




Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 09:10:41 -0400 (AST)
From: DGS - Kevin Kinney PhD <kkinney@carolinas.org>
Subject: Re: Pizza box origami

>I believe it was little caesers

>>>I remember that commercial. I forget the company, though (Domino's?
>>Godfather's?). Anyway, I found it a bit annoying since (a) it wasn't a real
>>origami pterodactyl, and (b) the clerk makes these really raucous
>>"caw-caw-caw" sounds as he pretends to fly the thing.

It was indeed Little Caesars (Ick).  But to mitigate their crime a little,
they *did* hand out, upon request, and instruction sheet on how to fold
your own 'origami pterodactyl" (actually just the flapping bird), not our
of a pizza box, but a square of paper.  A fair number of people seem to
count this as one of their few exposures to origami.  I still ahve the
sheet somewhere (this was before I started into origami).

Kevin
kkinney@carolinas.org

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@carolinas.org





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 09:15:41 -0400 (AST)
From: DGS - Kevin Kinney PhD <kkinney@carolinas.org>
Subject: Cardboard folding

>While I can understand the joke my question posed,  it was intended as a
>serious question, I imagine it would be quite a challenge to really do
>something with thick cardboard like that. I didn't know whether or not,
>after the comercial, some creative folder actually tried and succeded in
>making something. If so, what and how?

Well, I'm not an expert, but I have tried a few experiments with heavy,
non-corrugated cardboard, and found that if you're willing to use a knife
to score the board on one side, you can make some progress.  Actually, I
wasn't going for folded models, but trying to find a way to fold a 4-foot
by 6-foot presentation poster into an 8*11 inch packet for easy transport
on a plane.  But I imagine the principle shuld work, at least for simpler
stuff...

(not about to try an reverse double unsink or anything like that!)

Kevin

Kevin Kinney
kkinney@carolinas.org





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:38:54 -0400 (AST)
From: dragon@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: Re: Pizza box origami

Hi, I believe the company's name that aired the Pizza box commercial here
in Canada was Little Ceasar's Pizza.  They even gave away instructions on
how to fold that prehistoric bird.
Lynda

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, DON CONNELL wrote:

> There was a pizza commercial for Domino's where I think it was Bill
> Murray who did the acting.
>
> While I can understand the joke my question posed,  it was intended as a
> serious question, I imagine it would be quite a challenge to really do
> something with thick cardboard like that. I didn't know whether or not,
> after the comercial, some creative folder actually tried and succeded in
> making something. If so, what and how?





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:46:45 -0400 (AST)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Jeff Kerwood wrote:
> I wonder - if I ever become a really good folder how will I know that I
> have arrived.

The answer to that is simple: When you've arrived, you'll know it. Nobody
can tell you what your definition of "a really good folder" is, because
there simply is no right one.

> What model / diagram combination would represent the quintessential well
> diagrammed / very complex model? If I can fold it well I have arrived.

That depends entirely on what you consider "really good folding". If you
like complex models and get a kick out of folding them under the most
constrained circumstances, you'll probably say to yourself "Now I'm a
really_good_folder(TM)" when you've folded the whole of _Origami_Insects_
from 6" kami.

But if "really good folding" is for producing the most lifelike model from
a sheet of paper, you'll turn to other models, like Dave Brill's Lion
family, and practice them until your models radiate all the elegance and
sleekness of a lion.

If you consider precise folding as the essence of "really good folding",
you will probably not stop until you can fold a simple crane with a
perfectly sharp beak. (This is difficult enough.)

After a certain time, there are simply no new complex designs that can
challenge you, because nobody has made the effort of diagramming models that
are more complex, or because all complexity will someday come to an end,
because you cannot fold it from real paper. Beyond that point, all models will
represent a mathematical concept, but not an origami model. And furthermore,
you realize that are harder things to master than complexity.

> I'm not interested in nit-picking the details like what makes a good diagram
> or what does "fold it well" mean.

Then this posting probably doesn't interest you. Sorry, but I cannot help you
in any other way.

> I'm just wanting your thoughts about a model / diagram that I can put
> in put in front of myself and say "with practice - someday".

If you want something that will really surprise you, you should try Herman van
Goubergen's Cat. This model looks pretty simple at first, and you'll certainly
be able to fold it on first try. But it is terribly difficult to get the right
proportions, to get the circular fold right that form the eyes, and getting the
overall expression of a cat. It was pretty disappointing for me, sure, because
when you've folded a couple of _really_ complex models, you tend to think that
there can be nothing to challenge you now. But there is.

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

PS: Reading what I have written, I seem to have missed some point here. But I
cannot find it, so you'll have to do without it. ;-)





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:54:09 -0400 (AST)
From: Brett Askinazi <brett@hagerhinge.com>
Subject: RE: New home for the list

Hey,

What magazine project is this ?  Are you talking about a new Origami Magazine ?

Sounds interesting.

I'M at brett@hagerhinge.com if you cannot post particulars to the list.

B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   Joseph Wu [SMTP:josephwu@ultranet.ca]
Sent:   Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:13 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list
Subject:        Re: New home for the list

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: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:15:51 -0400 (AST)
From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com>
Subject: cranes, but not 1000

I'm folding cranes for a friend who is ill. I don't plan to fold 1000,
because I only just found out and I would like to give them to her
later this week. Someone at work suggested that I fold 1000 in
another base.* This would be somewhat appropriate since we are
both math editors.

My question for the historians & followers of culture and tradition
is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I certainly
don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com

*If you missed new math and/or don't remember how place value works:

1000 base 10 = 1 x 10^^3  +  0 x 10^^2  +  0 x 10^^1  +  0 x 10^^0

1000 base 5 = 1 x 5^^3  +  0 x 5^^2  +  0 x 5^^1  +  0 x 5^^0 = 125 base 10





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:20:21 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: cranes, but not 1000

>My question for the historians & followers of culture and tradition
>is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I certainly
>don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.
>
>Any thoughts are appreciated.

Don't do anything that emphasises the number four. In both Chinese and
Japanese, "four" is a homonym for "death".

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:49:03 -0400 (AST)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: cranes, but not 1000

+>My question for the historians & followers of culture and tradition
+>is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I certainly
+>don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.
+Don't do anything that emphasises the number four. In both Chinese and
+Japanese, "four" is a homonym for "death".

So 250 cranes would be bad because 250 times 4 is a 1000?

-D'gou





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:59:16 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: cranes, but not 1000

>+>My question for the historians & followers of culture and tradition
>+>is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I certainly
>+>don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.
>+Don't do anything that emphasises the number four. In both Chinese and
>+Japanese, "four" is a homonym for "death".
>
>So 250 cranes would be bad because 250 times 4 is a 1000?

No. Having a digit that is an actual 4 is bad. It's the sound of the number
that's important, not its mathematical virtues. So, for example, 444 could
be interpreted as "die, die, die".

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 14:51:23 -0400 (AST)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: cranes, but not 1000

+>+Don't do anything that emphasises the number four. In both Chinese and
+>+Japanese, "four" is a homonym for "death".
+>So 250 cranes would be bad because 250 times 4 is a 1000?
+No. Having a digit that is an actual 4 is bad. It's the sound of the number
+that's important, not its mathematical virtues. So, for example, 444 could
+be interpreted as "die, die, die".

Thanks Joseph!  But another question along the same lines:

[A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing! ;-)]
I had heard that Japanese is unlike many western languages in that the
word/name for any given number varies depending on what it is that is
being counted/numbered.  Is if the sound that rhymes with 'death/die'
is common across all "fours," or only some of them?

Thanks
    -D'gou





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:13:09 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: cranes, but not 1000

>[A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing! ;-)]
>I had heard that Japanese is unlike many western languages in that the
>word/name for any given number varies depending on what it is that is
>being counted/numbered.  Is if the sound that rhymes with 'death/die'
>is common across all "fours," or only some of them?

That is true. And this particular homonym (the word means "word with the
same sound") is only for one of the pronunciations of four in Japanese (but
there is only one pronunciation in Chinese). The one in question is "shi"
which is the "on-yomi" (phonetic reading, which is the closest reading to
Chinese). There's also the "kun-yomi" (a "more Japanese" reading) for the
character which is "yon".

When you get into counting systems, it gets much more complicated, and I
won't get into that (I'm not sure I could explain it correctly...).

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:29:01 -0400 (AST)
From: Brett Askinazi <brett@hagerhinge.com>
Subject: RE: Name this base?

I think that Montroll's Ramphorynchus uses a frog base.  Also the 3d snail
from one of the Biddle books (either New or Essential Origami, cant
remember) this is one of my favorites.

Also most of the "X-Wing" models are from a frog base.
B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   S.Y. Chen [SMTP:sychen@erols.com]
Sent:   Monday, January 05, 1998 6:11 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list
Subject:        Name this base?

Can anyone suggest other good frog base
examples other than above  mentioning?





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:56:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: A suggestion for teachers

VALERIE VANN'S MAGIC ROSE CUBE PHOTO:  She says there are no diagrams
yet but her website for her photo is:

     http://people.delphi.com/vvann/magicros.html

--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:03:44 -0400 (AST)
From: GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: teaching origami for teachers.

I have taught several workshops for teachers of different grades.
About a month ago I taught a workshop for K-3 teachers on Math and
Origami. The teachers were very receptive. I tried to structure
the workshop from simplest folds to harder ones. I had 3 hours and
did about 12 folds, repeating some of them. Never got as hard as the
water bomb or crane.

I also did a workshop at a math convention for grades 5-8 on Modular
Origami Polyhedra. Only had an hour and a half. I did a simple non
polyhedral fold to warm them up and show them they really could do
origami. Then I did Jeannine Mosely's tetrahehron from two business
cards and then I did Lewis Simon's gyroscope (octahedron skeleton).
There was an overflow crowd, and some people were sitting on the floor
because there were no more seats left.

I've recently done a workshop for high school teacher's on Math and
Origami,  in which I do some simple modular ornaments, some geometric
constructions and modular polyhedra.

I started doing workshops at NCTM around 1974. It seems like there
is much more awareness of origami now and lots of opportunities to
teach at all levels.

I've got a couple more  workshops lined up.

I'm interested in doing more of them in the Connecticut Metro area.

Oh, yes. It seems like there's never enough time to cover everything
you would like to cover, so I try to give out resource lists of
where to find origami books and paper, origami-l and web sites,
OUSA groups and such.

Rona





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:18:15 -0400 (AST)
From: A.Welles@student.kun.nl
Subject: Just wondering...

Hi all,

I was just wondering:

When you make creases in a piece of paper several planes appear. I don't
know how to say this in English, but what I mean is this: when you fold
the paper in half you get two planes. Like folded in half diagonally
would give two triangular planes. And an unfolded WaterBomb Base would
result in 6 planes: two big triangles and four smaller.

Now: Is there any relation between the amount of creases and the number of
planes needed to fold a flat base or model? Folds that are not being used
not taken in consideration. (like the one vertical crease of a waterBomb
Base)

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:57:18 -0400 (AST)
From: Thomas C Hull <tch@abyss.merrimack.edu>
Subject: Re:  Just wondering...

Hey!  Arjan Welles asks a math question:

>>>
Now: Is there any relation between the amount of creases and the number of
planes needed to fold a flat base or model? Folds that are not being used
not taken in consideration. (like the one vertical crease of a waterBomb
Base)
<<<

This is a complicated relationship, and it really comes
down to an area of math called graph theory, in particular
*planar graphs*, which are networks of points (vertices) and
lines (edges) with the requirement that two edges can only
meet at a vertex.  Thus, the crease pattern of an origami
model can be thought of as a planar graph - the creases are
the edges, and the vertices are where crease lines
intersect.  The "planes" Arjan refers to are what we call
"faces" of a planar graph - the regions of the paper where
there are no creases.

Well, in graph theory there's a famous result, called
Euler's Formula.  It says that if you have a planar graph where
    v = the number of vertices
    e = the number of edges, and
    f = the number of faces (i.e., planes)
THEN
       v - e + f = 2.

NOTE: In this formula, the "outside" region is counted
as a face.  Thus, in an origami model you would have to
make the creases AND the boundary of the paper be the edges,
the vertices would be where crease lines intersect or meet
an edge of the square, and the faces would be all the "planes"
as well as the "outside" region.

Example: the Waterbomb Base.  It has 6 crease lines, all of which
meet the boundary of the square, breaking it up into 6 more
edges.  So e = 12, and v = 7 (the 4 corners, the midpoints
of two sides, and the center vertex).  Also, f = 7 (the 6
"planes" and the outside region).  And we see that
     7 - 12 + 7 = 2
as desired.

Yeah, it's somewhat complicated, but I don't think you're
going to find a more simple formula.

---- Tom "more math than you can shake a stick at" Hull
     thull@merrimack.edu





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:10:33 -0400 (AST)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: Re: Origins of Paper

Dorigami: Could you please post the URL for the Papermaking Museum in
Atlanta?

Thanks, Matthias





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:11:00 -0400 (AST)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: NO: HOTMAIL (was:Re: a new home for origami-l?)

Let's not start the hotmail controversy again...

Matthias

James Fowler High School Library wrote:
> The difference is of course that if you are a hotmail
> subscriber you are subject to the whims of advertisers. FREE is a relative
     term
> here, I guess.





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:11:42 -0400 (AST)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: Lucky cranes (was:Re: cranes, but not 1000)

Isn't this all a bit far-fetched? Unless the recipient speaks japanese
or chinese he/she will never know the difference. I wouldn't either.

Matthias

Joseph Wu wrote:
> >+>My question for the historians & followers of culture and tradition
> >+>is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I certainly
> >+>don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.
> >+Don't do anything that emphasises the number four. In both Chinese and
> >+Japanese, "four" is a homonym for "death".
> >So 250 cranes would be bad because 250 times 4 is a 1000?
> No. Having a digit that is an actual 4 is bad. It's the sound of the number
> that's important, not its mathematical virtues. So, for example, 444 could
> be interpreted as "die, die, die".





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:15:20 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re:  Just wondering...

>Hey!  Arjan Welles asks a math question:
>
>>>>
>Now: Is there any relation between the amount of creases and the number of
>planes needed to fold a flat base or model? Folds that are not being used
>not taken in consideration. (like the one vertical crease of a waterBomb
>Base)
><<<
>
>This is a complicated relationship, and it really comes
>down to an area of math called graph theory, in particular
>*planar graphs*, which are networks of points (vertices) and
>lines (edges) with the requirement that two edges can only
>meet at a vertex.  Thus, the crease pattern of an origami
>model can be thought of as a planar graph - the creases are
>the edges, and the vertices are where crease lines
>intersect.  The "planes" Arjan refers to are what we call
>"faces" of a planar graph - the regions of the paper where
>there are no creases.

Tom, you beat me to it. I was going to mention the Kawasaki theorem and the
Fushimi theorem and then suggest asking you. Anyway, here's what I started
writing:

    Arjan, the Kawasaki theorem deals with the ratio of
    creases that surround an intersection point in a flat
    origami. There's a description of it in "Origami for
    the Connoisseur" by Kasahara. Basically, it states
    that, in a flat origami, for creases all intersecting at
    a point (like the six creases of the waterbomb base
    you mention), the difference between the number of
    mountain creases and the number of valley creases
    is 2. In other words,

   abs( [mountain creases] - [valley creases] ) = 2.

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:24:46 -0400 (AST)
From: Brett Askinazi <brett@hagerhinge.com>
Subject: RE: Another home for origami-l? (shortish)

On Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:21 PM, Matthias Gutfeldt
[SMTP:Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch] wrote:
> 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" ...

This is a good point.  These things give the list a certain flavor that is
favorable.  I would hate to see us moderated to that point.

> 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.

If you read Joseph's message again you will see that the statement was
positive and very origami related.

Currently origami-l gets many ads.  You may not see them as such because
they blend in with our subject matter very well.  Examples are, Kim's
Crane, Fascinating folds, and Sasuga (to name a few . . . there have been
others).  I am suspect that we will get nothing but Origami related subject
matter (other than the occasional SPAM that no one is free of on the net).

B R E T T
brett@hagerhinge.com





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:28:15 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: Lucky cranes (was:Re: cranes, but not 1000)

<fontfamily><param>Courier</param>>Isn't this all a bit far-fetched?
Unless the recipient speaks japanese

>or chinese he/she will never know the difference. I wouldn't either.

Reread the original question:

>> >+>My question for the historians & followers of culture and
tradition

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> >+>is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I
certainly

>> >+>don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.

</fontfamily>
----------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.

t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:34:26 -0400 (AST)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: cranes, but not 1000

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Lisa Hodsdon wrote:
> Someone at work suggested that I fold 1000 in another base.* This would be
> somewhat appropriate since we are both math editors.

Nice idea, I'll have to remember it. It would give you the choice between 8
(somewhat petty), 27 (for sloths), 64, 125, 216, 343, 512 (for old-time unix
programmers) and 729 (now you could just as well do the real thing). And for
those of you who are very ambitious (and for computer freaks, of course), you
can also fold 1000 cranes in base 16, which is 4096.

Oh yes, and 6 times 9 is 42. ;-)

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:47:29 -0400 (AST)
From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@bboxbbs.ch>
Subject: Re: Lucky cranes (was:Re: cranes, but not 1000)

Yikes! Is all this html garbage coming from me all of a sudden?

And I DID read the original question; that's why I posted my comment
after all :-)

Matthias

Joseph Wu wrote:
> <fontfamily><param>Courier</param>>Isn't this all a bit far-fetched?
> Unless the recipient speaks japanese
> >or chinese he/she will never know the difference. I wouldn't either.
> Reread the original question:





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:54:54 -0400 (AST)
From: "James B. Raasch" <jbraas01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: Pizza box origami

<hack>
> I remember that commercial. I forget the company, though (Domino's?
> Godfather's?).
<snip>

It was Little Ceaser's, another in their long line of off-the-wall and
surprisingly sticky (i.e., you repeat the jokes inceasantly) TV ads.

J.B. Raasch





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:58:37 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: Lucky cranes (was:Re: cranes, but not 1000)

<<Sorry about the previous send with all of the font stuff embedded. I
accidentally misconfigured my mailer. Here's the message again without all
the nonsense.>>

>Isn't this all a bit far-fetched? Unless the recipient speaks japanese
>or chinese he/she will never know the difference. I wouldn't either.

Reread the original question:

>> >+>My question for the historians & followers of culture and tradition
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >+>is this: If I don't fold 1000, is there a *bad* number to fold? I
>>certainly
>> >+>don't want to give an unlucky number of cranes.

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:36:52 -0400 (AST)
From: "Sonia Wu (NC)" <swu@virtu.sar.usf.edu>
Subject: Re: Olympics/Nagano/Tomoko Fuse?

I just got a quick glimpse of Joseph Wu's diagrams for the "Snowlets" for
the upcoming Winter Games in Nagano.  Very nifty.  This reminded me that
Tomoko Fuse lives in Nagano Prefecture, or so it says on the back of all
her books written in English.

If it IS the same thing, is there a possibility that she and Joseph might
get some air time during the "local color" segments of Olympic coverage?
It would be a very international kind of thing as well.  It might spark
even more interest in origami.  Maybe Little Caesar's could be convinced
to distribute Snowlet and box diagrams....

Sonia Wu
(Florida)





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:46:38 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: Olympics/Nagano/Tomoko Fuse?

>I just got a quick glimpse of Joseph Wu's diagrams for the "Snowlets" for
>the upcoming Winter Games in Nagano.  Very nifty.  This reminded me that
>Tomoko Fuse lives in Nagano Prefecture, or so it says on the back of all
>her books written in English.
>
>If it IS the same thing, is there a possibility that she and Joseph might
>get some air time during the "local color" segments of Olympic coverage?
>It would be a very international kind of thing as well.  It might spark
>even more interest in origami.  Maybe Little Caesar's could be convinced
>to distribute Snowlet and box diagrams....

I doubt it. Fuse-san was offered the job before I was and she turned it
down. Reportedly, she told them, "I don't do animals anymore." As for
"local colour" segments, that would involve decisions on the part of the
individual broadcasters. Somehow, I doubt if any of them know about the
origami connection at all. I certainly haven't sent out any press releases.

Incidentally, I've also designed "origamic architecture" versions of some
of the Olympic venues (stadiums, rinks, etc.). Those should go up on the
Olympics web site soon.

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





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:26:45 -0400 (AST)
From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com>
Subject: Re: Lucky cranes and more

Matthias points out:
>Isn't this all a bit far-fetched? Unless the recipient speaks japanese
>or chinese he/she will never know the difference. I wouldn't either.

Two responses to Matthias:
In this particular case, the recipient knows enough Japanese that I
expect she would be aware of the four/death homonym. I'm glad that
I know about it.

Other times, I fold cranes for people as a way to think about
them at a time when I think they need extra thoughts sent their
way. (Call it prayer if you like.) In Japanese tradition, 1000 is a
special number of cranes because the number 1000 has a symbolic
meaning which relates nicely with the symbolic meanings attached
to cranes. As a nod to the symbolism of the cranes, I wanted to be
sure that the new number I chose would not have any adverse
symbolism attached to it. I wouldn't fold 13 cranes, for example,
or 666 either. (Well, I can imagine cirmcumstances when I might
actually do one of those.)

Sebastian commented on possible numbers in other bases:
I'm thinking about 1000 base 8 = 512 base 10 because the symbol
for 8 is related to the symbol for infinity and that resonates nicely
for me.)

Someone at lunch asked what I was doing, and she thought I said that
I was folding *brains.* (I was actually prefolding bases, so this was not
unreasonable.) A jar full of brains would be *very* appropriate in this
case. (The recipient had a brain tumor removed earlier today---early
reports say the surgery was successful.) Anyone know a model?

Lisa (currently at 1 gross or 220 base 8)
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:33:39 -0400 (AST)
From: Robby/Laura/Lisa <morassi@zen.it>
Subject: Re: Name this paper

Tricia,
At 11.38 9/1/1998 -0400, you wrote:
>Could it be Tyvek? It is generally found in the post office mailing
>envelopes - and used in house building for weatherproofing the frame. When
>we built our house we purchased the 9 foot by 40 foot roll.

I too believe it's Tyvek. I don't know if it's available here in Italy, but
years ago I got an airmail envelope from the US, made by it. It's EXTREMELY
strong (you can't tear it with bare hands !), yet thin and easily foldable.
Unlike other plastic-made (or plastic-backed) "paper", this seems to "keep"
creases nicely. These notes are on the envelope:

SURVIVOR  - The Strongest Envelope Protection Available

Tyvek  contains 25% Post Consumer Recycled Material. Please Recycle.

Stock #R1460 - Made in USA

Where can one find sheets or rolls a bit smaller that 9 x 40 foots ? <:-)

Roberto
         _\|/_
        ( o o )
=====-oOO-(_)-OOo-========+
Roberto Morassi           |
Via Palestro 11           |  Please DON'T quote my full
51100 PISTOIA             |  message in reply... I KNOW
ITALY                     |  what I have written ! :-)
tel & fax (+)39-573-20436 |
E-mail <morassi@zen.it>   |





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:34:13 -0400 (AST)
From: Robby/Laura/Lisa <morassi@zen.it>
Subject: Re: Pizza box origami

Chris,

At 22.27 12/1/1998 -0400, you wrote:

>I believe it was little caesers

I believe this is a very small comment attached to a very LONG quoting.... <:-(
Please, please...... DON'T !

Bye,

Roberto
         _\|/_
        ( o o )
=====-oOO-(_)-OOo-========+
Roberto Morassi           |
Via Palestro 11           |  Please DON'T quote my full
51100 PISTOIA             |  message in reply... I KNOW
ITALY                     |  what I have written ! :-)
tel & fax (+)39-573-20436 |
E-mail <morassi@zen.it>   |





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:02:45 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

Hi Sebastian:
> Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

=================

> > I wonder - if I ever become a really good folder how will I know that I
> > have arrived.
>
> The answer to that is simple: When you've arrived, you'll know it. Nobody
> can tell you what your definition of "a really good folder" is, because
> there simply is no right one.

I thought about this question for maybe a week before posing it to the
group. Of course, the day after I sent the question this same answer came
to me. When I have the experience to be really good I'll also have the
experience to know that I am.

=================

> That depends entirely on what you consider "really good folding". If you
> like complex models and get a kick out of folding them under the most
> constrained circumstances, you'll probably say to yourself "Now I'm a
> really_good_folder(TM)" when you've folded the whole of _Origami_Insects_
> from 6" kami.

I'm not into crazy-complex but it would be fun just to give them a try
(knowing the results will be laughable) just to "stretch the envelope".

=================

> But if "really good folding" is for producing the most lifelike model
from
> a sheet of paper, you'll turn to other models, like Dave Brill's Lion
> family, and practice them until your models radiate all the elegance and
> sleekness of a lion.

I'm into modular geometric kind of things right now so I don't think this
applies to me (seeking the essence of  cube? - I don't think so).

================

> If you consider precise folding as the essence of "really good folding",
> you will probably not stop until you can fold a simple crane with a
> perfectly sharp beak. (This is difficult enough.)

This IS me - I drive myself crazy trying to get a model perfect. For me
that is it.

================

> If you want something that will really surprise you, you should try
Herman van
> Goubergen's Cat. ...  But it is terribly difficult to get the right
> proportions,

I think this sounds like a good "growth" piece. Were do I find it? I have
looked in the origami-l archives and can see that he has diagrammed it but
can't see where.

===============

Well, thanks for all the input.  I always like new things to try (esp
things that help me grow and explore new avenues).

Bye, Jeff.





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:10:59 -0400 (AST)
From: Chris Miller <chris@ori.net>
Subject: Re: Pizza box origami

sorry, i was tooo lazy to hilight it and edit it. :)
-----Original Message-----
(hack)
>I believe this is a very small comment attached to a very LONG quoting....
<:-(
>Please, please...... DON'T !
(chop)
(mangle)





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:42 -0400 (AST)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

Jeff Kerwood indited:

+I'm not into crazy-complex but it would be fun just to give them a try
+(knowing the results will be laughable) just to "stretch the envelope".

I've never been able to bring myself to fold a model just for the
practice.  I have always been motivated as much by the final results.
A co-worker of mine folded Lang's Rock Climber several times as a way
to crank up his technical folding ability.  He's been trying to get me
haven't been motivated to do it.  This echos the Plato/Aristotle
difference of whether the "highest/greatest" good is one that is an
intrinsicly good only, or one that is both intrinsicly and extrinsicly
good.

+This IS me - I drive myself crazy trying to get a model perfect. For me
+that is it.

"When you can fold this crane perfectly, you will have learned."
    (Apologies to the original "Kung Fu" TV series)

+>Herman van Goubergen's Cat. ...  But it is terribly difficult to get
+> the right proportions,
+I think this sounds like a good "growth" piece. Were do I find it? I have
+looked in the origami-l archives and can see that he has diagrammed it but
+can't see where.

It is in the 1997 Annual Collection from OUSA.  It is probably also in a few
European Origami collections or society magazines.

-D'gou





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:11:09 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

Sorry - the following was meant to be a private email.

Jeff.

> Hi Sebastian:
> > Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram
>
> =================
>
> > > I wonder - if I ever become a really good folder how will I know that
I
> > > have arrived.
[SNIP}
> Well, thanks for all the input.  I always like new things to try (esp
> things that help me grow and explore new avenues).
>
> Bye, Jeff.





Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:21:09 -0400 (AST)
From: Michael Clark <mdc@ivc.com>
Subject: Annual Convention dates?

Does anyone know the dates for this year's annual convention?  A local
airline is running a fare special, and I'd like to go ahead and book some
really cheap tickets!
<<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>><<<<<>>>>>
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: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:44:01 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: A suggestion for teachers

My post (the first in this thread) was not a criticism of
Jan Polish, I know she is careful about attribution when
teaching. Its when the 2nd or 3rd generation of "teachers"
pass on a model that the attribution goes astray.
valerie





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:09:10 -0400 (AST)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

>> Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram
Snip
>> That depends entirely on what you consider "really good folding". If you
>> like complex models and get a kick out of folding them under the most
>> constrained circumstances, you'll probably say to yourself "Now I'm a
>> really_good_folder(TM)" when you've folded the whole of _Origami_Insects_
>> from 6" kami.
snip
Only if you are an extreme masochist, the secret is, really BIG paper.
>> Goubergen's Cat. ...  But it is terribly difficult to get the right
proportions,
snip
> Were do I find it? I have
>looked in the origami-l archives and can see that he has diagrammed it but
>can't see where.
OUSA annual 97 for the cat, and OUSA 96 for more!
Perry

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:13:14 -0400 (AST)
From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net>
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

>A co-worker of mine folded Lang's Rock Climber several times as a way

Is that model in a book?  if so which one?
he asked Curiosly  \:?)'

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:52:03 -0400 (AST)
From: Eric Andersen <ema@netspace.org>
Subject: origami flowers...

Has anyone seen this place:

http://www.lotusentertainyou.com/flowers.html

These models seem very simple...are they really worth $50-100???

-Eric  :-P
origami@brown.edu

/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
\   Eric Andersen                                       /
/    Mathematics and Music          ~  ~ __o            \
\     math@brown.edu              ~  ~ _-\<'_           /
/      ema@netspace.org        ~    ~ (_)/ (_)          \
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
      *** http://www.netspace.org/users/ema/ ***





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:46:34 -0400 (AST)
From: V'Ann Cornelius <vann@lht.com>
Subject: Re: origami flowers...

Eric Andersen wrote:
> [about Flower Arrangements for Sale]
> These models seem very simple...are they really worth $50-100???

These flowers are simple to folders however the stem system, vase
selection and arrangement skills create a display comparable to those
florists list for $100-$150. I've seen arrangements by folders stay
looking wonderful for extended periods of time with little maintenance
(out of sun, no misting, no handling).

People who are looking for a unique focus for an environment will get
there money's worth by investigating quality display origami. It is fair
to expect that this type art is worthy of the financial recognition
asked by the artist.

.. Unless there is interest in retaining the concept that origami is a
child's hobby.

V'Ann
vann@lht.com





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:11:23 -0400 (AST)
From: Jane Rosemarin <jfrmpls@spacestar.net>
Subject: Re: Annual Convention dates?

The OUSA annual convention will be the weekend of June 26.

Jane





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:22:17 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: origami flowers...

V'Ann,
well put!
Valerie





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:26:28 -0400 (AST)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Jeff Kerwood wrote:
> I'm not into crazy-complex but it would be fun just to give them a try
> (knowing the results will be laughable) just to "stretch the envelope".

"crazy-complex" is, sadly, the field where you will find the most
technically challenging models. (To paraphrase a well-known Ernest
Rutherford quotation: "All paperfolding is either complex origami or stamp
coll^H^H^H^Hfolding." ;-) )

> I'm into modular geometric kind of things right now so I don't think this
> applies to me (seeking the essence of  cube? - I don't think so).

Modular origami? Then you could try to do the 900-unit sphere from Sonobe
units. Should not be too difficult from the technical point of view, but
you'll need a lot of perseverance. Or, of course, Issei Yoshino's T-Rex
Skeleton, which would probably also count as modular origami.

> This IS me - I drive myself crazy trying to get a model perfect. For me
> that is it.

For practicing accuracy, I use Robert Lang's Hermit Crab. This is my
personal favourite in many aspects, and I rarely get tired of folding it.
Other good pieces in this aspect are Lang's Scarab Beetle, and perhaps
also some Peter Engel models, because they are so unelegant. (No offense
to Peter Engel, but I do think that some of his models are a little too
technical, especially the scorpion in Folding the Universe.)

> I think this sounds like a good "growth" piece. Were do I find it? I have
> looked in the origami-l archives and can see that he has diagrammed it but
> can't see where.

It is in the Origami Deutschland 1997 Convention book, and should also be
in a couple of other books an booklets; maybe in one of OUSA's Annual
Collections.

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:29:59 -0400 (AST)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: Quintessential complex model / diagram

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Jeff Kerwood wrote:
> Sorry - the following was meant to be a private email.

I'm sure the other members of the list don't mind. Especially because it's
actually related to origami, unlike other recent discussions.

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:35:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Modular vs multi-piece (was Re: Quintessential complex model /

>Modular origami? Then you could try to do the 900-unit sphere from Sonobe
>units. Should not be too difficult from the technical point of view, but
>you'll need a lot of perseverance. Or, of course, Issei Yoshino's T-Rex
>Skeleton, which would probably also count as modular origami.

Not exactly. Modular origami implies models where the component pieces are
identical (or else are part of a small set of shapes). The T-rex is a
multi-piece model.

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:43:02 -0400 (AST)
From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@sci.fi>
Subject: Re: Name this paper

On 14-Jan-98, Robby/Laura/Lisa (morassi@zen.it) wrote:

>I too believe it's Tyvek. I don't know if it's available here in Italy, but
>years ago I got an airmail envelope from the US, made by it. It's EXTREMELY
>strong (you can't tear it with bare hands !), yet thin and easily foldable.
>Unlike other plastic-made (or plastic-backed) "paper", this seems to "keep"
>creases nicely.

This sounds like the paper I have. Here's a new question: can Tyvek be
found in Europe?

>Where can one find sheets or rolls a bit smaller that 9 x 40 foots ? <:-)

But if you fold a model from 6*6" square every day, that roll gets used up
in four years. And imagine a waterbomb folded from 9' square and used as a
balloon!

Jorma "thinking big" Oksanen





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:04:35 -0400 (AST)
From: Daddy-o D'gou <dwp@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: Modular vs multi-piece (was Re: Quintessential complex model /

+>Modular origami? Then you could try to do the 900-unit sphere from Sonobe
+>units. Should not be too difficult from the technical point of view, but
+>you'll need a lot of perseverance. Or, of course, Issei Yoshino's T-Rex
+>Skeleton, which would probably also count as modular origami.
+
+Not exactly. Modular origami implies models where the component pieces are
+identical (or else are part of a small set of shapes). The T-rex is a
+multi-piece model.

If the term had been "unit origami" I would agree with Joseph.  But I think
"modular origami" is of broader scope.  It would certainly encompass unit
origami.  But the T-Rex is modular origami, as are many of the "old
time" two piece animals.  If the pieces fit together, they are
modules.  If they can be used in only one model, well, they just aren't very
"generalizable" modules!

-Daddy-o 'Confirmed deposit of $0.02" D'gou





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:20:36 -0400 (AST)
From: Robby/Laura/Lisa <morassi@zen.it>
Subject: Re: A suggestion for teachers

Valerie,

At 23.44 13/1/1998 -0400, you wrote:

> Its when the 2nd or 3rd generation of "teachers"
>pass on a model that the attribution goes astray.

...or, better, it definitely becomes a Urban Legend !

"Rumor has it that once upon a time a Good Fairy created The Rose-Cube.....
" :-)

Roberto
         _\|/_
        ( o o )
=====-oOO-(_)-OOo-========+
Roberto Morassi           |
Via Palestro 11           |  Please DON'T quote my full
51100 PISTOIA             |  message in reply... I KNOW
ITALY                     |  what I have written ! :-)
tel & fax (+)39-573-20436 |
E-mail <morassi@zen.it>   |





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:54:57 -0400 (AST)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: symbolic origami

Y'all,
        You might be interested in sending a frog as a gift to people for these
reasons.  In the Japanese tradition there are dual meanings to the word
"kaeru".  It means "frog" and "come back or return to".  Thus the frog
is supposed to bring luck with things to you want returned to you such
as...good health, youthfulness, safe arrival home from a journey, money
that is gambled, things you lost and want back.  For this reason, I sell
a lot of frogs at the craftfairs.
        They are easier and quicker making and you only need send one.  Looks
cute on a rock or twig.
Aloha, Jan

--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:01:49 -0400 (AST)
From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@aloha.net>
Subject: charges for email

thiry gail bennett wrote:
>
> FYI
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:50:32 -0800 (PST)
> From: Craig Demanty <craigd@theworks.com>
> To: "thiry@theworks.com" <thiry@theworks.com>
>
> This just arrived today and I am passing it on to you to inform you of a very
> important matter:
> currently under review by the FCC, your local telphone company has filed a
> proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service.
> They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone
> network.  It is our belief that internet usage will dimish if users are
> required to pay additional per minute charges.  The FCC has created an email
> box for your comments.  Responses must be received by February 13, 1998.  Send
> your comments to <isp@fcc.gov> and tell them what you think.  Every phone
> company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the
> wire for litigation.  Let everyone you know hear this one.  Get the E-mail
> address to everyone you can think of.  Good luck to us all.

-Anyone else hear anything of this sort?-
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:24:10 -0400 (AST)
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Re: charges for email

On 14 Jan 98 at 16:01, Paul & Jan Fodor wrote:

> thiry gail bennett wrote:
> >
> > FYI
> >
> >     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject:
> > Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:50:32 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Craig Demanty <craigd@theworks.com>
> > To: "thiry@theworks.com" <thiry@theworks.com>
> >
> > This just arrived today and I am passing it on to you to inform you of a
     very
> > important matter:
> > currently under review by the FCC, your local telphone company has filed a
> > proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet
     service.
> > They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the
     telephone
> > network.  It is our belief that internet usage will dimish if users are
> > required to pay additional per minute charges.  The FCC has created an email
> > box for your comments.  Responses must be received by February 13, 1998.
     Send
> > your comments to <isp@fcc.gov> and tell them what you think.  Every phone
> > company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the
> > wire for litigation.  Let everyone you know hear this one.  Get the E-mail
> > address to everyone you can think of.  Good luck to us all.
>
> -Anyone else hear anything of this sort?-

Lord only knows why you asked about this on an origami mailing list.  Why
didn't you do the obvious thing and check the FCC's website to check whether
they are actually soliciting such comments?  Ten seconds on the FCC web site
would have found you:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/ispfact.html

and that page says quite clearly:

    Please Note: There is no open comment period in this proceeding. If you
    have recently seen a message on the Internet stating that in response to a
    request from local telephone companies, the FCC is requesting comments to
    <isp@fcc.gov> by February 1998, be aware that this information is
    inaccurate.

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:45:58 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: charges for email

>> currently under review by the FCC, your local telphone company has filed a
>> proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet
>>service.
>> They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the
>>telephone
>> network.  It is our belief that internet usage will dimish if users are
>> required to pay additional per minute charges.  The FCC has created an email
>> box for your comments.  Responses must be received by February 13, 1998.
>>Send
>> your comments to <isp@fcc.gov> and tell them what you think.  Every phone
>> company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the
>> wire for litigation.  Let everyone you know hear this one.  Get the E-mail
>> address to everyone you can think of.  Good luck to us all.

Don't bug the FCC on this one. Here's a note from their website:

  Please Note: There is no open comment period in this proceeding.
  If you have recently seen a message on the Internet stating that in
  response to a request from local telephone companies, the FCC is
  requesting comments to <isp@fcc.gov> by February 1998, be aware
  that this information is inaccurate.

For more information, take a look here:

<http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/ispfact.html>

(Of course, what do I care? FCC rulings don't affect me...)

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:59:50 -0400 (AST)
From: DonnaJowal <DonnaJowal@aol.com>
Subject: year of the tiger

As the year of the tiger is coming up,  I'd love to make a good tiger to make
for my host at a new year celebration.  Does anyone know of a good, high
intermediate to low complex (?) tiger?

Donna Walcavage





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:13:13 -0400 (AST)
From: Eric Eros <eros@mohawk.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: year of the tiger

Donna,

        The following is the list returned from doing a search for tiger at

http://www.origami-usa.org/frames1.htm

which is within the OrigamiUSA Webpages.

Tiger by Kunihiko Kasahara
Creative Origami by Kunihiko Kasahara page 83

Tiger by Peter Engel
Folding the Universe by Peter Engel page 232

Tiger by Akira Yoshizawa
Origami Museum I: Animals by Akira Yoshizawa page 63

Tiger by Isao Honda
World Of Origami by Isao Honda page 134

Tiger by John Montroll
Origami Inside-Out by John Montroll page 70

Tiger) by Seiji Nishikawa
El Mundo Nuevo by Kunihiko Kasahara page 148

Tiger) by Kunihiko Kasahara
Viva Origami by Kunihiko Kasahara page 84

Tiger by Peter Engel
1988 by C.A. WILK page 60

Tiger by John Montroll
Mythological Creatures And the Chinese Zodiac by John Montroll page 30

Tiger by Issei Yoshino
1996 by Myer Gotz (ed) page 35

--
Eric Eros





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:31:56 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: year of the tiger

>       The following is the list returned from doing a search for tiger at
>http://www.origami-usa.org/frames1.htm
>which is within the OrigamiUSA Webpages.

Actually, Eric, the correct URL would be
<http://www.origami-usa.org/mkinfo.htm>.

>Tiger by Kunihiko Kasahara
>Creative Origami by Kunihiko Kasahara page 83

Intermediate. Requires a second piece of paper for the hind legs.

>Tiger by Peter Engel
>Folding the Universe by Peter Engel page 232

High intermediate.

>Tiger by Akira Yoshizawa
>Origami Museum I: Animals by Akira Yoshizawa page 63

Low intermediate. Two pieces of paper, I think.

>Tiger by Isao Honda
>World Of Origami by Isao Honda page 134

Don't remember.

>Tiger by John Montroll
>Origami Inside-Out by John Montroll page 70

Complex. With colour-change stripes.

>Tiger) by Seiji Nishikawa
>El Mundo Nuevo by Kunihiko Kasahara page 148

Complex. Detailed face. I have a photo on my website (in the galleries
section).

>Tiger) by Kunihiko Kasahara
>Viva Origami by Kunihiko Kasahara page 84

This is an error. The model (and most of the book) is by MAEKAWA Jun. High
intermediate (very similar to Peter Engel's tiger.

>Tiger by Peter Engel
>1988 by C.A. WILK page 60

Haven't seen this one.

>Tiger by John Montroll
>Mythological Creatures And the Chinese Zodiac by John Montroll page 30

High intermediate.

>Tiger by Issei Yoshino
>1996 by Myer Gotz (ed) page 35

Complex. Extremely detailed face.

A couple of additions:

Tiger by NISHIKAWA Seiji (unpublished)
I mention this one because this is an intermediate model that looks like a
simple model...with the addition of colour-changed stripes.

Tiger by KOMATSU Hideo
Origami Tanteidan Newsletter volumes 44-46
Complex. Looks like Nishikawa's model (from El Mundo Nuevo) with
colour-changed stripes. Also on my website.

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:39:03 -0400 (AST)
From: Eric Eros <eros@mohawk.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: year of the tiger

>  Actually, Eric, the correct URL would be
>  <http://www.origami-usa.org/mkinfo.htm>.

Mr. Wu

   The correct URL, as far as I am concerned, is whatever the Net-browser says
it is.  I object to being told that I am 'incorrect' when I give a legitimate
URL that takes one to where I say it goes.

--
Eric Eros





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:00:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Garrett Alley <garrett@infospace-inc.com>
Subject: Pilot Diagrams

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone knows of a site that might contain origami models
in DOC format (or any other format, for that matter) for the PalmPilot. I'd
love to be able to take some of my favorite diagrams with me on long
flights, and the pilot would be a perfect place to store them.

Thanks,

-g-

(p.s. I hope this hasn't already been discussed to 4, I mean death! ;)





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:07:53 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: Pilot Diagrams

>I was wondering if anyone knows of a site that might contain origami models
>in DOC format (or any other format, for that matter) for the PalmPilot. I'd
>love to be able to take some of my favorite diagrams with me on long
>flights, and the pilot would be a perfect place to store them.

Another happy Pilot owner, I see. DOC format is can only handle text, so
you should be able to convert some of Nick Robinson's "Phone Folding"
archives into DOC format for your Pilot.
<http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/phone.html>

You could also look into converting images into ImageViewer format.

>(p.s. I hope this hasn't already been discussed to 4, I mean death! ;)

Nope. First time the Pilot has been mentioned on origami-l, I think.

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





Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:17:23 -0400 (AST)
From: "Sonia Wu (NC)" <swu@virtu.sar.usf.edu>
Subject: Re: Olympic Origami

Joseph,

Do you have the right to publish a booklet of your various Olympic-related
models?  Perhaps you could sell it through OUSA.  If it's not something I
could easily and ethically print, I would certainly buy a copy.

Also, forgive my ignorance, but are diagrams available/published for
the wonderful dragon on your Web page?  I think you taught it at the last
convention, but I got closed out.

Thanks,

Sonia Wu
(Florida)
