




From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:46:57 -0400
Subject: Re: spicigami

At 10:19 AM 7/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I guess Alasdair spices up things now and then.  Enough said, I'm sorry I
>started the whole opinion thread!

why thank you. actually, i don't really post that often, and the majority
of my designs are not pornographic at all, but the original one of this
model was received so well that i felt i just had to mention the new version.

my apologies for starting a mini-flame-war here, but we don't get those too
often either, and i thought it would be a nice change. <j/k>

peace,
alasdair "flame on" post-quinn





From: Pat Slider <slider@STONECUTTER.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:09:38 -0700
Subject: A mild flame

>P.S.: Sorry if I'm not my usual polite self, but I'm just sick of the
>american "moral imperialism".

...and I have a low tolerance for gross generalizations based on
nationality, sex, race. or ???? Let's keep in mind that this is an
international community of INDIVIDUALS.

(Most "moral" person I ever met was French, and you know how they are
supposed to be :-> right?)

Can't say I see much opportunity for imperialist behavior on an origami
maimling list anyway.

Maybe should just delete this now that I've written it, but sure makes me
feel better to send it :->.

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:15:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [NO] A mild flame

At 03:09 PM 98/07/22 -0700, you wrote:
>Can't say I see much opportunity for imperialist behavior on an origami
>maimling list anyway.

This is cute. "Maimling list". 8)

Speaking as the "imperialist" here (i.e. the list administrator), I will
not impose any sort of censorship on the list. People are still free to say
what they want, and others are free to complain about what is said. As for
stopping attachments at the listserver, I won't do that right now, partly
because I've tried it and it doesn't seem to work, and partly because some
people's emailers seem to send the body of the message AS an attachment.
'Nuff said.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, List Owner of ORIGAMI@MIT.EDU   t: 604.730.0306 x 105
e: origami-request@mitvma.mit.edu          f: 604.732.7331





From: John Marcolina <jmarcoli@CISCO.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:28:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Maekawa's demon - can it stand up on its own?

At 05:37 PM 7/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello everyone.
>
>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?

<snip>

I did get him to stand, by using the tail as the third point, as you
mentioned, which worked quite well on my wet-folded model. I didn't try to
get him to stand on just his 2 feet. This should be possible, but not very
stable.

John Marcolina
San Jose, CA.
jmarcoli@cisco.com





From: Tom Hill <tomh@GROUPWORKS.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:55:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Magic Rose Cube: the straight poop

Valerie Vann wrote:

> RE: my Magic Rose Cube (MRC) model:
>
> ...

Ok, Ok, Ok. I can't stand it anymore. I've got to have this model. Is
there anyone on this list in the suburban area North and West of Chicago
who would be willing to spend a bit of time showing me the (in)famous
MRC?

I don't really have time for this. I'm beginning to feel a pretty
serious addiction here, and all of this mystery surrounding the MRC is
only making things worse. You people are too kind to be compared with
drug dealers! But, I'm hooked, big time. Someone, help me out, please.

I spend most of my time chained to a computer or shuffling my kids from
one activity to another. I don't know when I'm going to find time to
learn this model. But, it's clear that I'm going to have to learn it
soon. My curiosity is killing me.

Help! Please, help me before I can't stand it any more!

I've heard vague rumblings of something called CHAOS, but I don't know
anything about it. Are there any CHAOS members on the list who know the
MRC who would be willing to try to match some of their free time to my
insane schedule and teach me this model before I break?

Valerie, this is incredible (but cruel) marketing for your next book. By
now, I'd be willing to pay whatever you asked for it, as long as it had
the MRC in it..

Note: If you've gotten this far, I'm not really serious about breaking,
I think I'm well enough adjusted that origami can't break me. I am,
however, serious about learning the MRC.

--> Insert enormous smiley after each paragraph <--

Fold in Peace
Tom
tomh@groupworks.com

PS: One more thing:

> 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.

Which modulars do you make out of those letter strips? I've cut them up
into mini-squares and made them into an Electra. What else should I try?





From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@EXC.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:21:00 +0000
Subject: Rose cube?
>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).

Sounds like plain colored office paper would work great.





From: Carmine Di Chiara <cadichia@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:37:02 -0400
Subject: Maekawa's demon - can it stand up on its own?

Hello everyone.

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?

Thanks,

Carmine

---------
Carmine Di Chiara
cadichia@mit.edu
        Beyond each corner new directions lie in wait.
                - Stanislaw Lec





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:38:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Magic Rose Cube: the straight poop

<<using the leftover strips for modulars

Well, actually, those Twist Unit gizmos on my web pages are made from them,
and I hope to get those diagrams whipped into publishable shape too,
and they're good for some of Francis Ow's and my similar "strut units"...

... provided I ever get through answering email that is.
<enormous smiley>
ditto

valerie





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:09:03 +0200
Subject: Re: OUSA Annuals

At 12:32 PM 7/21/98 EDT, Alec wrote:

>What are the original models? ("Original" meaning "interesting" -- not
>another bear or lion etc...)

As a contributor, I also have to wait, but I can tell you about a
Tie-fighter, which happens to be mine, as kindof original thing. Since then
I've been told that curved shields are not really the original form of these
vehicles (I still like the form, though :), but you can easily get the
original shield-type, if at step 39, you fold the right corner over to the
left so that the white area becomes covered (looks like if you folded a
white square in half). Then add the two parallel horizontal folds on the
shields to get the desired shape.

Okay, I do not pay for advertising my models, so no more :)

Happy folding, Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:09:13 +0200
Subject: Re: Folding Faces and ELVIS !

At 02:24 PM 7/21/98 -0500, Brett Askinazi wrote:

>Does anyone know of any Elvis folds ? hehehe.

Actually, I have one... Not published yet, it will be included in my next
book. Don't await too much, this is a pureland fold with five folds
altogether, so the resemblance depends on how you put the folds...

Happy folding, Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:09:16 +0200
Subject: I vote for Joseph! (Was: O Netiquette, My Netiquette!)

At 09:20 PM 7/21/98 -0400, Michael Naughton wrote:

>[...]
>Just my two cents.

Sorry, that cannot be folded on normal temperature... :)
I'd prefer two dollars (or two hundred... :)

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

I guess (and strongly hope) no one wants to throw our Joseph out.

Save Joseph!

Peter Budai





From: "Sonia Wu (NC)" <swu@VIRTU.SAR.USF.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:27:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Mookie--Pharmacy Origami?

I kept trying to think of something pharmacy-related--cotton balls?
band-aids?  pills?  Q-Tips?  eyedroppers (maybe a modified sword model)?
Maybe pharmacies in Japan carry different kinds of items than pharmacies
here in the U.S., though.  Many American "drug stores" have a little
pharmacy section, but most of the store devoted to things like stationery
supplies, pantyhose, toys, film, even small household appliances.  They
even carry cigarettes (as well as over-the-counter stop-smoking aids).

Maybe you could use the paper labels or coupons or advertisements for
different pharmacy products?  The labels would be hard to soak off, I
guess.   But in the U.S. our newspapers sometimes have glossy (like
magazine pages) 8 1/2 X 11 inch advertisements for different products
(over-the-counter mostly, but sometimes prescription products too).
Cut the paper into squares, and you could fold whatever models you like
that would feature the name brand or a photo of the product.  Someone on
the list mentioned once folding clothing models and displaying them on a
miniature clothesline with miniature clothespins; maybe that would be a
good attention-getter, like the sports brand-name t-shirts that are so
popular.  There are some neat clothing diagrams (designed by Rachel Katz)
in Gay Merrill Gross's The Art of Origami.  Jeremy Shafer has a men's suit
diagram in this year's OrigamiUSA Annual Collection.

American pharmacists usually wear white "lab coats"--maybe you could fold
a person model with a white lab coat if that's what they wear in Japan?

Hope this is of some help.  I love to talk about origami, too!

Sonia Wu
(Florida)





From: Amy <ahuang@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:21:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Origami for a drug store  ?
Hi there,

        First of all - welcome to the list! I hope you enjoy reading some of
the posts to the list.

>
> Today, I would like to ask for your advice. My aunt who manages a drug store
> asked me to fold some origami for the store display. She would like to have
> small models of several designs put next to the merchandise in the display
> cases. If you have any suggestions of basic to intermediate level models,
> I'd very much appreciate it.

        As a pharmacy student, your post caught my eye. I do have some
suggestions for you:

        1) Mortar and pestle. Pharmacies do an awful lot of compounding and
this is one tool that comes in handy:)
        2) How about a scene of a pharmacist counselling a patient on
his/her drug therapy? You could fold the pharmacist with a dispensing jacket
to distinguish who is who.
        3) Ofcourse, there's also the technical side - you could fold vials
and ointment jars.

        Good luck!
        Amy

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





From: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:23:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Maekawa's demon - can it stand up on its own?
To see a pictue of a free-standing devil/demon/oni go to
http://www.i1.net/brett/pics/origami/demon.jpg
<http://www.i1.net/brett/origami.animals.html>  towards the bottom there
is a link to the one I made from foilbacked paper.

And go to http://www.i1.net/brett/origami.animals.html
<http://www.i1.net/brett/origami.animals.html>  to see some other
non-modular models.

B R E T T

        From:   John Marcolina [SMTP:jmarcoli@CISCO.COM]
        >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?





From: Donna & Robin <robin@RGLYNN.KEME.CO.UK>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:34:22 +0100
Subject: Oops

Sorry I did not convert the monster diagram to windows metafile format.I will
convert the file tomorrow so if anyone wants the diagrams E-mail me and I'll
     send
them straight out.

Robin





From: Rob Moes <robert.moes@SNET.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:59:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Maekawa's demon - can it stand up on its own?

Joseph writes:

>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.

Because the face has so many folds and is very thick, it's very "face
heavy" and difficult to balance over the feet, unless you can contrive a
way to arch the body or something, so as to put the face directly in line
with the feet.  I just think it's too hard to do, so I also opt for using
the tail as a balancing point.  I do agree with bending the legs, so that
the feet point forward--it does allow the tail to be more toward the side
(instead of straight back between the legs) and more easily visible.

Rob





From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <Mikeinnj@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:59:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Paper stores in Vancouver

>        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?

Amy,

You can check here for an online list of sources:

http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj/orisrc.shtml

Janet Hamilton

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





From: Mike and Janet Hamilton <Mikeinnj@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:10:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Rose cube?

Well, I don't know if I should say this, but there are some excellent
diagrams of the rose cube that I have seen.  The diagrammer is going to be
showing them to Valerie Vann shortly (or may have already) for
comments/permission/etc.  It will be up to Valerie to decide if and how she
wants the diagrams to be made available.

I am withholding the diagrammer's name so he isn't bombarded with requests.

Janet Hamilton

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

-----Original Message-----
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 9:12 AM

>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: Perry Bailey <pbailey@MTAYR.HEARTLAND.NET>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:52:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Oops

>Sorry I did not convert the monster diagram to windows metafile format.I will
>convert the file tomorrow so if anyone wants the diagrams E-mail me and I'll
     send
>them straight out.

Please to add me to the list.

Perry





From: ! c 2 i <fujita_takashi@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 23:47:18 +0900
Subject: Origami for a drug store  ?

To all subscribers of the Origami I Mailing List, hello and konnichiwa from
Japan. Please forgive me if I didn't transmit this mail appropriately.

I'm new on the list and would like to express some of my thoughts. I've been
enjoying reading each posting and I must say that this has been extremely
infomative for me and I'm glad to have joined. I'm a beginner but can't stop
talking about origami day and night ( is this a phase I'm going through ?).
Although some of the subjects are still foreign to me, I'm learning a lot
and receiving new ideas, so thank you everyone.

Today, I would like to ask for your advice. My aunt who manages a drug store
asked me to fold some origami for the store display. She would like to have
small models of several designs put next to the merchandise in the display
cases. If you have any suggestions of basic to intermediate level models,
I'd very much appreciate it.

Thank you very much in advance.
Arigato

Mookie, Japan
Let's talk origami

Mookie_I_Mookie@hotmail.com





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:33:24 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Mookie--Pharmacy Origami?

In a message dated 98-07-22 18:30:06 EDT, you write:

> I kept trying to think of something pharmacy-related--
    8< neat ideas snipped >8

>  Maybe you could use the paper labels or coupons or advertisements for
>  different pharmacy products?
    8< neat ideas snipped >8

Other pharmacy-related? Here are more ideas:
    - The tradfitional (in the USA anyway) mortar and pestle;
    -  A syringe, preferably with a "working mechanism";
    -  A set of scales. for measuring out the powders;
    -  A pill box (example, a small brightly colored Fuse octagonal box)
    -  Two-part gelatin capsule, you know, the kind with a clear end,
        so you can see the medicine, and an opaque colored end, so
        the pharmacist can color code the pills, so you can tell your
different
        prescriptions apart; maybe make one part with cellophane, and
        fit it into another paper part;
    -  Foxglove flower, the original plant source for Digitalis, the heart
medicine;
    -  Poppy flower, plant source for Opium;
    -  Coca leaf and/or flower, plant source for Cocaine;
    -  Lips and teeth stained red, I think, the sign of using Betel Nut,
       another plant drug;
    -  Blood pressure cuff and bulb;
    -  Rx symbol;
    -  druggist "papers";
       way back when, I think even before pills, prescriptions were
       compounded by the "chemist" out of powders, and packaged
       in a piece of folded paper;
       this was back before the invention of the paper bag making machine,
       at the time when a lot of things were packaged at the counter,
       by wrapping a sheet of paper into a cone, pouring the whatever into
       the cone, and then closing the end of the cone, I don't know how;
       Someone must still know how to fold a drug paper or a paper cone;
    -  pill bottles; maybe even with "child-proof" cap;
    -  Dark brown medicine bottle; maybe w/Rx label;
    -  "Speedy", the Alka Seltzer "mascot";
    -  squeeze tubes, like toothpaste and antiseptic creams come in
    -  Atomizers and spray bottles;
    -  Soda bottle or can;
       ever heard of "phosphate" soda?
       a lot of modern sodas started out as "patent medicines"
    -  Ice cream dish; at least it seems to me that I associate
       "drug store" with "sodas" and "ice cream", from American
       popular culture of the 50's and 60's;
    -  Toothbrush; just because it's another healthcare item that
       drugstores around here carry routinely;
    -  Plasters; tho I can't figure how you'd get a recognizable one;
    -  Chemical flasks and beakers..

Use drug advertisements?
Why not fold a display of animals or Fuse boxes or other origami,
using drug advertisements?

Aloha,
kenny1414@aol.com (Kenneth M. Kawamura)





From: Rjlang@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:55:59 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

Following up on the ongoing discussion about origami symbology/verbiage in
general and "repeat behind" in particular:

I started out using Harbin's "repeat" symbol (an arrow with slashes across it
for the number of times you repeat) in TCBO. However, for OZ, Stephen Weiss
was adamantly opposed to its use and I diagrammed without it. I believe
Stephen's position was due to the influence of Sam Randlett, who characterized
Harbin's repeat arrow as "an abomination" (I'm not sure why, but it might have
been due to the resemblance to the valley fold arrow). At any rate, for
subsequent books, I wasn't satisfied with the Harbin arrow because it's not
always clear which steps need to be repeated, for which my favorite passage
from Engel's OfAtZ provides an illustration:

"Step 17. Repeat steps 14 and 15 on the left-hand side of the model. On the
next flap repeat step 16. Use the two narrowing procedures alternately all the
way to the other end of the paper. When you reach the opposite face, repeat
step 12...All told, you will perform steps 14 and 15 eight times, step 16 six
times, and step 12 twice."

Somehow, the Harbin arrow wouldn't quite capture all the subtle nuances being
expressed here. Whereas a collection of boxed-step indicators could cram all
this information into a single drawing to match the information-density of the
text.

(N.B. I pity the poor non-English speaker who tries to go from step 17 to 18
working solely from the drawings!)

So I continue to used boxed steps to indicate repeats, although (as was
pointed out in the previous discussion) not always with perfect consistency.

One place where ambiguity arises with boxed-step-repeats is the following
scenario: suppose in step 20 you show a rabbit ear in front and you want, in
the same step, to indicate repeat behind. Now the most straightforward thing
would be to put a "repeat box" containing "step 20" pointing to the back side,
right? But this repeat step is itself part of step 20, so a literal reading
would mean that the repeat should itself be repeated, which should therefore
be repeated, and you'd get stuck in an infinite loop.

Of course, it could be argued that anyone with the intelligence of asphalt
would figure out that you're not supposed to go into an infinite loop. But
some people take these things REALLY seriously!

Robert J. Lang
rjlang@aol.com





From: Dribalz@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 02:09:22 -0400 (
Subject: $  Magic Rose Cube

Just in case anyone is interested, I have adapted Valerie Vann's Magic Rose
Cube and made mine out of 6 $1 bills.  I did this about 6 months ago, shortly
after I learned of this most excellent model.  I did the rose out of the black
side of the bill and the leaves out of the green side.  It is a little thick
in the cube shape, but in the open rose form looks rather nice.  It is also
symmetrical in that the same parts of the bill make up the 3 leaves, and rose.
I showed this at the convention (or should I say that my mentor, Rachel Katz,
did), and it got nice reviews.  I taught only one person to do it.  I have
emailed Valerie a copy of the picture of this, and it may one day wind up on
her web page.  If any one is interested in seeing a JPEG of this $ rose,
please email me privately.





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:48:48 -0700
Subject: Re: a mild flame

---Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM> wrote:

> The danger of Art is that it resists boundaries.  There are no
subjects that
> are off limits to Art, and I feel a good deal of frustration when I
see the
> "oh, but its not kid friendly" as a merely masked:  Don't do anything
> controversial or "dangerous" or the prudes in the U.S. will ban this
list from
> libraries and other kid friendly access points.
>
[content unimportant to my argument removed]
>
> When it comes to the struggle to make origami into a widely accepted
legimate
> Art, while still retaining the "kid" appeal, I don't claim to have
any easy
> answers, but I think it is worth talking about again. ;-)
>
> -D'gou

     The problem arises that, at least in the US, we can't have
origami be truly seen as an "art form" unless it is completely
unrestricted, yet it is also seen as popular among kids, and as with
anything in which kids are involved, there must be restriction. I got
into origami about 6 years ago, when I was in third grade, and I'm
sure that if my parents had seen any of the "pornigami" that has
arisen, they would have been utterly shocked (and I probably would
have been forced to lose interest in the art). It may not be that way
in other countries, but in the US, parents are completely and utterly
restrictive about what their kids are exposed to. The problem is, it
doesn't help. Kids are exposed to things whether parents like it or
not. This may not be true for some, but I can tell from my experience
growing up in NYC, if kids have an interested in something, they'll
pursue that interest, regardless of whether their parents want them to
or not. If it's out there, kids can find a way into it. Censoring is
just a way to make parents feel that their kids are safe, and a way of
enforcing that kids "play dumb" as to what they know, if they know
their parents don't want them to know.
     Personally, I don't really hold an interest in the "pornigami",
but I see no reason to restrict it. Whether it's put out in the open
or kept away in underground pages, those who are are truly interested
in it will find it. Some parents may get angry, but you can't please
everyone. To censor an art simply because parents might get angry goes
against the nature of art, which is to express one's creativity. If
someone wants to fold something of a controversial
nature, they have every right to. If someone wants to use the diagrams
to that fold, they have every right to, too. If parents want to screen
everything their child sees and does, that's their responsibility (and
imposibility), but the folders of the world should not be responsible
for censoring what we create.

Just putting in my 2 cents,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com

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





From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@HMCO.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:42:23 -0400
Subject: Re: O Netiquette, My Netiquette!

About attachments: these bits of info may or may not help
solve the mystery. My e-mail system automatically inserts the
origami address when I hit reply, and it makes the header
information hard to access, so I usually end up typing in the
address when I'm replying to a person. When I first typed in
your address, I did it wrong, so I got a message from your server
that you didn't exist. *That* message had the same sort of
attachment that your messages to ori-l did. More strangeness:
the message you sent directly to me *did not* have an attachment.

I've included the text of one of your messages to ori-l which
appears to still include its attachment (according to Notes---
not the *worst* possible e-mail system but very close). Of
course several elements appear as picts rather than text
on my screen and I don't know how these get translated into
regular old e-mail. (I always edit them out before sending to
ori-l just in case.)

My summer's been a little too busy, but mostly fun. I'm a little
sad that it finally decided to get hot, but it had to happen
eventually I suppose.

Lisa

"Michael J. Naughton" <mjnaught@CROCKER.COM> on 07/21/98 09:48:46 PM

Please respond to Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>

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: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@HMCO.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:58:39 -0400
Subject: Re: O Netiquette, My Netiquette!

Sorry folks. I was replying to a private message from
Michael Naughton, decided to reply to a different message
 so that I could include the attachment we were discussing,
and I forgot to change the "send to" line.

And in a discussion on Netiquette no less.

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:40:02 -0400
Subject: Re: a mild flame

Pat Slider indited:
[Matthias indited:  -dwp]
> >P.S.: Sorry if I'm not my usual polite self, but I'm just sick of the
> >american "moral imperialism".

> ...and I have a low tolerance for gross generalizations based on
> nationality, sex, race. or ???? Let's keep in mind that this is an
> international community of INDIVIDUALS.

That is precisely what got Matthias' "goat" so to speak.  This is an
international list, or rather it contains quite a range of international
members, though it is "hosted" in the U.S.
But, as far as I can tell, the only vocal "crusader's" to keep this list "kid
friendly" are from the U.S.  Even Valerie Vann admits that while adult content
doesn't necessarily bother her, it would prevent schools and libraries and
other such public-kid access sites from benefiting from the mostly non-adult
material that shows up here.  And the implication is that it is only the kids
in the US who would be restricted access.  I haven't heard any international
consensus on this, at least not from what I've recognized in the messages so
far.  So Matthias is quite correct that this appears to be just another case of
US "Moral" Imperialism.  Perhaps there is an international concern over the
kid-accessible nature of this list and I've just missed those messages, or
mis-read the email address "clues."

Thanks Matthias, I completely agree.

I can't speak for the numerous lurkers in this group, but certainly in the past
year or so there have been a number of messages from several participants
dealing with the issue of changing the _perception_ of origami from "a mere
kid's diversionary pasttime" into a true art form.

The danger of Art is that it resists boundaries.  There are no subjects that
are off limits to Art, and I feel a good deal of frustration when I see the
"oh, but its not kid friendly" as a merely masked:  Don't do anything
controversial or "dangerous" or the prudes in the U.S. will ban this list from
libraries and other kid friendly access points.

In a way, I think origami as a craft, and as an Art form, has a harder time
grappling with this issue.  Compared to painting, drawing, muscianship, and
other "traditional" Art forms, origami is very much more accessible.  A book, a
few sheets of paper, and a mere hour or two can hook a kid in a way that a
similar investment of time/energy in other practices of Art cannot.  That makes
origami "perfect" for kids and those looking to interest kids in Art, and even
those just interested in finding a fun way to fill a kid's afternoon.

When it comes to the struggle to make origami into a widely accepted legimate
Art, while still retaining the "kid" appeal, I don't claim to have any easy
answers, but I think it is worth talking about again. ;-)

-D'gou

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





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 11:01:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

Robert Lang indited:

> Following up on the ongoing discussion about origami symbology/verbiage in
> general and "repeat behind" in particular:

> been due to the resemblance to the valley fold arrow). At any rate, for
> subsequent books, I wasn't satisfied with the Harbin arrow because it's not
> always clear which steps need to be repeated, for which my favorite passage
> from Engel's OfAtZ provides an illustration:

[Amusing example elided.  -dwp]

> Somehow, the Harbin arrow wouldn't quite capture all the subtle nuances being
> expressed here. Whereas a collection of boxed-step indicators could cram all
> this information into a single drawing to match the information-density of the
> text.

C'Mon, that is a rather specious example.  Just because the repeat behind arrow
is not completely general does not mean it is useless.  If it were, I could
make a similar argument that the valley and mountain crease/fold indicators are
also fatally flawed, since they fail to distinguish between, for example,
folding a flap as a whole and doing a reverse fold or a sink, for which their
inadequacy is so blatently and glaringly obvious that an entire separate and
additional symbol is required to clarify what they alone cannot.  ;-)  I
exaggerate, for effect, but only slightly.

> One place where ambiguity arises with boxed-step-repeats is the following
> scenario: suppose in step 20 you show a rabbit ear in front and you want, in
> the same step, to indicate repeat behind. Now the most straightforward thing
> would be to put a "repeat box" containing "step 20" pointing to the back side,
> right? But this repeat step is itself part of step 20, so a literal reading
> would mean that the repeat should itself be repeated, which should therefore
> be repeated, and you'd get stuck in an infinite loop.

An interesting example.  I must first admit the my familiarity with Robert's
recent symbol use is not what I would like.  So I will pick on Montroll as an
example.  Even in the recent "Mythological Creatures and the Chinese Zodiac"
John has "reverted" to using steps with lettered "sub-steps."  What if you
lettered/numbered the front flap's rabbit ear as "20.1" or "20a" and then show
a "repeat" box labelled "20.2" or "20b" which could refer to "20.1" or "20a" in
a non-recursive non-abigious way?

(And, I'll note on the side, tongue partly in cheek, that it would also satisfy
the apparent Lang-ian tendency for clarity through complexity.)

-D'gou

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





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:49:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Mookie--Pharmacy Origami?

At 12:33 AM 98/07/23 -0400, Kenny Kawamura wrote:
>    -  druggist "papers";
>       way back when, I think even before pills, prescriptions were
>       compounded by the "chemist" out of powders, and packaged
>       in a piece of folded paper;
>       this was back before the invention of the paper bag making machine,
>       at the time when a lot of things were packaged at the counter,
>       by wrapping a sheet of paper into a cone, pouring the whatever into
>       the cone, and then closing the end of the cone, I don't know how;
>       Someone must still know how to fold a drug paper or a paper cone;

Powdered medicines are still popular in Japan. I saw many commercial
prepackaged medicines that came as a box of sealed packets containing a
powder. I took a painkiller that way in my first month there.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Carmine Di Chiara <cadichia@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:46:48 -0400
Subject: Maekawa's devil: getting it to stand like the V!O cover?

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I do believe you guys when you say it can be balanced to stand, and I'm
going to try again with your suggestions and your confidence.

However, I really liked the slight tilt that Maekawa gave the devil on the
_Viva! Origami_ cover. It made it look very ... devilish, literally.

But when you said I could stand it up, did you have any success getting
him into that slanted position? Most of the other pictures I've seen of
the devil are of it standing straight up (including Brett's model at
http://www.i1.net/brett/index.html). But on the V!O cover, its heavy head
seems to be way over the left foot, away from any added support provided
by the tail. Add to that the bent arms, and my model's doing push-ups in
a hurry.

I'm going to try and try until I've succeeded, or convinced myself that I
can't get it to stand up. But I'd really like to know if any more
experienced folders have succeeded.

---------
Carmine Di Chiara
cadichia@mit.edu
        Beyond each corner new directions lie in wait.
                - Stanislaw Lec





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:10:46 +0200
Subject: (NO) Re: A mild flame

At 03:09 PM 7/22/98 -0700, Pat Slider wrote:

>...and I have a low tolerance for [...] generalizations based on
>nationality, [...]

This has much truth. I wondered how much time does it take to find a reply
to this paragraph of Matthias...

Generalizations about nations are never 100% true, and thus, there may be
more or less objections. Of course I'd be angry if someone said Hungarians
are just folk fooling around with arches, wearing strange clothes, still
travelling on horses... because this is not true.

But believe me, there are people who think this way (and not just about us).
I've met not one person (different nationalities) whose first question was
"Is there Coca-Cola in your country?". Can you imagine the situation?... I
heard it with both ears, no misunderstanding...
But I don't think of those nations as everybody is so... "misinformed", and
I'm optimistic about anyone from any country.

I understand every American who took your sentence offensive. However, you
weren't 100% wrong, Matthias (so I am still the record holder Bernie,
aren't I?  8-)

Just another thing. Matthias didn't write any generalization about sexes or
races.

Back to origami, Peter "don't get me wrong" Budai





From: Barbra0336@AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:39:41 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Russian wooden dolls one within another

In regards to the following notes by D'gou and Peter Budai:

<<and those nesting Russian dolls (I can't recall the name at the moment).

They're called 'Mathrioshka'. I'm sure this is NOT the correct spelling of
the word but might yield a better pronunciation for English-speakers.

>>

I have seen the nesting dolls term as Matroszka, Matryoshka, Matruska,
Matreshka, and Matrioshka.  For those interested in finding out more about
them, there is a book called A COLLECTOR'S GUIDE TO NESTING DOLLS" by Michele
Lyons Lefkovitz, ISBN 0-89689-069-4.

Barbara Ortiz





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:18:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

Peter wrote about the repeat behind symbol and some alternatives, including
repetitive diagram steps.  I have to say, this is something I LOVE about
Montroll's diagramming - the pre-creasing and often the repetitive steps
are each diagrammed.  For the fearful and trembling folder (me), comparing
the progress of my model to the diagram sample along the way is extremely
comforting and reassuring.  (I know I sound pathetic, but I am)

For the authors on the list, can you comment as to whether or not there is
reluctance on the part of your publishers to support this method since it
makes for much longer diagrams?

"Peace In Creases"

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:12:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

At 06:54 PM 98/07/24 +0100, Nick Robinson wrote:
>Yes there is, since the perceived value of a book to most publishers is
>related to how many models it includes. I'm quite happy with using
>"repeat behinds"  - too many diagrams can make a model seem like much
>harder work than it is!

The problem is that some people have a great deal of difficulty visualising
that. I get complaints here in Vancouver from some of our local origami
club members that they can't do some models because they can't visualise
the moves in mirror image. Besides, since the front is folded into a
different configuration by the time you go to the back, even doing things
in mirror image isn't exactly accurate, leading to confusion for some people.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:07:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

Nick Robinson says:

(snip)  "too many diagrams can make a model seem like much harder work than
it is!"

Actually Nick is right up to a point.  I used to evaluate whether or not to
try a new model based on the number of steps involved, using this as an
indication of complexity (and how large of a piece of paper to start with!)

However, after a few experiments with some of John Montroll's models, I was
pleasantly surprised to find many single steps were merely to turn the
model over, or to demonstrate a "repeat behind" or the like.  Again, this
sort of step by step diagramming was *much* easier to follow.

As with Joseph's Vancouver Origamians I sometimes find it difficult to
determine if "repeat behind" options are to be exactly as the opposite side
is, or mirror imaged, with opposite angles rather than matching ones.
Maybe I just dyslexic am...

So yes it may seem more complex at first, but actually is not IMHO.

"Peace In Creases"

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: Brown Family <pepperb@EROLS.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:21:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

I THINK IT IS BEST TO INCLUDE AS MANY DIAGRAMS AS POSSIBLE

Steve Woodmansee wrote:

> Nick Robinson says:
>
> (snip)  "too many diagrams can make a model seem like much harder work than
> it is!"
>
> Actually Nick is right up to a point.  I used to evaluate whether or not to
> try a new model based on the number of steps involved, using this as an
> indication of complexity (and how large of a piece of paper to start with!)
>
> However, after a few experiments with some of John Montroll's models, I was
> pleasantly surprised to find many single steps were merely to turn the
> model over, or to demonstrate a "repeat behind" or the like.  Again, this
> sort of step by step diagramming was *much* easier to follow.
>
> As with Joseph's Vancouver Origamians I sometimes find it difficult to
> determine if "repeat behind" options are to be exactly as the opposite side
> is, or mirror imaged, with opposite angles rather than matching ones.
> Maybe I just dyslexic am...
>
> So yes it may seem more complex at first, but actually is not IMHO.
>
> "Peace In Creases"
>
> Steve Woodmansee
> stevew@empnet.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:32:09 -0700
Subject: Re: repetition in diagrams

At 06:27 PM 98/07/24 -0400, you wrote:
>Do you find this true for beginner models as well or only for the more
>complex ones. Is it possible that the reason a beginner may not understand a
>model is not because it is not detailed enough but because the individual is
>a beginner and the model is more advanced? I asked this once before...Should
>every model really be able to be folded by everyone? If diagrams were
>perfect would the answer be yes?

No, I don't think so. I've met many people who will never get beyond low
intermediate models, and are perfectly happy with that. Perfect diagrams
would only mean that people who are interested and/or capable would have an
easier time of understanding them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:41:50 -0700
Subject: Should everyone be able to fold everything?

At 06:27 PM 7/24/98 -0400, Sheldon Ackerman wrote:
...(snip)  "Should every model really be able to be folded by everyone? If
diagrams were perfect would the answer be yes?"
>

Well...this makes up an interesting thread.  Are advanced models considered
advanced because:
        a)  So many steps are involved
        b)  The instructions are too complicated
        c)  The moves are too complex
        d)  The models have to be manipulated in unusual ways (stretched,
     twisted,
etc.)
        e)  ?

Personally, the models that leave me stumped do not do so because there are
too many moves, and each diagram, if viewed by itself, seems to make
perfect sense.  My problem is that I get to a certain point (usually step
50-60) where the model doesn't seem to do what the diagrams suggest.
("Where is *that* flap coming from?"  "Why don't I have a point right
there?" etc.)

"Peace In Creases"

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:06:09 -0700
Subject: Perfect Diagrams

Joseph Wu writes:

(snip) "Perfect diagrams would only mean that people who are interested
and/or capable would have an easier time of understanding them."

I agree that not everybody would respond to 'perfect diagrams.'  But I *do*
think there are folders who are technically capable and *very* interested
who could do some more complex models if the points of confusion were made
more clear.

As an example, many people have written about confusion with the Kawasaki
Rose diagrams.  I wasn't able to do it from the diagrams either until
someone showed me in person, but once I was shown how to do it it didn't
seem very difficult at all - not really all that complex of a model but
quite a stunning result.

So interest level and capability are not the end of the story, IMHO.

"Peace In Creases"

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:29:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Perfect Diagrams

At 04:06 PM 98/07/24 -0700, you wrote:
>Joseph Wu writes:
>
>(snip) "Perfect diagrams would only mean that people who are interested
>and/or capable would have an easier time of understanding them."
>
>I agree that not everybody would respond to 'perfect diagrams.'  But I *do*
>think there are folders who are technically capable and *very* interested
>who could do some more complex models if the points of confusion were made
>more clear.
>
>As an example, many people have written about confusion with the Kawasaki
>Rose diagrams.  I wasn't able to do it from the diagrams either until
>someone showed me in person, but once I was shown how to do it it didn't
>seem very difficult at all - not really all that complex of a model but
>quite a stunning result.
>
>So interest level and capability are not the end of the story, IMHO.

And where in my statement do you find a contradictory position?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Terry Buse <tbuse@VSTA.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:36:41 +0000
Subject: Re: repetition in diagrams

For beginners, like myself, I've found that some of the designers of many
     diagrams take for granted that we all know what should happen next or they
     consider the step so trivial that it doesn't need to be included.  This
     "filling in the blanks" makes easy





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:45:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Should everyone be able to fold everything?

---Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM> wrote:
>
> At 06:27 PM 7/24/98 -0400, Sheldon Ackerman wrote:
> ...(snip)  "Should every model really be able to be folded by
everyone? If
> diagrams were perfect would the answer be yes?"
> >
>
> Well...this makes up an interesting thread.  Are advanced models
considered
> advanced because:
>         a)  So many steps are involved
>         b)  The instructions are too complicated
>         c)  The moves are too complex
>         d)  The models have to be manipulated in unusual ways
(stretched, twisted,
> etc.)
>         e)  ?
>
> Personally, the models that leave me stumped do not do so because
there are
> too many moves, and each diagram, if viewed by itself, seems to make
> perfect sense.  My problem is that I get to a certain point (usually
step
> 50-60) where the model doesn't seem to do what the diagrams suggest.
> ("Where is *that* flap coming from?"  "Why don't I have a point right
> there?" etc.)

I have to say that agree. My problems generally stem from my model not
resembling the diagrams, or from my paper ripping through tension and
stress (both from me and from the folds). However, I don't think I'd
like it if the diagrams were "perfect." I enjoy the challenge of
trying to figure out what comes next, and have the bad habbit of
folding ahead when learning from someone else (whether I have diagrams
or not). As it is, I think anyone can make any model, if they truly
apply themselves and try to figure it out (the ammount of application
can vary greatly between models).

Peace,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com

Note: Although I think that anyone can fold anything, I'm not advising
beginners to go out and attempt some insanely complex model, like the
famed Cukoo Clock or Kawasaki Rose, without first trying something
just a little more their level. Remember, moderation is the key, so
don't get ahead of yourself.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:26:11 -0700
Subject: Re: repetition in diagrams

At 06:57 PM 98/07/24 +0000, you wrote:
>Let me use an example. Recently, I was working on Joseph's Flying Pig model,
>definitely not a beginner model. Being a beginner, there were several steps
>around the front legs and head that I had difficulty understanding from his
>diagrams. This wasn't Joseph's fault.

Of course not. I didn't do those diagrams. 8)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:07:17 +0200
Subject: Re: Repeat behind symbol

>An interesting example.  I must first admit the my familiarity with Robert's
>recent symbol use is not what I would like.  So I will pick on Montroll as an
>example.  Even in the recent "Mythological Creatures and the Chinese Zodiac"
>John has "reverted" to using steps with lettered "sub-steps."  What if you
>lettered/numbered the front flap's rabbit ear as "20.1" or "20a" and then show
>a "repeat" box labelled "20.2" or "20b" which could refer to "20.1" or "20a" in
>a non-recursive non-abigious way?

Simpler solution: step 21 "do this". step 22 "Rep. step 21 behind". Now, for
12 sequential step for which you want to include "Repeat behind" the above
way, yields 24 pictures saying "do this. repeat" x 12. Then the solution may
be diagramming 12 steps saying |do this - do this - do this| and the |turn
over| and the repeat steps 1-12 on the other side(*). This way you don't get
a bumpy diagramming & folding method (just to stay at the "road" analogue).

Repeat behind, Peter Budai

* This example if paradox but I thought I may bring funny moments for the
reader.
