some folks not currently on the list or closely monitoring
it, and who have made contributions to the success of the list, who
feel the same way.

If the transfer "isn't urgent", what is the harm in letting as many
members as possible put in their 2 cents?

<<This is also a non-issue, really. If anyone is unhappy with the way the
<<list is run at any location, they can easily set up their own list anywhere
<<they choose. >>

Not to me, it is not a "non-issue". Do you really imagine, Joseph, that the
origami online community would benefit from multiple lists, and/or a
splintering of the group? A number of people, as I recall, expressed that
concern at the time of the discussion of an origami newsgroup. And the more
lists, groups and fragments, the more there will be of us who simply don't
have time for all of them.

<<I've already given that. >>

I'd still like to see it in black and white, coming from DNA specifically,
as a corporate committment, not just from Joseph Wu. (Seems to me it would
be excellent public relations too, for a company that aims to be a force
in web journalism.)

Valerie





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 17:54:44 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l? Response to Valerie Vann

>Well, it *appeared* as if there were some sort of informal democratic
>procedure occuring here, with list members having an opportunity to state
>their opinion on the matter of a new home.

True.

>My suggestion had nothing to
>do with the mechanics of the listserver transfer. It was prompted by the
>fact that due to the timing, i.e. a season when many listmembers are
>not paying close attention to the list, that it is *just possible* that
>some of those folks might appreciate an opportunity for some input to
>the process, rather than just suddenly finding the list has been moved
>to a different environment (or what seems to some of us as a different
>environment philosophically.)

Ah. I misunderstood.

>Not to me, it is not a "non-issue". Do you really imagine, Joseph, that the
>origami online community would benefit from multiple lists, and/or a
>splintering of the group? A number of people, as I recall, expressed that
>concern at the time of the discussion of an origami newsgroup. And the more
>lists, groups and fragments, the more there will be of us who simply don't
>have time for all of them.

No. What I'm saying is that, since anyone can form a new mailing list at
any time,  it would not be in DNA's best interests to become fascist about
its management of origami-l. If we were truly that stupid, everyone would
just jump ship to a more friendly list. Unmoderated mailing lists are
functional anarchies. We're just offering to host the thing, and to be able
to tell people that we host the thing. Nothing more.

><<I've already given that. >>
>
>I'd still like to see it in black and white, coming from DNA specifically,
>as a corporate committment, not just from Joseph Wu. (Seems to me it would
>be excellent public relations too, for a company that aims to be a force
>in web journalism.)

All right, then. What exactly do you want covered, and who do you want it
"signed" by? If it is to be posted to the list, it will probably still be
sent by me since outsiders cannot post.

Also, I should have thought of this sooner. If you want to know more about
us and our commitment to cultural pursuits, take a gander at our web site:
<http://www.dna.bc.ca>.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:54:27 -0400 (AST)
From: Maldon7929 <Maldon7929@aol.com>
Subject: Re:  A new home for origami-l.

Joseph,

If your on-line zine doesn't meet projections does DNA have contingency plans
for  hosting or moving the list?

Maldon





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:22:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re:  A new home for origami-l.

>If your on-line zine doesn't meet projections does DNA have contingency plans
>for  hosting or moving the list?

This, of course, is a real concern. In the event that it becomes necessary
for us to move the list, we will give plenty of warning and do whatever is
needed to ease that transition.

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





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:28:45 -0400 (AST)
From: Rachel Katz <mandrk@pb.net>
Subject: Cranes for Sue-some good news

Thanks to folders who are sending in their cranes, we are closing in our goal
of 1,000. Do send them in if you still have them, we'll use all we get somehow.

There's a little good news;  at Christmas, I sent Sue one crane and told her
it was a deposit on the 1,000 that her origami friends were making her. I'd
like to think we have helped in some way, yesterday she told me that her main
tumor has shrunk by 10%! This is the first piece of positive news since her
diagnosis months ago.

Rachel Katz
Origami - it's not just for squares!





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 21:01:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Dahlia Schwartz <dahlias@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: A new home for origami-l?

I suppose this is the end of my lurking days.   Nothing like a good
controversy to draw all of us lurkers "into the fold."  (If I were the
unafolder I'd be suspicious of a neo-capitalist plot to expose those of
us exploiting the benefits of this communal effort -- but I'm not.)

First:  I must say this is a wonderful list-serve and a wonderful
community (in the best sense of the word) & I have thoroughly enjoyed
all the exchanges, origami tips, etc.  :).

Second:  Speaking as a law student (sorry...but I plan on using my
powers for good!)  -- there would be nothing legally binding about
having DNA post any commitment to the group.  A contract becomes binding
only when "consideration" -- that is, something valuable -- is exchanged
from one party to another.  Because those of us in the West live in
capitalist societies, "valuable" tends to mean "worth money" (and paper
money is usually worth more than coined money -- and this listserve is
about paper and...????).  In short, as many have pointed out, the best
way to sustain this self-policing (or self-gently nudging -- which is
what I've observed) little community will be to do what everyone has
been doing:  contribute if you like what you see.  Unsubscribe if you
don't.  And, band together to solve any problems that might arise (e.g.,
if DNA "folded").

Third:  just a thought for Mr. Wu (sorry..the formality occurs
naturally) -- perhaps a selling point to advertisers could be the
usefulness of this group as a resource.  For instance, if I were
publishing a new origami book, or developing a new product line related
to origami, I'd certainly be delighted to have a group of folks who are
knowledgeable, precise, and dedicated test out and comment on my new
product...

Enough said.  I look forward to future discussions emanating from
wherever they might reside.

Peace.

dahlia





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 21:13:16 -0400 (AST)
From: Rjlang@aol.com
Subject: Re:  origami software sighting

>>>>
A program called Origami: the Secret life of paper $49.95
says it has about 80 quicktime movies showing the steps for a dozen
folds...[snip]...The publisher is listed as Casady & Greene.
I looked back on the list and didn't see anything on this.
<<<<

> Is this new?

The program is about a year old. The Win3.1/Win95/Mac version just came out
(formerly it was Mac-only).

> is it any good?

Yes, it's very good. (Of course, I'm biased: see below).

> who did it?

Cloudrunner Software (a.k.a. Neil and Jean Alexander, who are also members of
origami-L) put the show together; origami content was provided by me and
Peter Engel. Works by the world's origami masters were provided by the
world's origami masters.

The cross-platform version was recently favorably reviewed in "Smart
Computing" magazine, the January issue.

Robert J. Lang





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 22:34:52 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l? (LONG)

On Wednesday, January 07, 1998 9:51 PM, Sebastian Marius Kirsch
[SMTP:skirsch@t-online.de] wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Joseph Wu wrote:
> > We will probably add a single line to each message pointing to a web page
> > that gives the information that Maarten gives in his monthly admin postings
> > and also provides the search service. I would think that that would be
> > acceptable?
>
> No. FAQLs and other monthly (or bi-monthly, if they are small enough)
> postings are welcome, but don't tamper with my postings.

So you would rather deal with all of the "How do I unsubscribe?" messages than
have a single line pointer at the end of each message?

> > 3. [...] We don't control who can become a member (although if we do get
> > someone who is causing a major disruption, we could block them from
> > joining).
> [...]
> > DNA will not take an active role in policing the list content. I will
> > personally take an active role in doing this, but only as a regular list
> > member.
>
> Sorry, but this doesn't seem to fit together. Clarify, please.

DNA's responsibility will be restricted to the technical issues of hosting the
list, including dealing with spammers and other attacks on the functionality of
the host server. Repeated attacks will be blocked. As for list content, that is
up to the members to police, and I will certainly do my job as a regular list
member (not as the host server administrator) if such occasions arise.

> > nor will there be ads in the mailing list.
>
> .. other than the usual ones. BTW: I cannot remember that Joseph ever posted
> an ad to the list.

I can't remember, either. 8) And I meant that DNA would not be posting ads
(i.e. come and buy our stuff ads, not including announcements of new issues of
the magazine) for itself or for its advertisers.

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, 08 Jan 1998 22:43:02 -0400 (AST)
From: STEVE179 <STEVE179@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Montroll Pelican

Thanks. I think *fairly thick* is an understatement ! Does the foil or not
foil matter that much ?

----------
> From: Chinh Nguyen <chinhsta@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <origami-l@nstn.ca>
> Subject: Re: Montroll Pelican
> Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 11:18 PM
>
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 STEVE179@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Hi. I'm trying to work thru Montroll's "Birds in Origami".
> > At step 14 of the Pelican (page 19) whenever I try to crimp fold the
tail the
> > paper rips. It seems like there are too many layers. I'm using 6" foil
paper.
> > Is the paper my problem or do the folds have to be sharper ?...I'd
appreciate
> > any input. Thanks.
>
> Try at least 7" paper.  This model gets fairly thick, and you'll be a
> happier camper if you just use large paper.





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 23:24:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: list, port or starboard

Ok fans as I see it we are now ending up the first round of "Conspiracy
Theory",
or as we are found of calling it, democracy in action, or not, if we're
lucky!  Hah! and they called us mad when we talked about A FREE PRESS, but
still we had to put our dime on the counter (oops, did I just date myself?)
to buy the paper.  Then we had to read the paper, or not, then comes the
folding and the bird cages.... aahhh!!! it's all tooo much for me, my bain
is going to explode!!!

Ah! I feel much better now.

as to the list, it was allways available or not, and a point for the
bussiness man over the supposed pure academic... The bussiness man is more
careful to keep his machinary in working condition, he is paid to.  If he
didn't he wouldn't last long in the land of cyberspace were hackers lurk in
dark corners waiting for some one with an extra gigabyte of space he can
fill with stolen programs, and dishwashing detergent adds!
By
Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 23:32:07 -0400 (AST)
From: mSaliers <saliers@concentric.net>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

>
> If the transfer "isn't urgent", what is the harm in letting as many
> members as possible put in their 2 cents?
>

It wasn't urgent -- before the discussion.  Now with 20+ messages a day
flooding the inbox, it is.  There's a little bit of irony going on here:
Some poor soul at NSTN was hoping to reduce their work load by offloading
a little 5 message a day Mail list, and now all of a sudden they have a 25+
a day (or is it more?) mail list.

Maybe we *should* have a vote on whether to table the discussion
to some (specified) date when it is believed more members will be
back. There's no sense having all this discussion now if we're
not going to do anything anyway.

Oh yeah.  One vote for Joseph. Four more years! Four more years! Four more
     years (oops, wrong group).

Mark





Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 23:50:16 -0400 (AST)
From: ROCKYGROD <ROCKYGROD@aol.com>
Subject: Re:  RE: RE: "The Mask"? (New book by FUSE Tomoko)

Sasuga is a Japanese bookstore in Boston.  They have a web site but I do not
have the address handy.  Sorry.





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:10:42 -0400 (AST)
From: Meristein <Meristein@aol.com>
Subject: Re:  Re:  RE: RE: "The Mask"? (New book by FUSE Tomoko)

Website for Sasuga as follows:
               http://world.std.com/~sasuga/origami1.html

I just looked at it myself, and will have a hard time restraining myself from
spending up a storm. Enjoy!

Merida





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:33:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Joyce Owen <joyceowen@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: NO: Another home for origami-l? (shortish)

D'gou
thank you for saying this!
joyce

>Given the number of problems (postpone/unsubscribe) that origami-l has
>had, LIST is a very good way to find out if you are still on, and if
>so, under what address.
snip
>;-)  Given that there is no restriction on who can access the archives,
>nor on what can be done with them, I see this is as more of locking
>windows while leaving the doors wide open.
>
>-D'gou
>

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





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:44:34 -0400 (AST)
From: JacAlArt <JacAlArt@aol.com>
Subject: Re:  "The Mask"?

In a message dated 1/5/98 7:32:40 PM, you wrote:

<<I got a postcard from Japan (probably because I subscribed to
Tanteidan) with an origami mask on it.  The only English words on it
are "The Mask" (in large letters) and "Gallery Origami House."  Can
someone who knows Japanese please tell me what this is?
>>

Same question here!





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:38:07 -0400 (AST)
From: John Sutter <sutterj@earthlink.net>
Subject: debate over new home for list

Greetings,

I have been lurking on the list for the past few days and wondering when
subscribers can expect the change to
happen.  It would be great if this situation would get resolved soon.  As a
substitute teacher I have used
origami over the years to great advantage and it is my favorite hobby.  The
list has been a valuable source
of information and I think it would continue to be a wonderful source if
either MIT or DNA took it over, so
I wish the "great debate" would end.  Let's get back to the business of
sharing information with other folders.

Riagami





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:40:05 -0400 (AST)
From: John Sutter <sutterj@earthlink.net>
Subject: ending great debate over list site

Hi,

I'm new to the list, but I have enjoyed the information and the help that I
have gotten from it.  I think
either MIT or DNA would be acceptable and I'm getting impatient to see this
issue resolved soon one way or
the other, so that we can get on with more interesting and educational uses
for the list.  Hasn't it all
been said repeatedly?  Please don't talk it to death!

Riagami





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:41:47 -0400 (AST)
From: John Sutter <sutterj@earthlink.net>
Subject: new home for list

Greetings,

I am growing weary of the great debate over whether MIT or DNA should have
this educational resource.  I
would like to see things return to normal for subscribers if the debaters
could stop talking this issue to
death!  When does this change need to take place?  Is the list too big for
the present handler?  I am a new
subscriber, so forgive my ignorance, but I think either MIT or DNA would be
fine.

Riagami





Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:43:29 -0400 (AST)
From: John Sutter <sutterj@earthlink.net>
Subject: new site for list

Greetings,

I think the discussion about moving the list to MIT or DNA has been
interesting, but I think it's time to move on.  To me, it doesn't matter
what one ends up taking the list, just as long as I can share information
and get
help from other folders.  Perhaps this is ignorant on my part, but I think
this issue has been talked to death.

Rigami
