




From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:19:56 -0300
Subject: Re: Origami for the Connoisseur

>>From: Fran Rodriguez <fran@BCNET.UPC.ES>
>>
>>Hi there.
>>        I've seen in the Sasuga website the announce of the 'Origami for the
>>        I was going to buy it, but i've seen it's in Japanese.
>>there's an english version of this book ?

Answering this and a previous post: OftC is going to be reprinted (if not
already) by the *original* publisher, Japan Publications. The announced
number of pages matches my copy, so I guess it's exactly the same contents.
This edition is written in *English*, not Japanese (OftC is a translation
of the original Japanese "Top Origami"). [aside: Top Origami was published
by Sanrio, the same of Viva!Origami. I don't know if Japan Pubs could
reprint the latter---don't hope too much]

Don't forget O.Omnibus, a monumental work by the same author and at
least as good as OftC (it has only models by Kasahara-san)---it's to
be reprinted together with OftC. Both are IMHO unbelievably unexpensive
for the value.

Since half of OftC is a collection of international models superbly
diagrammed by Kasahara-san, some of them are already known from other
easier-to-find books: the stegosaurus (Montroll/PO), goose (Montroll/OS),
kangaroo & giraffe (Engel/OAZ). The ground beetle by Montroll is but
a variation of the insect base/weevil in OS, although Kasahara-san
provides a nicer underside with a thorax plate. The ramphorynchus is
*not* the same as in Montroll/PO.

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





From: Fran Rodriguez <fran@BCNET.UPC.ES>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:49:54 +0200
Subject: Origami for the Connoisseur

Hi there.
        I've seen in the Sasuga website the announce of the 'Origami for the
Connoisseur' book.
        I was going to buy it, but i've seen it's in Japanese.
        I have a poor english, and i can't deal with Japanese. Do you know if
there's an english version of this book ?

        = Fran =





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:18:09 -0700
Subject: Re: Secret of the Holes, OftC

At 06:13 AM 98/07/31 -0700, Steve Woodmansee wrote:
>Rob Moes writes:
>>Who knows the secret of reducing the holes in the spiral snail shell from
>>four to one (as mentioned on p. 143)?
>>
>Well I hadn't thought of it as a secret, but my shells come out quite
>nicely thank you, so I suppose I must know it - or is there more to the
story?

There's more to the story. The version in OftC comes out with four holes in
the shell. You can, of course, enlarge one of them and ignore the other
ones to give the right effect. But if you look at the photos, you will see
that those shells have only one hole. The other "holes" are sealed shut.
The folding method for the closed shell appears in "Origami: El Mundo
Nuevo" by KASAHARA Kunihiko. It involves a radical change near the
beginning of the folding sequence and it uses up a LOT of paper. For
example, a 10 inch square makes a 2.5 inch shell (from top to bottom).

>What I *would* like to know is if anyone else has tried the spiral shell
>with resistant paper.  I found some gorgeous paper that looks like
>mother-of-pearl (it's actually wrapping paper).  Anyway it's a translucent
>white with rainbow sheen and it makes the shell look very convincing.
>
>Only trouble is (gee whiz) that when you get to the ever decreasing points
>that close out the model and help give it its look, the papers coating
>makes the folds undo themselves.  So now I am proudly displaying one OftC
>spiral shell with a tiny clothespin stuck on the end of it - very natural
>looking...NOT.
>
>Any ideas?

Glue. This is a case where the material is not "right" for the model, so
additional steps must be taken. Also, the rule about display models
applies: do what you must to make it look good, even if it's not "pure". As
long as you know the model could be done otherwise, it's okay to cheat for
display models (because you don't know what kind of conditions it will have
to survive).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t:604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331   e: josephwu@ultranet.ca





From: Andy Carpenter <Andy.Carpenter@MCI.COM>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:20:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Secret of the Holes, OftC
Importance: Normal

Steve,

I have folded the spiral snail shell from what sounds like the same paper
you refer to. What I did was twist the top, wet the paper thoroughly, used
clip to keep it together until the paper totally dried and removed the clip.
Mine has been on display at work for 6+ months without unraveling. It does
however take a long time for the paper to dry out (more than normal paper).

In answer to the original question, I seem to recall a version of the spiral
snail shell with one opening (instead of 4) in one of Fuses books (possibly
Spirals II - but this is from memory so I could be wrong).

-----Original Message-----
Woodmansee
Sent:   Friday, July 31, 1998 7:13 AM

Rob Moes writes:

>Who knows the secret of reducing the holes in the spiral snail shell from
>four to one (as mentioned on p. 143)?
>
Well I hadn't thought of it as a secret, but my shells come out quite
nicely thank you, so I suppose I must know it - or is there more to the
story?

What I *would* like to know is if anyone else has tried the spiral shell
with resistant paper.  I found some gorgeous paper that looks like
mother-of-pearl (it's actually wrapping paper).  Anyway it's a translucent
white with rainbow sheen and it makes the shell look very convincing.

Only trouble is (gee whiz) that when you get to the ever decreasing points
that close out the model and help give it its look, the papers coating
makes the folds undo themselves.  So now I am proudly displaying one OftC
spiral shell with a tiny clothespin stuck on the end of it - very natural
looking...NOT.

Any ideas?

"Peace In Creases"

Steve Woodmansee
stevew@empnet.com





From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:17:43 -0400
Subject: Re: thirds and folding proportions

Robert, shouldn't the first set of coordinates in
your first creasing series be (1,0) to (1,1) instead
of (0,1) to (1,1)?

Have you looked into minimum marks on minimum edges?
e.g. if I understand your first example correctly,
you end up with tics on 3 of 4 edges.

However, it is easier to use in practice, compared
to the problems you mention with the exact Haga
method Marc cited (the edge slipping while you're
trying to mark). Instead of folding (1,1) down to
the (1, 1/3) intersection, you can as you suggest,
make a mark in the right edge at the intersection
with the bottom edge. I do this by folding the right
edge over the bottom edge, giving a diagonal tic.

Another problem I have with all these mathematical
methods, is making sure that with all the switching
about and making tics on different edges, that you
end up with the 1/3 tic or whatever on the edge you
actually need it on, and the end of the edge you
need it on.
:-)

I find all this mathematically fascinating, but
rarely use it practice; I just get out my little
lap board with the 1 inch grid and use the parallel
line method. If I'm feeling purist - but not so
purist as to insist on doing it all with one sheet
of paper, I just fold a second sheet in 1/8ths or
1/16ths and use that for the parallel lines.

In practice, I find I rarely use anything beyond
thirds, fifths and sixths; occasionally 7ths, 9ths
and 12ths. A 1/16th grid will handle all of those.

Valerie Vann





From: Glenda Scott <gdscott@OWT.COM>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:29:38 -0700
Subject: Fuse booklist

Oops!  I forgot to mention my site address for the origami book reviews.
Thank you Jennifer Bridges.
http://www.owt.com/gdscott/
And I want to thank the members of the origami list who have helped proof
the new site, Fabric Origami.  It contains 50 sets of diagrams, fotos, and
detailed instructions for the Fabric Origami process.

Glenda Scott





From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@SCI.FI>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:15:18 +0200
Subject: Re: Origami For the Connoisseur

On 30-Jul-98, Tom Hill (tomh@GROUPWORKS.COM) wrote:
>Ian McRobbie wrote:

>>    I am very interested in the book Origami for the Connoisseur...

>If you want to know what I think of this book, here's the truth:  The
>copy on my desk actually belongs to one of my co-workers.  Every time
>he comes in to my office to visit, I cover it up with papers or
>another book or something.  Why do I do this, you ask?  Because the
>thought of actually having to give this book back makes me cry.  I'm
>hoping that one day, he'll just bequeath it to me.  I don't want to
>steal it from him, he's a good friend.  But, I don't want to give it
>back, either.

Sounds like me and Origami Omnibus in the local library. I've never
returned it in time, and once renewed my loan so I had it for myself
for four months in a row.

>The last model in the book is a stegosaurus by Montroll that is
>rumored to take two hours to fold.

More like five hours if you use unsuitable (too thick) paper and aim
for exhibit quality.  I know.  The worst part is that particular model
revealed that the paper was absolutely too thick in the final steps so
I had to whip up another from 70g/m*m Canson in three hours.  I also
had some tactically placed t*pe on the underside of paper to avoid
ripping, which unfortunately made paper much more springy so I had to
use some more t*pe to prevent model opening up.  I know, I should have
used foil-backed paper...

--
Jorma "ugly tape man" Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

Weyland-Yutani - Building Better Worlds





From: Anne R LaVin <lavin@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:22:13 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Fuse Book list

For what it's worth, I've got the titles (Japanese and my own
approximate English translations) and ISBN numbers for the Fuse books
I own (18 at last count) on-line at:

        http://www-japan.mit.edu/usr/lavin/origami-books.html

(Use the alphabet listing at the top to jump to the Fs.  Also, the
Japanese books titles, and Ms. Fuse's name, are in JIS-encoded
Japanese text, which will be gobbledegook for those of you who don't
have Japanese-capable Web browsing set up.  I recommend the Shodouka
service at http://www.shodouka.com/ as a nifty way of displaying the
text on Japanese Web pages as graphics, viewable in any
graphic-capable browser, if you really want to see the Japanese.)

This is by no means a complete bibliography - her newest from Origami
House isn't there yet, and I know of at least one purely modular book
of hers I don't own and don't intend to - but it's quite a few books.  :)
As such I hope it's helpful!

Anne R. LaVin                       "Say, Pooh, why aren't YOU busy?" I said.
lavin@mit.edu                           "Because it's a nice day," said Pooh.
(617) 258-7940                                                  "Yes, but---"
MIT Foreign Langs & Lits                              "Why ruin it?" he said.





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:14:46 +0200
Subject: Re: repetition in diagrams

At 02:35 PM 7/29/98 -0400, D'gou wrote:

>Peter Budai wrote:
>> This may seem "overidealized", and perhaps it is, but my opinion is that if
>> a model starts from square, then I'll diagram it starting with a square.
>> When first step is "Fold a blintzed frog base, then...", that's not the
>> "start" of the model.
>
>Sure it is.  Paper doesn't magicly form as a square.  By the same reasoning I
>could suggest that you should start each model with cutting a square from a
>generic amorphous shape, or even with instructions on how to grow the plants
>from which to make the paper from which to cut the square.

???

Paper CAN be purchased in square, and in rectangle sheets more often than
generic amorphous shape. Thus, one does not have to *really* start by
growing the plants. However, one cannot buy a ready-made preliminary base or
bird base. So for me, the square is still a reasonable starting point
(accompanying instructions can be included in the book on how to make a
square from rectangle, if needed so).

Happy folding, Peter Budai





From: Peter Budai <peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:14:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Repeat Behind: Moose or Antelope?
Steve Woodmansee wrote

>I may have cited the wrong book too - the
>one I'm thinking of has a frog, T-Rex, turtle and the
>moose/elk/antelope/stag/hart/deer on it.  Maybe it's Origami for the
>Enthusiast...?

Ah, so. It's not the North American Animals. I'll check it in the OftE and
in the AOftE.

Happy folding, Peter Budai





From: Rjlang@AOL.COM
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 04:36:50 -0400 (
Subject: Re: thirds and folding proportions (errata)

I wrote:

> the largest gap is
> 0.0018, which means the worst-case error is 0.009.

Actually, the largest gap is 0.018. I accidentally slipped an extra zero in
there. The worst-case error is .009, or about 1%.

Also, I mistranscribed the first sequence for 1/3; it should have been (thanx
Valerie):

1. Fold (1,0) to (1,1), making a mark at (1,1/2).
2. Fold (0,1) to (1,1/2), making a mark at (5/8,1).
3. Fold (1,1) to (5/8,1), making a mark at (13/16,1).
4. Fold (1,0) to (13/16,1), making a mark at (0, 169/512).

Valerie asks,

>
Have you looked into minimum marks on minimum edges?
>
e.g. if I understand your first example correctly,
>
you end up with tics on 3 of 4 edges.

That's a good point. For many of the marks, there are multiple ways of
achieving them. When I sort and eliminate the redundant ones, it would be a
good idea to rate the "quality", according to criteria such as this. (I don't
currently do that.)

> I find all this mathematically fascinating, but
>
rarely use it practice...

I actually do use stuff like this to find some of the crazy proportions
required for some of my complex stuff. I used this new algorithm to define the
starting proportions for a new Scorpion, which should show up in next year's
OUSA annual (if I finish diagramming it by submission time).

Robert





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 06:53:06 -0400 (
Subject: Origami Tanteidan 4th Convention Book

My copy of the fourth Origami Tanteidan Convention Book, for 1988 arrived this
morning and I felt that I must write and tell everyone about it.

For those of you dedicated to complex folding it is an absolute MUST. But for
anyone who has any interest in Origami, it is sheer fascination and there is a
wide variety of models, some of which should not be beyond the scope of
intermediate folders.

There are modulars and pentagonal boxes, masks and "snow crystals"
(transparent tessellations). Maso Okamura submits the crease pattern only if a
36 piece multiple crane composition in the Senbazuru Orikata tradition.. There
is plenty of box-pleat folding, including the lines for a railway and a signal
. One thing that intrigued me was Hatori Koshiro's Bird, which creates curved
surfaces in the mode:what John Smith would call CURIO folding (Curve Induced
Origami). There are plenty of dinosaurs and Godzilla himself makes an
appearance.

In the highly complex range, I like the look of a Kingfisher by Hideo Komatsu,
a fractal pyramid by Maekawa, a Harrier jet fightrer by Issei Yoshino and a
Buddha by someone whose name isn't given in English

Jeremy Shafer has a whole section of his own, including his Flasher Supreme II
and an Invisible Duck, which is probably the most subtle model in the book, if
only I could see it.

But these are just  examples of a glittering array of models in a collection
that, I am afraid, really does outshine our Western Convention Collections.
The book is well produced with a shiny  paperback cover and 192 pages. The
size is (I think), B4. (Well, a bit less than A4.)The diagrams are beautifully
drawn in a style that is consistent throughout the book.You must really get
hold of it and see for yourself. Get the previous three volumes while you are
about it, even if you have to take out a mortgage and also take out a
subscription to the origami Tanteidan newsletter.

Send for it from Origami Tanteidan at the following address (which is the
address of Gallery Origami House.)

1-33-8-216  Hakusan,
Bunkyo-ku,
Tokyo,
113-0001,
JAPAN.

The price on the cover is !,500 Yen. But I paid (in advance) 1500 Yen
including postage. It would probably be best to check the price and postage by
writing to Origami Tanteidan first. (They write English). The first three
convention books are also available. They were certainly priced 1000 Yen each
plus 500 Yen postage.

Origami Tanteidan insists on payment by Postal Money Order, because the
Japnese banks charge fees on payment into an acount of a forign bank draft.
That is in adddition to the fees paid for obtaining the draft in the first
place.

So far, Origami Tanteidan have not accepted payment by credit card. I wish
they would. It would make payments so much easier and cheaper.

Postal Money Orders are obtainable in the United States, but not at ordinary
post offices and they have to be sent for specially.

On the other hand, Postal Money Orders are NOT now obtainable in Great
Britain. I thought of getting over the problem by obtaining  a bank draft and
adding 1500 yen for to cover the Japanese bank charges. But in the end, I took
a risk and sent the money in yen banknotes. I know that everyone tells you
never to send cash in the post, but sometimes you take risks when you are
desperate.

I regret that I don't know whether postal money orders are available in other
countries.

SAnd I have also come to regret thea I don't speak, read or write Japanese,
although that is not al all necessary for an understanding of this book.

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





From: Judy D Pagnusat <judypag@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 09:38:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Censorship of the List

on 7-28 Chris wrote
>
>I think Alaisidair(Did I spell correctly? :) ) did the right thing as
>well. Besides, if you don't show what you have made, you may never
>become that new "Picasso" or "Michelangelo". (Just so you know, many
>children are exposed to their works, and they had nudity in them! I
>dont think youth are the worse for it, either.) I am not saying just
>post any old thing in a list and call it art, but we need to be a
>little less of "Prudes" if we are forewarned...
>
>CTD

Chris,

I don't think it's the nudity that is in question here andIi have a
problem with comparing the nudity of art work  with any work depicting a
sexual act.

Judy

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Rona Gurkewitz <GURKEWITZ@WCSUB.CTSTATEU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 10:23:57 -0400
Subject: copyright (new) in England

I was surprised to read about copyright on Dave Petty's new web site.
members.aol.com/ukpetd because it is so different from OUSA and what
we've discussed on this list. It says, in effect, the copyright extends
to the model as well as the diagrams.

I thought that copyright was covered by an international agreement
between many countries. Is copyright in England different from
copyright in the US?

Rona





From: Judy D Pagnusat <judypag@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 10:25:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Fuse Books

On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 05:29:23 -0700 Steve Woodmansee <stevew@EMPNET.COM>
writes:
>Hello folder/philosophers!
>
>Does anyone know of a definitive listing of Tomoko Fuse's books?  Like
>most
>of us I'm eagerly awaiting her latest, but would also like any others
>I can
>get my hands on, most especially those that concentrate on modular
>boxes.
>I have one in Japanese which I believe is titled something like "How
>to
>fold boxes from just one piece of paper," but that's my only
>non-English
>work.  Are there other box books in Japanese?
>
>"Peace In Creases"
>
>Steve Woodmansee
>stevew@empnet.com
>
Steve,

The OUSA Source has some other box books by Fuse that are only in
Japanese.
look at that list or request the list from OUSA.  The Source is also on
line on the OUSA web page.

Judy

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Daniel Philip Scher <dps207@IS8.NYU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 10:26:35 -0500
Subject: new Tanteidan convention book

Hi everyone,

I was just looking at the Origami House home page in Japan and noticed that
their new convention book (#4) is now out. Last year's book had such nice
models as Yoda. This year's cover shows Takashi Hojo's Maitreya (a seated
figure) which you might recall was on display at this year's Origami USA
convention.

You can find the book at:

http://www.remus.dti.ne.jp/~origamih/hanbai/shoseki1/ehpj111.htm

I'm contacting Sasuga bookstore now to find out about ordering info.

-Daniel Scher





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 10:55:43 -0400
Subject: Re: copyright (new) in England
Priority: normal

> I was surprised to read about copyright on Dave Petty's new web site.
> members.aol.com/ukpetd because it is so different from OUSA and what
> we've discussed on this list. It says, in effect, the copyright extends
> to the model as well as the diagrams.

I haven't seen the web site, but I've been asking this question for some time.
I have yet to find a lawyer who believes what OUSA claims is the law, nor have
I been able to find anyone, lawyer, OUSA or anyone else, who can provide the
legal theory/court-decisions, etc behind that opinion.  I'm continuing to try
to research this because as I've opined here many times, I *cannot* see why
art-rendered-in-origami [you know "fixed in a tangible medium" and all that]
should be any less copyrightable than art rendered in any other medium.

The problem is that not every "work of art" is copyrightable, for a variety of
reasons [e.g., you can't copyright a "hexagonal box"] and it is undoubtedly
the case that much origami would -not- qualify [I think it unlikely that
yet-anther-rendering of a crane or a penguin would make the grade, unless
there was something -seriously- original/different about it], but I think that
-some- certainly would [LaFosse, Jackson and Palmer come to mind right away].

I extend my question to you all, once again [although it has -never- gotten a
response]: can anyone provide any legal backup for the OUSA flat statement
that origami models are -not- copyrightable?  I've always thought it was wrong,
but the law [especially copyright law] can be a tricky thing and so perhaps
there HAS been a court decision that bears on this..  [and please, no more
anecdotes from craft shows and stuff like that: this is a -legal- matter and if
the law says what OUSA says it does, there should be something concrete to
substantiate it... the plain wording of the Copyright Act [the USA's
implementation of the Berne Convention] would -seem- not to outright exempt
origami works-of-art from protection, but ??????]

    [my guess is that it almost certainly won't be an -origami- decision: there
    just isn't enough money [or intellectual contention] in origami to merit
    anyone actually going to the bother to sue over this kind of thing..  so it
    is probably a decision from some other medium/craft...  but I haven't a
    clue what medium/craft or what the decision actually says... I figure there
    must be some kinds of loopholes because I know that when Christian Dior
    debuts a new dress design J C Penny is marketing a virtually identical copy
    in a week, and there's enough money floating around there that I'd guess
    that some couturier has brought suit SOMETIME over that kind of copying....
    dunno... ]

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





From: Chris T Durham <gandalf_15@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 11:05:13 -0400
Subject: Re: new Tanteidan convention book

I would really be interested in obtaining a copy of this book. I also
want to get a good condition copy of Super Complex Origami. I have some
books, if anyone wants to swap-

Origami Animals
Animal Origami For The Enthusiast
The Complete Book Of Origami
Brilliant Origami
Origami Insects And Their Kin
Origami In King Arthurs Court
Origami In Action (New Lang book, I think.)
Fantastic Folds
Origami Fantasy

Thanks!

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 13:40:06 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Copyright in England and Elsewhere.

Rona Gurkewitz has raised the hoary topic of Copyright once again!

I have for several weeks been contemplating whether to plunge into this topic
once more and send a posting to Origami -L, because I, too, have been having
doubts about the OUSA interpretation of copyright law as it applies to
Origami. I will therefor make a contribution, even though it will not be as
comprehensive or as authoritative as  should have liked.

First, however, the answer to a fairly simple point. The Berne Copyright
Convention to which both The United Kingdom and the United States, as well as
many other countries subscribe, lays down the minimum requirements of
copyright law to which subscribing nations must enact within their own legal
jurisdictions. The Convention does not itself impose the law. That is done by
the domestic law of the signatory country: by Act of Parliament in the UK and
by Act of Congress in the USA. The actual form the copyright law takes in each
country differs in many details, (for instance the provisions for fair copying
are somewhat different in the UK abd in the USA) but in general the law
imposed in both countries is broadly the same, because each country has to
incorporate the basic requirements of the convention.

It is absolutely clear that the law of both countries protects the copyright
of diagrams. Of that there is no doubt.

I am of the opinion, too, that the law of both countries protects the
copyright of the finished model as a work of art or as a piece of sculpture.
But I should like to see a decision of the courts in the respective countries
before being absolutely sure of this. I can imagine a grumpy old judge
considering that origami was too trivial to merit the application of the law
of copyright and finding some way of throwing out the case, come what may!

The nebulous area is the question whether the _idea_ or _design_ or _folding
structure_ of the model is protected by copyright.  The legal advisers of OUSA
have concluded that  this is an invention and is therefore capable of being
proteted by the very different law relating to patents. They argue that if the
folding structure is capable of being patented then it must be so patented if
it is to be protected and the law of copyright will not apply. In paretheses,
it should be noted that rightly or wrongly, paperfolding designs _have_ been
patented  several times in the United States and in Japan, so that there is no
question that an origami design has been deemed  capable of being patented.

Increasingly, I have become disatisfied with this line of reasoning. A piece
of music exists not only in the printed sheet music and in the actual sound
when it is played. it also exists as a cerebral invention. Yet it is fully
protected by copyright.
A piece of architecture is as much an invention as a work of art. Yet the
design of it is protected by copyright. Try building a house similar to one
designed by an architect and wait for the writ! My own view is that an origami
design is much more a work of art than an invention.

I admit, however, that this is an excedingly difficult branch of the law.
Although I am a  lawer (English and retired), I am very reluctant to venture
into this teritory without making extensive studies of patent law and
copyright law and into bothe statute law and case law in both the UK and in
the USA. I think that my retirement wouldn't long enough for thatI Enough to
say that I don't think that the OUSA lawyers are necessaritly right, but I
cannot at present give substance to my argument.

I was, therefore, interested to read Bernie Cosell's response to Rona's
posting and that he has not yet found a lawyer who believes what the OUSA
claims is the law. I agree with what he says. I also agree that questions of
this kind will never be decided in the field of Origami, because nobody could
ever afford the litigation involved in bringing a case before the courts of
either the UK or the USA.

Bernie suggests that a decision might be made in the field of clothing design.
But, even there, there are so many difficulties. By the time a case came to
court on a particular design for say a womans's dress, several years would
have gone by and it would be far too late for the couturier to benefit form
his litigation. Fashion designers throughout the world are trying to limit the
huge quantity of forged clothing and stolen trademarks being marketed all over
the world, but with only very, very limited success.

My own advice to paperfolders is to give up bothering about what the law may
or nmay not say, but to respect other people's creations. Whatever the law
says, it is very discourteous to copy someone else's model, especially for
commercial purposes, without geting permision first.

David Lister,

Grimsby, England.

DLister891@AOL.com





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 23:00:31 -0500
Subject: Origami Sighting - Discovery Channel Commercial
Just saw a commercial for Discovery Channel for Shark Week, it included a
boy folding paper and then showing off a mobile of origami sharks. Saw it
moments ago. Anyone else seen it?

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Chris T Durham <gandalf_15@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 23:06:54 -0400
Subject: Censorship Of The List

This is my personal veiw on so called "pornigami"- I do not like it or
even think it is worth any attention. But if I am properly fore-warned,
then I will do the appropriate thing and skip it.

CTD

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 23:29:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Censorship of the List (pornogami content)

At 09:38 AM 8/1/98 -0700, Judy wrote:
>I don't think it's the nudity that is in question here andIi have a
>problem with comparing the nudity of art work  with any work depicting a
>sexual act.

true -- i was going to make that point but i was supposed to be _defending_
my models. i agree that there is a large difference between the simple
depiction of the human body and the depiction of the human body (or bodies)
in suggestive poses. in my personal opinion there shouldn't be so much of a
difference, but i and the rest of us have to go by societal rules here.

i think that i am the major reason for the continuation of this thread. i
did say "flame on" when i ended the message, but i didn't mean it quite
this way. alas, sarcasm is difficult to express on the net. allow me to
dump some water on the flames.

i am not asking that we be able to freely discuss pornographic origami on
this list, thus rendering it unfit for children. however, i am also not
asking that anyone become list censor if one or two messages about that
topic do show up. all i am asking is that i have a place to announce to the
origami community, using the proper protocol, significant developments such
as new designs and new diagrams of my models, regardless of their subject
matter. i think that on this list that should be anyone's basic right. if
the content of the model is potentially offensive, the message should have
a warning in the subject line, and, if it's really offensive, a warning in
the text and a good page of blank space before the message. i am asking
that a pornogami-related message not be met with a huge thread like this
one; if we have an official policy, then people shouldn't find themselves
in awkward situations necessitating "i am deeply offended" letters.

i think, by the numerous letters i've read regarding this topic and the
handling of it, it should be fairly easy to implement this basic plan i
have. chances are, there won't be too much of a call for it. i only know of
a few people who have designed a sigificant number of this type of model,
and not all of them are on the list.

my apologies for my long-windedness.

and now, a page or so of blank space. don't page down if children are
looking on.

-----
notes:
- pdf-format Lonely Man 1 diagrams being reworked for clarity of text
- Lonely Man 2 diagrams will be started after Lonely Man 1 diagrams are
reworked (the two models start with the same base, so the first two pages
will likely be the same)
- first attempt at the Lonely Woman failed, will attempt again with a
modified base.
- in a serious attempt to offend everyone religious and everyone with
children, am working on a model called "pedophile priest". am not
considering diagramming or publishing for fear of lawsuits, unless the
response from very sick people is overwhelming.

peace,
alasdair





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 08:13:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Pornogami Content

I appreciate you creating the site, as well as some of the models, and
taking the time to diagram them.  It's nice to have a place wher adult
material is appropriate. The internet provides virtually unlimited areas,
making it wonderful to have sites devoted to very specific things, like
basketweaving upside-down underwater with your toenails or adult
paperfolding or even origami, and only those interested need go there.
Thanks also for posting a notice on the list, with appropriate warning in
title for those who don't wish to see it. I would not have known about it
otherwise.

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 09:29:56 -0700
Subject: Origami Sightings

Well, two interesting origami sightings. While bored and channel
surfing, I flipped to MTV, showing a video by Third Eye Blind for the
song "How's it gonna be?" in which one of the band members folded an
interesting bird from duo paper, in which the head and legs were one
color, and the body was another. The other sighting, or more of a
listening, was on the radio, for the song "Inside Out" by Eve 6, with
the line "Oh and my origami, fold it up and just pretend."

Peace,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com

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





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 09:32:15 -0700
Subject:

I just got a copy of Origami Step by Step, by Robert Harbin. I fell in
love with the book from a library a few years ago, and finally found
it for sale at convention (for only $5, no less). I particularly love
the models by Patricia Crawford, and was wondering if anyone knew of
any other books with her models?

Thanks,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com

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





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 12:15:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

---Chris T Durham <gandalf_15@JUNO.COM> wrote:
> The bottom line- WE NEED SOME LIFE!
>
> CTD

Well, it's like Mark Twain said, "Everone talks about the weather, but
no one seems to do anything about it." (I know I mangled that quote,
but I couldn't think of the exact words, just the general
implication). If we want better discussions, bring up better topics. I
agree that some of the threads we have had recently, such as message
attachments and "pornogami," have become a bit hectic. And I agree
that pretty much all it took to find a solution was a little common
sense. But complaining about the lack of good discussion does nothing.
If you really want change, work towards it. If you've got an idea,
don't be afraid to post it. I only joined the mailing list about a
month ago, and I admit that sending my first letter was a bit scary,
amidst the heated arguements of censoring and filtering attachments.
Let's just all calm down, use some common sense and common curtesy,
and try not to let things get out of hand.

Peace,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com

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





From: Betty Hull <hull@WWICS.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 13:01:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

Put me on your list.
----------
> From: Unafolder@AOL.COM
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Bah Humbug-- The Departure
> Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 10:33 AM
>
> Greetings folding freaks and fundamentalists alike,
>
> Rather than burst into the Origami-L list once every 2 months to
interject a
> comment or badger some famous origami figure or other, I've decided to
> terminate this "Unafolder" alias altogether.  After browing months and
months
> of old postings, I've discovered that there is precious little substance
on
> the list anymore.  The same trite debates are enacted over and over like
> Shakespearean plays read by 9th graders in Remedial English.  One can
> implicitly depend on the fact that certain comments meant to stimulate
> discussion will generate a canned response from particular individuals on
a
> consistent basis.  Any of my postings meant to stir up activity and
amusement
> on the list were met by the same generic "blah" debate.  This is no fun.
>
> Many of the list members who post become so wrapped up in discussions of
> appropriateness that they come across as schoolyard bullies.   Feeling
somehow
> as though they "own" the list, they impose rules with no authority,
including
> labelling subject postings with arbitrary designations, like "Non Origami
> Related" or "Adult".    New members who come onto the list believe that
these
> "rules" are universal and are afraid to rock the boat and try to
contribute to
> discussions.  And who can blame them?
>
> I propose that 90% of todays posts should be tagged "BM" in their subject
> lines so that people who have trouble moving their bowels may read them
in
> times of GI crisis. And there are certainly enough of them to last the
average
> person a lifetime of bathroom visits.  While trying to protect the list
and
> its members against "irrelevant" posts which "hog bandwidth," they more
than
> quadruple the "clog" to the list and the server.
>
> The ideas of "fun" and cogent discussion which I've tried to generate
through
> my outlandish and flagrant fictitious assertions will have another
vessel.   I
> have plans, and contributors in mind for a new "Zine", if you will,
focusing
> on the odd, the unusual, the controversial and the downright neat aspects
of
> origami which are otherwise overlooked, censored or badgered out of
existence.
> I'm not sure what it is about some paperfolders-- those who find humour
about
> other famous figures to be criminally irreverent.  They remind me of a
gang of
> old-school grandmothers rocking in chairs and whining about the changing
> world.
>
> Any of you lurkers out there who want to fly into the interesting world
of
> origami: the anecdotes, the "pornogami" and the insightful, please e-mail
me!
> this ID will be shut down in exactly one week.   I'm joining
alt.fan.strip-
> club.
>
> Unafolder





From: John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 13:32:18 -0700
Subject: Monogami?

Hello Mathias,
     Name a model of monogami.  Sheldon is right though about the polygami.
Better just stick to origami.
Ria





From: Unafolder@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 13:33:20 -0400 (
Subject: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

Greetings folding freaks and fundamentalists alike,

Rather than burst into the Origami-L list once every 2 months to interject a
terminate this "Unafolder" alias altogether.  After browing months and months
of old postings, I've discovered that there is precious little substance on
the list anymore.  The same trite debates are enacted over and over like
Shakespearean plays read by 9th graders in Remedial English.  One can
implicitly depend on the fact that certain comments meant to stimulate
discussion will generate a canned response from particular individuals on a
consistent basis.  Any of my postings meant to stir up activity and amusement
on the list were met by the same generic "blah" debate.  This is no fun.

Many of the list members who post become so wrapped up in discussions of
appropriateness that they come across as schoolyard bullies.   Feeling somehow
as though they "own" the list, they impose rules with no authority, including
labelling subject postings with arbitrary designations, like "Non Origami
Related" or "Adult".    New members who come onto the list believe that these
"rules" are universal and are afraid to rock the boat and try to contribute to
discussions.  And who can blame them?

I propose that 90% of todays posts should be tagged "BM" in their subject
lines so that people who have trouble moving their bowels may read them in
times of GI crisis. And there are certainly enough of them to last the average
person a lifetime of bathroom visits.  While trying to protect the list and
its members against "irrelevant" posts which "hog bandwidth," they more than
quadruple the "clog" to the list and the server.

The ideas of "fun" and cogent discussion which I've tried to generate through
my outlandish and flagrant fictitious assertions will have another vessel.   I
have plans, and contributors in mind for a new "Zine", if you will, focusing
on the odd, the unusual, the controversial and the downright neat aspects of
origami which are otherwise overlooked, censored or badgered out of existence.
I'm not sure what it is about some paperfolders-- those who find humour about
other famous figures to be criminally irreverent.  They remind me of a gang of
old-school grandmothers rocking in chairs and whining about the changing
world.

Any of you lurkers out there who want to fly into the interesting world of
origami: the anecdotes, the "pornogami" and the insightful, please e-mail me!
this ID will be shut down in exactly one week.   I'm joining alt.fan.strip-
club.

Unafolder





From: Chris T Durham <gandalf_15@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 14:20:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

I agree! I have only been on the lists a short while, and most of the
time found but few creative and really good pieces of information. While
it may be important to certain people on writing 45 replies on whether or
not to call and umsink an unsink, I think we could use more creativity
and more creatures such as the Unafolder.

>After browing months and months of old postings, I've discovered that
there is >precious little substance on the list anymore.  The same trite
debates are enacted >over and over like Shakespearean plays read by 9th
graders in Remedial English.  One >can implicitly depend on the fact that
certain comments meant to stimulate >discussion will generate a canned
response from particular individuals
>on a consistent basis.

The bottom line- WE NEED SOME LIFE!

CTD

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Cathy <cathypl@GENERATION.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 15:10:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Origami For the Connoisseur

At 03:15 PM 98-07-30 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The last model in the book is a stegosaurus by Montroll that is rumored to
take
>two hours to fold. I haven't yet had the courage to try it. Maybe some day
soon.
>
>Fold in Peace,
>
>Tom
>

I folded the steg, but from John Montroll's Prehistoric Life.  The diagrams
are different, but I cannot say which is simpler.  I loved folding the
steg, though, like you, I spent some time working up to it.  I folded
everything in the book in order, and found that the skills seemed to follow
in a sensible order, so that the steg was actually quite easy when I got to
it.  It was fun to fold, and I got it on first try, which is unusual for
me.  I started with a very, very, large square of paper backed foil
(giftwrap) .  This made the folding easy, but then the weight of the model
was too much for its legs.

                                                                Cathy
******^^^^^*****^^^^^*****

Cathy Palmer-Lister
Ste. Julie, Quebec
Canada
cathypl@generation.net





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:13:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Monogami?
>
> There is this very efficient folding technique where you need only one
> fold. The french have a catchy word for it: "Monopli", one-fold. In
> Japanese it could maybe be ichioru, or even hitotsuoru. What do you
> call it in english? Single-fold or one-fold origami sounds SO boring, so
> I decided for myself to call it "monogami", which will probably result
> in parents all over the USA telling their children not to use that
> technique.
>
> Any other ideas?

I think you are wrong!
Most parents will tell their children not to use that other technicque --
polygomi :-)

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





From: "MARGARET M. BARBER" <mbarber@WELCHLINK.WELCH.JHU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:34:35 -0400
Subject: Re: your mail

J.C. Nolan's Creating Origami has several of her models including her
scorpion, unicorn, squrrel on a log, kangaroo, and the full-rigged ship.
This is a wonderful book to have in any case!

Peg Barber
mbarber@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Sam Kendig wrote:

> I just got a copy of Origami Step by Step, by Robert Harbin. I fell in
> love with the book from a library a few years ago, and finally found
> it for sale at convention (for only $5, no less). I particularly love
> the models by Patricia Crawford, and was wondering if anyone knew of
> any other books with her models?
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
> Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From: Chris T Durham <gandalf_15@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:47:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

I agree tottaly.

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Judy D Pagnusat <judypag@JUNO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 17:35:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Censorship of the List (pornogami content)

Alsdair,

I think it is interesting that your original posting created this long
thread on censorship and or pornogami.  I agree with many of the others
who commented,  your posting gave warning and I believe you are not an
inconsiderate person.  Sorry if it seemed the whole discussion was
against you.

Judy

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]





From: Sam Kendig <neuro_mancer42@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 18:16:17 -0700
Subject: Re: complexity
---Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU> wrote:
>
> At 06:51 PM 8/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
> i'm not a lurker, but i play one on the net. i've got a question
that has
> plagued me ever since i started publicizing my models:
>
> what do complex folders really want to fold?

     There are two types of folds I tend to do, folds for myself, and
folds for others.
     For folds for myself, I'm generally interested in an interesting
folding patern, and something original in the model. I'm not really
concerned with the finished product, because it's the actual folding
process I enjoy. These are the models that I'll generally keep
cluttering my room, and that I don't really show off, because they
might not look as good as some others.
     When I'm folding for others or folding for display, I'm looking
more towards the elegance of the model. Nifty folding processes are
great for when I'm folding, but people don't really see them once the
model's done. For these models, I'll generally stick to somewhat
simpler models, instead of something insanely complex that will end up
with a less pleasing finish.
     I guess the answer to what the complex folder wants depends on
what they're trying to achieve. The folds I like personally aren't the
folds I do for others, because I don't mind sacrificing aesthetics for
fun folding. Likewise, I find that people who I give models too,
especially if they don't fold, can't quite apreciate the intricacies
of things like the color changes, or the eye's on Marc Kirschenbaum's
dragon (which I really liked). It's small things like that that I
enjoy in a complex fold, the truly inovative moves that produce a
unique affect in the final product.

Just my .02,
Sam
Neuro_Mancer42@yahoo.com

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





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 18:51:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

> From: Unafolder@AOL.COM
>
> After browing months and months
> of old postings, I've discovered that there is precious little substance
> on the list anymore.

I've been thinking likewise (even today as a matter of fact). I haven't
been on this list long enough to have a good historical perspective so I'd
like to hear from some of the ~ old timers ~. Am I correct to think that
the ~ interest ~ level of topics discussed by this group are cyclical (some
times of dismal dirth some time of WOW)?

Maybe now, while we are in this ~ down phase ~, it would be a good time for
you 400+ (?) lurkers to stir up some interest. Maybe us regular posters are
outta juice. After all this time of  having your origami juices stirred by
the ~ regulars ~ maybe you'd want to give something back. Dump your
stock-pile of ~ real ~ origami questions and thoughts on the group and lets
see what happens :-).

Jeff Kerwood





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:04:04 -0500
Subject: Delurking - Long - How I Got Started In Origami, A Couple of Stories

<html>
I was going to wait a bit before delurking, but I suppose now is as good
a time as any.<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Comic Sans MS">I got started in origami around May of 1997. I
happened to see Alexandra Dirk's book on Origami Boxes, couldn't resist.
I started doing the boxes (I have learned the hard way not to fold when I
am tired, I was so tired trying to finish my first box that I was in
tears - I WANTED to finish it, and sleep wasn't going to drag me from
it!) and found that I love doing them as well as giving them. I was
hooked. My husband (tolerant man that he is) and I went that June to an
anime (Japanese animation) convention, and I was folding while he was
looking at a dealer's table. Someone noticed what I was doing and
suggested I look at some of the other books as well. Other books? First
I'd heard of other books! I remember my dad making paper cups for me when
I needed a drink from a fountain at a mall, maybe someone doing a fortune
teller, but that was it.<br>
<br>
It's been a solitary effort since that time. I joined the list shortly
thereafter, but life intruded and I didn't get to read it for a year! The
emails kept piling up, and I've been working valiantly for a couple of
months to read it all. Rather like reading a fabulous novel full of humor
and great tips, many of which I have copied onto electronic post-its for
later further sorting.<br>
<br>
<br>
My most wonderful effort was while we were eating dinner at a restaurant.
There was a small girl sitting in a booth across from us, slowly making
confetti from a piece of paper out of&nbsp; sheer boredom. I made a frog,
and she adored it, hopping it all about the table. Her mother, deaf and
mute (boy, my ASL got a workout that night) watched and tried to follow,
and then asked if I could do other figures. She said they had lots of
butterflies at their home, so I did my other favorite model for the
little girl, a butterfly that has a pocket to put your finger in - from
Origami Treasure Chest. I told the mother a bit about origami books. As
we were leaving, we saw the little girl on the floor (it was a quiet
night, not disturbing anyone) jumping the frog and she was jumping along
with it pretending *she* was a frog. Then we saw her with the butterfly
on her finger, and her arms were gently flapping as butterfly wings as
*she* became a butterfly! It was a moment I will treasure all my life - I
turned to my husband and told him that I got to play Merlin, turning
children into different animals to see what it was like to be them. I've
always loved and envied clowns the magic they have for little children,
and now I have my own magic to work bringing beauty and wonder into lives
both small and large. This is one of the most wonderful aspects of
origami for me.<br>
<br>
I have done a couple of &quot;Fat Friday&quot; functions at work (2
people every Friday bring breakfast for all), they turned out rather
well. The first time, I made a modified hexagon from 6&quot; paper from
Unit Origami that interlocks underneath to make a hexagonal table cover,
then did small tables to hold the teabags (9 kinds), octagonal box
bottoms for holding breads and fruits (I found that sandwich containers
from Krogers fit in just perfectly!), heart coasters from Origami Hearts
for the cups, plates, etc., and an open-topped 8-sided figure(forget the
name) to hold forks and the honey dipper. I also put small flowers
scattered about and a few small butterflies in a nearby indoor tree to
see if anyone would notice, only 1 person did. I had cheeses on a glass
plate on top. It came out wonderfully (I spent 2 months prepping), and
afterward one man asked to take the tablemat home for his little girls.
This became their &quot;fancy table setting&quot; until it eventually
came apart from use. The whole thing was carefully planned and done in
rainbow colors from left to right. When it came my time to do it again, I
decided to do a pond. I made the mat from 3&quot; paper - big mistake! It
had taken (I think) about 56 of the 6&quot; hexagons, but almost 900 of
the 3&quot;!!! But I did it in varying shades of blue, it came out well.
I had lots of frogs about (everybody loves the frogs), and I put biscuits
in water lillies made from paper napkins, so they picked up the biscuit
ready for toppings, and the napkin was included! Of course, people said I
should sell origami, and when they do I tell them that I put in well over
40 hours just on the tablemat alone, and they begin to see... I
encouraged people to take frogs home for their kids, and even for their
own desks. It went great. A friend/coworker asked for the mat, so I am
saving it for her, having no other use for it myself.<br>
<br>
I really love leaving money tips and walking out, watching the reaction.
I've seen some really neat reactions - hey, Joe, come look at this! And
some have hunted us down before we can escape to thank us and show it
off. I usually leave only one folded bill, the rest unfolded so they can
have their tip and save the fold if they wish.<br>
<br>
See, you really didn't want me to delurk, now did you? Well, I enjoy the
beauty I have found so much, and I thank you all for the encouragement
you give every time you care enough to post.<br>
<br>
Ahliana Byrd<br>
lnahbyrd@onramp.net<br>
</font>
<BR>
</html>





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:06:02 -0500
Subject: Techniques For Decorating Paper

<html>
<font face="Comic Sans MS">I have in the past taken some nice washi paper
and run it through my little color printer and printed a young lady's
name on the white side. I printed it in small letters and in various
colors. I did this on 6 sheets and then made a Fuse hexagonal box such
that the name showed as well as the pattern (pinwheel, I think it was). I
presented this to her for her birthday, along with a book on making such
boxes (she had previously seen mine and expressed an interest). She was
ecstatic, and it is now a treasure in her room (and we are trying to get
together because she wants to learn to do it herself)!&nbsp; :-)<br>
<br>
A technique I have used to print patterns on precut paper is to use a
tiny sliver of tape at the top to hold the paper on a 8.5 x 11 page and
run that through the printer, so that I can print off the edge. This
works for patterns that have white spaces, so that one of those white
spaces can be at the top (or bottom, depending on your orientation) where
the tape is. I have been able to print on *some* colored papers well, but
those that have a waxy coating will not take the ink.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ahliana Byrd<br>
lnahbyrd@onramp.net</font>
<BR>
</html>
