




From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:47:27 -0400
Subject: Warning! Pornogami content included!

g'day all

sorry for sending this to the list, since i know there are many who find
such things distasteful. hopefully the subject heading has steered those
people away.

anyway, this is an announcement of sorts:
------
heads up!
another lovely bit of pornogami from alasdair post-quinn, creator of the
lonely man.
the original was rather drastically mis-proportioned. i have revised the
model and i call it:
Lonely Man II - The Second Coming
this one is in a much more realistic pose, is slightly more anatomically
correct, is correctly (more or less) proportioned, and has a face rather
than a sweatshirt hood.
------

my question is (and please reply personally) do any of you lovely people
want me to diagram it? or have the masses of people who bought the original
diagrams since lost their sick senses of humor? i will decide whether to
take the time that i don't really have to diagram this sick little fold by
counting the number of responses i get from this letter.

so cast your votes now! if you are morally opposed to the existence of such
things, feel free to vote against the creation of the diagrams, because
your vote will count for more than a vote in favor of the diagrams -- if i
get lots of votes begging me not to do the diagrams, i'll be more likely to
do them! All for the sake of my mission to offend every last man, woman,
and child on the face of this earth before next friday!

peace,
alasdair "insert maniacal laugh here" post-quinn





From: Ian McRobbie <Ourldypeac@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:29:22 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Warning! Pornogami content included!

Eventhough I think it is very disgusting, I can't pass any diagrams. Plus, I'm
13 years old, so I think that stuff is funny. Count my vote.





From: John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:41:11 -0700
Subject: pornogami on list?

Greetings all,
      I thought this list was free of perversions but then alasdair changed
all that.  I'm not a prude and it
will not bother me if he insists on posting that stuff, at least he gives us
a warning, but I really don't
like to see it, because I've told kids who I teach about this list so I hope
he doesn't get too bold with
his pornogami.  I really have liked the list and made a friend because of
it.  Does anybodyelse have an
opinion to voice about this?  I think he's harmless what do you think?  Will
it be bad for the list?
Ria





From: "MARGARET M. BARBER" <mbarber@WELCHLINK.WELCH.JHU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:46:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Butterfly Ball

Sadly, the Butterfly Ball does not occur in Gay Merill Gross' new book,
Paper Creations.
Peg Barber
mbarber@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu





From: "MARGARET M. BARBER" <mbarber@WELCHLINK.WELCH.JHU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:49:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Butterfly Ball

sorry for the duplicate post!!
Peg Barber
mbarber@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:27:53 +0200
Subject: Re: identifying a couple of books

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Michael Gibson wrote:
> The second book is by Akira Yoshizawa, and has the letters "NHK" on the
> cover. My friend told me this the name of a television channel. The cover
> shows star constellations (a snake and a dog) as well as a dragonfly and
> grasshopper/cricket.

This appears to be the following book:

@Book{Yoshizawa:Sasaku,
  author =       {Akira Yoshizawa},
  title =        {Sasaku Origami},
  publisher =    {NHK},
  year =         {1984},
  note =         {ISBN 4--14--031028--6}
}

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





From: Donna & Robin <robin@RGLYNN.KEME.CO.UK>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:21:34 +0100
Subject: My diagrams

Thanks again for your enthusiasm for proof reading my diagrams.
They are ready to send out to all who asked, but before I do I
think it is best to let you know the size and file formats.
Just E-mail me back with which files you want me to attatch.

VISIO *.vsd files created using VISIO 3.0
bear (149k) teddy bear, 2 pages
cannon (170k) 2 wheeled cannon, 2 pages
flipper (96k) flexing toy (from a cardboard gift in a packet of crisps)
monster (127k) working model, move arms and mouth opens and closes
starbox (65k) 6 piece modular star of david box, 2 pages
starlid (85k) lid for star of david box, 2 pages
teeth (139k) jokey false teeth, 2 pages
treasure (241k) treasure chest, 2 pages
all files = 1.04mb

Windows metafiles *.wmf - easy to import into various programmes (ie ms word)
bear1 (44k) teddy bear page 1
bear2 (68k) teddy bear page 2
cannon1 (65k) cannon page 1
cannon2 (87k) cannon page 2
chest1 (83k) treasure chest page 1
chest2 (100k) treasure chest page 2
flipper (76k)
glider (31k)
starbox1 (32k) modular star box page 1
starbox2 (18k) modular star box page 2
starlid1 (36k) modular star box lid page 1
starlid2 (22k) modular star box lid page 2
teeth1 (44k) false teeth page 1
teeth2 (76k) false teeth page 2
all files = 775k

Robin Glynn





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:34:40 +0200
Subject: Re: What should a diagram contain? (was: I'm afraid of my paper!)

Hi,

First of all, I'd like to ask anyone on the list who had sent me personal
email between 19th/July 5:00 pm GMT and 21th/July 2:00 pm GMT, I'm not sure
I got it. I had problems with my email, so I'm not sure if everything is
received. I got your message Luigi, Chris and Jonathan, thank you. If anyone
else sent me something, please send it again.

Now let's diagram.

>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Peter Budai wrote:
>> Or better: They should contain diagrams that are (almost) standalone and
>> written comments that is auxiliary for the diagrams ('borrowed' from
>> R.J.Lang). Written comments are needed, for example at complex models, where
>> there are XI-century-moves included.
>
>... well, okay. Written comments can sometimes clarify the intended move;
>but I happen to be a very picture-orientated person and only read the text
>as a last resort. Sorry, my personal fault.

No, no. I also rarely read the text but it's not us for who the text should
be there but those who are beginners and until they get used to the
diagrams, they can read the text.

>> >I often miss these indications in diagrams by John Montroll or Robert Lang.
>> In which ones?
>
>Do you want examples?
>
>First of all, both Robert and John never use the well-known "repeat"
>symbol (the arrow with 1+ bars).

They try to avoid it using different folding methods, as far as I know. The
repeat arrow can be confuseful for beginners, since it takes after the plain
valley-fold arrow (I know, the bars are there, but...).

The RB-issue is an icy ground. I usually use the following method: if it can
be seen on the diagram, that the fold should be repeated (for example, the
diagram shows 'fold this big front flap down', and on the next diagram there
are no flaps above, -provided that there was a flap behind as well-, the
step should be repeated). A spicier version is when you have more identical
flaps on each other - then you can count...  (I know this sounds so that it
takes a long time to do this, but in fact, I have no folding-time-backlog
due to this.) Now, if you have no idea if that step should be repeated but
are nifty, twist-brained person who supposes something paranormal happening
on the back of the model, then you can always take a look at the text and
make yourself sure (or the diagrammer unsure).

>Robert's box with the number of the steps that are to be repeated is
>a great help, yes, but using this sign would make the diagrams more
>"stand-alone". Example: steps 21--24 of the treehopper, where it says
"repeat >behind" in the text, but not in the diagrams.

I think Robert and John are still in the lead in case of diagramming (,too
:). However, I don't say that the diagramming couldn't be improved.
BTW, I just atarted to use a (perhaps) "new" auxiliary symbol, which is
dedicated to make the diagrams standalone... When you have a bunch of layers
for example on the right side, and the diagram should say "fold 2 layers
over to the left" - it's only indicated with where the arrow starts (at
which layer) that how many layers should be folded over to the left. Now,
besides indicating with the start of the arrow (which sometimes could be
hard to decipher), I have put a white circle with a number (here would be
"2") in it to make the whole action clearer. What about this? Sorry if my
explanation is clumsy, if you want an example picture, send me an e-mail to
the hopefully working-in-the-future email address
<peterbud@mail.datatrans.hu> and I'll send you a small gif-file.

>The symbol for the division of angles or sides (the arc with one or two
>bars) is never used. It is not really necessary, okay, but it sometimes
>clarifies the diagrams.

Perhaps there one should search for other landmarks. Anyway, I'm using these
that you mentioned. Point for me ;)

>>And what about telling the complexity of the model, suggesting paper size
>>and type or showing the crease patttern at the beginning of the diagrams?
>
>I'd like to have this kind of information for many models; I'm always
>interested in how the creator folds his models.

And now that you received (received?) my diagrams, you find nothing I
mentioned above... Well, if I can make space for them, I will include these
cream-on-the-cake informations but I can't promise :)(





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:41:11 +0200
Subject: Re: Give me suggestions!

Hi,

I'm not sure this message has reached you due to the problems with my email.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Peter Budai

_____________________________________________

At 02:17 PM 7/18/98 PDT, Liony Azali wrote:

>[...] What book should i go next which more exciting than Kusudama?
>i find Kusudama is very exciting, but i want more challenge :) [...]

Well, if you're okay with reverse-folds (and a little bit okay with open
sinks), I think you could go on a Montroll book. Those are nice models and
not so difficult that you would not be able to fold them. Next step Lang
models but you have to complete the Montrol books first... :)  (Okay, the
'Origami in Action' by Lang has also some simple models which you could fold).

Peter Budai

P.S. I guess you know who are these two :)





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:41:23 +0200
Subject: Re: Favourite Authors

I'm not sure this mail reached destination because the email problems I had.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Peter Budai
__________________________________________________________
At 10:20 AM 7/18/98 -0400, Chris T Durham wrote:

>Out of this list, who is your favourite author-
>
>1. Robert Lang      *The best of all, to me.*
>
>2. John Montroll
>
>3. Fumiaki Kawahata     *Close second!*

The same for me, except that I don't have a third place, since at that point
too many authors come into sight.

>P.S. Who like my models? :)

I *do* like Mr. Moon. (Hey Chris, don't be surprised if after this mail
hundreds will ask you for the diagrams, ;) - in any case, *you* asked the
quesion!

Foldingly, Peter Budai





From: Terry Buse <tbuse@VSTA.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 19:49:09 +0000
Subject: chat website

Does anyone have the origami chat room website? Thanks in advance





From: Perry Bailey <pbailey@MTAYR.HEARTLAND.NET>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:28:11 -0500
Subject: Re: My diagrams

>Thanks again for your enthusiasm for proof reading my diagrams.
>They are ready to send out to all who asked, but before I do I
>think it is best to let you know the size and file formats.
>Just E-mail me back with which files you want me to attatch.

>Windows metafiles *.wmf - easy to import into various programmes (ie ms word)
>bear1 (44k) teddy bear page 1
>bear2 (68k) teddy bear page 2
>cannon1 (65k) cannon page 1
>cannon2 (87k) cannon page 2
>chest1 (83k) treasure chest page 1
>chest2 (100k) treasure chest page 2
>flipper (76k)
>glider (31k)
>starbox1 (32k) modular star box page 1
>starbox2 (18k) modular star box page 2
>starlid1 (36k) modular star box lid page 1
>starlid2 (22k) modular star box lid page 2
>teeth1 (44k) false teeth page 1
>teeth2 (76k) false teeth page 2
>all files = 775k
>
>Robin Glynn

Can you add me to the list for the wmf files?

Perry

Paper, scissors, stone.....
Origami, Kirigami, bludgeon....
pbailey@mtayr.heartland.net
http://www.afgsoft.com/perry/





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:55:17 -0400
Subject: Re: My diagrams

> Just E-mail me back with which files you want me to attatch.

> Windows metafiles *.wmf - easy to import into various programmes (ie ms
word)
> bear1 (44k) teddy bear page 1
> bear2 (68k) teddy bear page 2
> cannon1 (65k) cannon page 1
> cannon2 (87k) cannon page 2
> chest1 (83k) treasure chest page 1
> chest2 (100k) treasure chest page 2
> flipper (76k)
> glider (31k)
> starbox1 (32k) modular star box page 1
> starbox2 (18k) modular star box page 2
> starlid1 (36k) modular star box lid page 1
> starlid2 (22k) modular star box lid page 2
> teeth1 (44k) false teeth page 1
> teeth2 (76k) false teeth page 2
> all files = 775k

Robin, this is so nice of you. I'd love to see these. If it's easy send
them all. If not the ones I'd like to see most are the chest, flipper,
glider and the starbox and starlid.

Thanks a lot,
Jeff Kerwood





From: Rachel Katz <mandrk@PB.NET>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:00:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Butterfly Ball
Priority: normal

>
>
Pat Slider wrote > Well, "Origami Workshop" (the paperback version of "Art of
Origami") is
> out-of-print these days; although I expect the odd bookstore still has
> copy. A lot of the material has crossed over into Gay Merrill Gross's latest
> "Paper Creations," but whether or not the butterfly ball did I don't know.
> Seems like it would given its popularity.
>
> The creator by the way is Kenneth Kawamura.
>
> Wouldn't be fair to Gross to scan this one, but here is a hint/challenge :->:

> p.s. I think if you search in the archives under "butterfly ball" you will
> find some hints on assembling the bases.
>
 Just thought you ought to know that Gay Merrill Gross gets no royalties on
this book. They didn't even pay her to proof read it. They told her if she
didn't, they'd just print it as is. Gay is too sincere and too much of a
perfectionist to have allowed this to happen. By the way, I believe they
decided to leave the butterfly ball out of "Paper Creations."

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





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:06:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Towards more helpful instructions in books

> Joseph Wu:
> I think that most diagrammers try to make things easy to understand.
> What's the point in deliberately producing confusing diagrams? The
> problem is that "easy" is relative. We've already seen in this
> discussion that different people have different sorts of difficulties
> with diagrams. We'll all just have to keep trying our best.

Joseph, you are absolutely correct. I did not intend to slight the efforts
and achievements of origami authors. They invest a lot of themselves and
their time for little monetary return. I regret having implied otherwise,
where would we be without them?

Mostly I was venting my frustrations. But I was trying to say something
too.  Unless I'm miss remembering several people have suggested that
diagrams are a "universal" language and that text should be avoided. It was
really to them that I was speaking.

> Sheldon Ackerman:
> At this point I would say that if I am shown a fold
> then I can eventually do it. However when looking at a diagram, even if I
> understand what is supposed to happen, I can not always do it.

True, but what I was talking about was the understanding part. I know I
can't fold everything but there is no reason that I shouldn't be able to
look at directions for a model and ~ know ~ what it is I should be trying
to do. It seems that text is often shied away from even when it would be
the clearest way to communicate something.

Jeff Kerwood





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:19:25 -0400
Subject: Re: pornogami on list?

At 05:41 PM 7/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Greetings all,
>      I thought this list was free of perversions but then alasdair changed
>all that.  I'm not a prude and it
>will not bother me if he insists on posting that stuff, at least he gives us
>a warning, but I really don't
>like to see it, because I've told kids who I teach about this list so I hope
>he doesn't get too bold with
>his pornogami.  I really have liked the list and made a friend because of
>it.  Does anybodyelse have an
>opinion to voice about this?  I think he's harmless what do you think?  Will
>it be bad for the list?

heh...i don't know whether you're serious or not; i understand that people
don't want to see that stuff. no matter what, i think i should make one
thing clear: i'm not trying to start a thread about pornogami on the list.
i told people specifically to reply in private and i intend to make no
further posts about it. i hope nobody takes it too badly. maybe zack's
underground origami page should start a message board? ;)

peace,
alasdair





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:20:49 -0400
Subject: O Netiquette, My Netiquette!

Joseph Wu wrote:

> " . . .
> Of course, I accidentally clicked send before I deleted the rest of the
> message. Apologies all."

If even the talented, knowledgeable, and careful Joseph Wu occasionally
slips up, what hope is there for the rest of us?! I can't think of a
better lead-in for the suggestion that moderation in the pursuit of
message purity may be the best policy for all of us -- good lord,
some recent postings would have us think that sending an attachment
is some sort of capital crime.

FWIW, I know what it's like to use a primitive email system -- I've used a
text-based email system from a dumb terminal, and I'd download the postings
over a 1200-baud modem to a printer one screen at a time. Talk about slow!
Talk about tedious! Talk about wasting time, paper, and ribbon on page
after page of attachment gibberish! And I was paying for the phone time.

But it really didn't happen very often, and every time it did there were
postings explaining the problems that are caused, followed by an apology
from the perpetrator, and things would be fine. I didn't think it was a
big problem then, and I don't think it's a big problem now. I actually
"waste" more time sorting through perfectly-composed messages that don't
interest me, but that's all part of being on the list. I figure if and
when the cost-to-benefit ratio becomes too high, I'll drop off (my fear
is that I'll become one of those "Help - get me off the list!" wretches
who show up from time to time ;-( ), and I also figure that's the only
rule that we really need to enforce. . . .

Just my two cents.

Mike "At Least Now I Can Sort My Messages & Delete Them in Groups" Naughton

PS: Now if we can just convince Bernie and Sebastian not to throw Joseph
out of our happy little "cooperative community"!





From: Michael Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:24:45 +1000
Subject: identifying a couple of books

A friend recently bought a bunch of origami books for me from South Korea.
I gave him a couple of author names and then let him find what he could.

There are two in particular which I would like extra information on, and I
was hoping someone out there could provide it.

The first is a unit origami book with the author's name in Japanese
characters (my friend could not translate them). I was wondering if it was
Tomoko Fuse. The cover shows a photograph of various modular origami, the
largest being a 3-D soccerball-ish shape (I apologise for my lack of
knowledge of the proper names). It consists of flat blue hexagonal faces
and pentagon-pyramid faces (I can see yellow seams between the faces). It
is in the top-left of the photo. Not much to go on I know....

The second book is by Akira Yoshizawa, and has the letters "NHK" on the
cover. My friend told me this the name of a television channel. The cover
shows star constellations (a snake and a dog) as well as a dragonfly and
grasshopper/cricket. I just wanted some background information on this
book, such as was it a part of a TV program? and what is the actual title?

I know this is fairly vague, and if people are interested in helping I
could try and give some extra information.

ps. the books were so cheap! It cost me less than A$10 per book (as long
as you don't mind the challenge of translation)

Regards,

Michael Janssen-Gibson





From: Brown Family <pepperb@EROLS.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:36:53 -0400
Subject: Re: chat website

http://www.the-village.com/
Follow the logical links to find the chat.

Jeff Brown

Terry Buse wrote:

>  Does anyone have the origami chat room website? Thanks in advance





From: "Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:48:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Curved Modulars

Valerie wrote:

"Two other non-geodesic origami modules that use curved planes
are the Omega Star and Enigma Cube."

Also my "Lattice Module" (Tom Hull also has a similar one . . .)

Mike Naughton





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:47:55 +0200
Subject: Re: Origami for living?

On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, liony azali wrote:
> but i never thought that origami can be a source of living? Can it be?
> How?

Yes, you can make a living from origami. I have met someone at the
convention in Freising who proves this. Stephan Weber sells his origami on
the street, and he earns enough money from this to be able to live in
Germany in summer and go to Chile in the winter, where he doesn't have to
endure the harsh German winter.

Stephan started paperfolding and creating only a year ago, but he already
has a host of fine animal models, some involving cuts. But since he lives
on the street, he has very little time to diagram his models, and often
forgets them before he can draw them.

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





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:37:02 -0400
Subject: Re: pornogami on list?

As a list old timer, it looks to me like alasdair
is following the "guidelines" of the list (not
official, just custon and relying on the good sense
and manners of the members) with respect to
adult material, that is:

1.Make an announcement to the list indicating a
reference to adult material, and where to find
it,

2. Confining further discussion to private email.

Alasdair, by all means diagram those
models! I for one don't want to put a damper on
anyones creativity or sense of humor, and the only
opinion I feel I have a right to exert in the matter
concerns the appropriate place to display and discuss
such art &/or humor, not its content or whether it
is either art or humor.

And by the way, the list archives contain at least
one model some folks might consider "adult", and
how about those seals in the OUSA Annual 98?
Thank goodness we're not supported by the National
Endowment for the Arts :-)

valerie





From: Amy <ahuang@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:04:59 -0600
Subject: Paper stores in Vancouver

Hi there,

        Thanks to all who responded re where to find origami paper in
Seattle. I'll be taking the list of the addresses with me when I visit this
weekend:)

        It turns out I'll be stopping by Vancouver too. Since I often visit
Vancouver, I'd also like to know where I can find good paper sources in this
city. Can anyone comment on this one?

        Thanks,
        Amy

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





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:23:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Folding Faces and ELVIS !

At 02:24 PM 7/21/98 -0500, Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>  wrote:
>
>Does anyone know of any Elvis folds ? hehehe.

Neal Elias designed one years ago, and was published in a very olf BOS mag
(somewhere around #60). While you might not have luck finding that model,
you might be able to modifyhis "Andres Segovia" model, which shares many
similarities. An even easier model to find would be my "Dollar Bill
Guitarist" (published in OrigamiUSA's money folding book), in which I stole
the bulk of the "Andres Segovia" folding sequence. Just so you do not get
too excited, none of the models feature sidburns.

Marc





From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean_-_J=E9rome_Casalonga?= <jjerome.casalonga@HOL.FR>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:03:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Warning! Pornogami content included!

        Dear Politically Correct people,

I think we are really lucky that Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Picasso
and many other great artists were not Origami creators ! !

Could you imagine the Statue of David, with his genitals displayed to
everyone, as an Origami model, with people explaining to Michelangelo :
 "Yes, Michael, this is a nice model, but you must understand that there
are kids that are going to see it.  It is not that we don't like it or we
want to censor this model, but , you know, Origami is a family hobby, and
some people might be shocked, you know, ...
But if you want, you can add a small piece of paper to cover the -delicate-
part of this model"

I understand that you want to keep the mind and spirit of the young as pure
as a cristal water of a mountain river.
Personnaly, I don't think seeing an origami model af a couple making love
can lead to kids blowing a fuse and buying "Playboy".

        Let the creators create, let them have fun !  Let them give us naughty
models.

However, I do agree with the fact that it must be clearly announced that
one model is "Not for kids", but let's not put them in one special room,
with one person checking ID cards or driving licence to only let in 18 +
people.

        JJ Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasalongaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:21:31 +0200
Subject: (NO) Just say no! (was: O Netiquette, My Netiquette!)

"Message purity", what a neat buzzword! Sounds so .... CLEAN!

But I am all for "message impurity", because I don't want even more,
however well-intended, censorship on the internet. Or do you think the
"Pornogami" announcement would have made it through the message
purifier? So I "just say no" to moderation!

Matthias
Disclaimer:
I did NOT read the archives before posting yet another message about
moderation. But I did put an (NO) - Not Origami- in the title. OUCH,
it's hard to be "origamically correct" nowadays.

"Michael J. Naughton" wrote:
>If even the talented, knowledgeable, and careful Joseph Wu occasionally
>slips up, what hope is there for the rest of us?! I can't think of a
>better lead-in for the suggestion that moderation in the pursuit of
>message purity may be the best policy for all of us -- good lord,





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:51:17 +0200
Subject: (NO) Sexually explicit. Don't read! (was:Re: Warning! Pornogami

Of course, the debate is based on the extreme views that many Americans
hold about sexuality. Personally, I don't understand it at all.

I don't see how children could be "shocked" or "disturbed" or whatever
by seeing genitals. After all, they see them everytime they're naked.
Geez, babies and small children even PLAY with their genitals! With
obvious pleasure! And small boys like my son (excuse me!) even get a
hard-on while doing it! In public! With no shame whatsoever! Yikes!

Au contraire, I think if children knew more about sexuality, there
wouldn't be quite as much child molesting and teenage pregnancies as
there are today, especially in the United States.

But I agree that we don't need to shove sexually explicit material, or
pornography, into children's faces. In that respect, Alasdair's
announcement was very correct. He had a warning in the subject line, he
only made a reference to his model, and the text wasn't in any way
pornographic or even sexually explicit.

Matthias
P.S.: Sorry if I'm not my usual polite self, but I'm just sick of the
american "moral imperialism". And if this message was too sexually
explicit for you, don't blame me for reading it. The subject line was
clear enough.





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:14:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Folding Faces and ELVIS !

> From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
>
> While you might not have luck finding that model,
> you might be able to modifyhis "Andres Segovia" model

Marc, tell me more about this Andres Segovia model. Is it a guitarist
that's called Andres Segovia or can you really tell it's him (not likely I
know, just hoping). Where are the diagrams?

Thanks, Jeff Kerwood





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:41:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Rose cube?

     I'm not sure if the rose cube ever got diagrammed, but if you
know anyone who went to the convention, they're bound to know. I
consider it to be one of the most widespread models this year (anyone
who didn't go to either of the two classes for it learned it from a
friend). It's an intermediate model, not that hard to make the pieces,
but a little tricky in assembly. My one regret is that it works best
with paper the same color on both sides (if duo is two, then would
this be mono?), which I've found, but the package I bought was way too
thin for the model (thinner than kami, while the model works best with
slightly stiff paper).

Enjoy,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From: John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:54:36 -0700
Subject: pornogami

Hello Alasdair,
     Thank you for clarifying your message about not posting anymore about
pornogami and respecting
those of us on the list who don't like mention of it.  You did say you would
do it privately or in
the underground.  Interesting, that the only other response beside mine was
from a 13 year old boy
who found it disgusting but funny and amusing.
peace,
Ria
P.S. I don't think you'll see any thread about pornogami after this.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:02:23 +0100
Subject: Re: pornogami on list?

John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET> sez

>I think he's harmless what do you think?  Will
>it be bad for the list?

I think it will be a sad day when we start to censor the list. As long
as there are no enclosures & the descriptions are to the point, people
can then ignore or check out "underground" sites as they wish. What it
comes down to is carefully worded titles to messages...

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk - all new look!
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/
RPM homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk - now with RealAudio clips!





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:06:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Folding Faces and ELVIS !

Jeff Kerwood wrote:

> Marc, tell me more about this Andres Segovia model. Is it a guitarist
> that's called Andres Segovia or can you really tell it's him (not likely
> I know, just hoping). Where are the diagrams?

Well, I can't help with the other info but here is where you can find the
model. Neal Elias Booklet 35 published by the BOS (pg 31).

Jeff Kerwood

(BTW, I am aware that I am the original poster of this question. Sometimes
the dim lights flicker and I remember to check the archives)





From: Ian McRobbie <Ourldypeac@AOL.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:17:33 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Rose cube?

I would also LOVE to fold the magic rose cube.  I believe it is by Valerie
Van.  Anyway, I've been trying forever to get my hands on the diagrams for
that model. Not many creators make transforming origami, but instead make
animals. Still there is few creators who make household things, vehicles, and
symbols.
                                                                     -Ian





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@T-ONLINE.DE>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:15:28 +0200
Subject: Re: O Netiquette, My Netiquette!

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Michael J. Naughton wrote:
> I can't think of a better lead-in for the suggestion that moderation in the
> pursuit of message purity may be the best policy for all of us

Nobody said anything about moderation -- and certainly not moderation for the
sake of "message purity". I only suggested that the listserver could bounce
attachments, because they are likely to contain large binary files which are
not welcome on the list (this being no binary list, and there being a better
place (ie. the archives) for binary files), and because attachments tend to
make problems for other list members.

Geez -- now that you have started with "moderation", I'm only waiting for the
first person to complain that we are suggesting censorship on the
list. (Valerie's "message police" was already a misinterpretation close to
this accusation.) Could you guys (and gals) perhaps care to read the messages
you are referring to; just to see what is really being proposed, and why?

> PS: Now if we can just convince Bernie and Sebastian not to throw Joseph
> out of our happy little "cooperative community"!

Has anyone ever talked of throwing someone out?

\begin{irony}
No, but this "Joseph Wu" (have I heard the name before?) will get a good,
stern talking-to before he is much older. And believe me, when we are
finished with him, he will never again even comtemplate sending a message
to the list without having it proof-read by five different people, with at
least two with a university degree in CS, won't he, Bernie? ;-)
\end{irony}

OK, I'm going on holiday to sunny ;-) Ireland this afternoon, and when I come
back, I don't want to hear any more of this gibberish about moderation! I'm
setting the list to nomail for this time, so anyone who wants to get an answer
from me should send me a private e-mail.

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





From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@HMCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:16:10 -0400
Subject: NORM Re: pornogami on list?

Ria asks:
>Will it be bad for the list?

The only harm caused the last time this came up (just over
two years ago if I recall correctly) was some strong words
and (possibly) hurt feelings.

In any conversation, no matter what it's about, topics will
come up that some participants find offensive. What I find
offensive ("me too" in response to a very specific "respond
privately") may not be what listmember B finds offensive
(scissors, glue, rectangles) may not be what YOU find offensive.

I suspect that in the case of the _lonely man_ the reactions
send a far worse message to the kids on the list than the
original announcement.

This list will remain a pleasant and relatively "safe" place
to listen to origami conversation because that's what most
of us want. It's certainly has a higher "purity" level than
American television!

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com

(NORM <=> Non Origami Related Material)
I didn't want to just say "NO" to "Pornogami on list"!!!





From: John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:19:17 -0700
Subject: spicigami

Greetings,
      Judging from the other reactions to Alasdair's post, I over reacted,
but I'm fairly new to the
list and not as sophisticated as some of the other members.  I have a sense
of humor though, and so
I guess Alasdair spices up things now and then.  Enough said, I'm sorry I
started the whole opinion
thread!
Ria





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:57:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Rose cube?

Sam Kendig indited:

>      I'm not sure if the rose cube ever got diagrammed, but if you
> know anyone who went to the convention, they're bound to know. I

If anyone reading this is in Pittsburgh, PA, USA and wants to learn it, let me
know.  We'll probably be doing it in one of the upcoming Origami Club of
Pittsburgh meetings too, but if you can't wait, let me know and we'll work
something out.

...

> but a little tricky in assembly. My one regret is that it works best
> with paper the same color on both sides (if duo is two, then would
> this be mono?), which I've found, but the package I bought was way too
> thin for the model (thinner than kami, while the model works best with
> slightly stiff paper).

Actually, it works nicely from note cube paper.  I've also tried copier paper,
but it is too flimsy even though thick.  In order to get the interlock you do
need slightly stiff/strong paper.

I haven't found any royal road to assemble it, at least not yet. ;-)

-D'gou

P.S.  Nice model, Valerie!  Everyone I've shown it too has liked it.

--
end
<a href="http://www.pgh.net/~dwp">Doug's Fun Page</a>





From: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:13:18 -0500
Subject: Re: pornogami

True peace would have been to leave out the snotty comment about the 13
yr old kid.

A sincere apology turned into a slam.  Nice touch Ria.

B R E T T

        From:   John Sutter [SMTP:sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET]

        the underground.  Interesting, that the only other response
beside mine was
        from a 13 year old boy
        who found it disgusting but funny and amusing.
        peace,
        Ria
        P.S. I don't think you'll see any thread about pornogami after
this.





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:28:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] O Netiquette, My Netiquette!

At 09:20 PM 98/07/21 -0400, you wrote:
>If even the talented, knowledgeable, and careful Joseph Wu occasionally
>slips up, what hope is there for the rest of us?! I can't think of a
>better lead-in for the suggestion that moderation in the pursuit of
>message purity may be the best policy for all of us -- good lord,
>some recent postings would have us think that sending an attachment
>is some sort of capital crime.

>PS: Now if we can just convince Bernie and Sebastian not to throw Joseph
>out of our happy little "cooperative community"!

Well, I tend to agree with them, but I know what you mean. Slip ups are
acceptable. Repeated occurrences because the message sender simply doesn't
care or can't be bothered to learn are not. We are a community here, after
all. We need to consider the impact our actions have on the other 500+
members of this list.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:33:21 -0400
Subject: Re: pornogami

> the underground.  Interesting, that the only other response beside mine was
> from a 13 year old boy
> who found it disgusting but funny and amusing.
> peace,

It is very interesting as the original message was PERFECTLY CLEAR that
indidviduals should respond ONLY PRIVATELY.

> Ria
> P.S. I don't think you'll see any thread about pornogami after this.
>
Wrong :-)

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





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:35:18 -0400
Subject: (NO) Sexually explicit. Don't read! (was:Re: Warning! Pornogami

Mattias,

The problem in the USA at least is not whether you or I
care whether children in our care see pictures/origami/whatever
with sexual content.

The problem is that there are thousands
(maybe millions) of parents and educators in the USA who
*do* object to even relatively mildly sexually related content,
so that schools and those making lists of "child safe" web
sites, mail lists, etc. in an effort to appease and satisfy
these people will take a safe course and list such sites
as "adult content". This will make these sites inaccessible
to schools, libraries etc using filtering software, etc.

Many of us on the origami mail list very much want to be able
to continue to recommend and provide links to this mail list
and its archives without having to worry that its content has
led it to be classified as "adult". It would be a great loss
and disservice to teachers of art, mathmatics, geometry etc
if this were to happen.

Valerie Vann





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:54:19 -0400
Subject: Magic Rose Cube: the straight poop

RE: my Magic Rose Cube (MRC) model:

I do not have publishable diagrams yet. Been having problems
getting to them (work, health, etc.) but am not yet ready to
give up and have someone else do them, as I consider the art
of diagramming part of the art of origami, at least for me.

A good friend has diagrammed the pieces, and also a rudimentary
explanation of assembly and use, but as I say, I'm not quite
ready to give up on my own. I hope to be on vacation shortly,
and to give this top priority, God willing and the creek don't
rise.

Paper:

The very best paper to use, especially for beginning efforts
is 18-20 pound COPY BOND paper. Use a good quality with a
smooth surface. There are nice shades of bright red, bright
pink/magenta and Christmas/forest green. (No florescent colors,
please (yuk!)!!
:-)

Take the letter size paper and cut off a rectangle to make
a big square. Then cut that square into 4 smaller squares.
(USA letter paper will give a big square 8.5 inches, and the
four small square will be 4.25 inches.)

You will need one sheet each of red or pink and green. Since
each MRC only needs 3 squares, you will have one left over
in case you goof, or to save as a memory aid. Or cut up 3
sheets of each color, and make 4 MRCs.

The next best paper to use, but difficult to get enough of
it in the same colors, is a duo heavier weight kami origami
paper packaged in a variety pack. There are some sheets that
are dark green on one side, light on the other, and some that
are red/pink and similar combinations. There is also a
flower kusudama kit that contains this kind of duo paper.
The paper size is 6 inch. You need 3 sheets of each color;
though cutting these in quarters works, beginners will find
it rather difficult to assemble properly from 3 inch paper.

But the letter paper works great and is easy to come by.

As has been noted, there are now thousands of people all over
the known universe that know how to make my MRC, so ask at
your local origami group, or post a request here to the list
asking if there is someone in your area.

Valerie Vann
ps. Save all those long rectangle you cut off to make squares
from the letter paper: they're good for a variety of modulars.





From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@EXC.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:38:00 +0000
Subject: Rose cube?
A while back there was quite a lot of talk about a rose cube.  Did it
ever get diagrammed?  I would love to see it and try to make it.

-Joel
(joel@exc.com)





From: John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:38:52 -0700
Subject: Re: spicygami (hot enough!)

Lisa,
    I'm not gonna sweat it!  A. Brett was right I was just a bit sarcastic
in my first attempt to make
peace with Alasdair and others, but like you said sometimes one risks being
yelled at when one voices
an opinion or gets sarcastic for the wrong reason.  I don't want to fan the
flames of this discussion
any further.  It's pretty darn hot for real where I live in Connecticut
today if one is outside.  I want
to stay cool with the air conditioner by the computer in more ways than one!
So really, this time let's
call a cease fire!  Forgive and Forget:) It was fun to stir people up a bit,
even if it did backfire on
me.
Ria





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:39:51 -0400
Subject: Re: pornogami

At 07:54 AM 7/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello Alasdair,
>     Thank you for clarifying your message about not posting anymore about
>pornogami and respecting
>those of us on the list who don't like mention of it.  You did say you would
>do it privately or in
>the underground.  Interesting, that the only other response beside mine was
>from a 13 year old boy
>who found it disgusting but funny and amusing.

actually, to be perfectly honest, i've gotten upward of 25 responses from
people who actually listened when i said "please respond privately" ;)

peace,
alasdair





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:44:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Maekawa's demon - can it stand up on its own?

At 05:37 PM 98/07/22 -0400, you wrote:
>Recently I've been working on Maekawa's demon from _Viva! Origami_. I've
>tried to get it to stand up on its own to no avail. Is it possible to get
>him to stand? Do you believe the picture on the cover of _Viva! Origami_
>is a self-supporting imp?
>
>At first, I suspected that his tail was the third point of support. But,
>the demon on the V!O cover is leaning away from the tail, making him much
>more unstable. Also, I don't believe the tail adds much structural support
>after looking at the picture in ORU#13 that shows the back of the demon.
>
>What have been your experiences?

Hi, Carmine. Welcome to the list. I saw this question on rec.arts.origami,
but I'm having a little bit of trouble posting responses there. Anyway, it
is possible to use the tail as a third point of support. Certainly, it is
easier to do that than to try to balance it on two feet. However, it *is*
possible to do so. The trick is to bend the legs so that the feet point
forwards. That gives you the stability required so that the devil (note:
this is what Maekawa calls it) does not fall forward or backward. The other
requirement is to have a well-folded model. Parts should be well-balanced
to begin with, or else it will not stand easily. Also, clean, sharp creases
(with few wrinkles or mangled limbs) really help when balancing a model on
its own feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
