




From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:08:08 -0500
Subject: Thank You To So Many

I want to say thank you to Joseph Wu for
maintaining such a wonderful page and managing such a busy list. I don't
know where you possibly find the time, or the patience to deal with it
all, but it is appreciated. You shine a light in a weary world, you help
us all to see, and to see each other so we can help spread our own light.
Thank you.

I also want to thank ALL of the folders who have ever had the generosity
to create diagrams and share them with others - this includes those who
sell them in books or through other outlets, as well as those who post
them freely. I have created a couple of models, and as soon as I can
figure out how to diagram them, I will (probably using CorelDraw). But
the time and effort of creating a model, from one-fold to the most
complex is an art, and I appreciate all of the people who share this art
with the world through allowing others to touch their art and allow them
to attempt to breathe their own bit of life into the art.

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:18:33 -0500
Subject: Copyright - A Question, and a Suggestion

I have done some looking in the archives, I was hoping to finish before
posting this, but if it seems like a good time. If this has already been
suggested, please let me know approximately when, I wish to read the thread
on it.

First, the question:

If there is a 'traditional' model listed in several books, such as the
frog, is it both legal and ethical for me to create from scratch my own
diagrams and instructions to give to people as I wish? I've been wanting
to, and people _always_ love the frog, and it is so easy, that I want to
give them diagrams in hopes that they may become interested. But I want to
stay both legal and *ethical*. What about something like the crane?

I would like to thank Lisa Hodsdon for bringing up a way of looking at
things that I had not previously considered. I am trying to understand why
a creator would not want their models sold (in small quantities, such as
craft fairs), and I must admit that coming from a Western point of view, I
originally personally found Yoshizawa's logic flawed - that he would sell
diagrams and allow others to create 'his children', but not allow others to
sell the models at all. I have been following the copyright, ethics, and
preferences threads for a while. While I didn't quite see Lisa's
philosophical theory quite logical, it did bring me to a theory that would
be more understandable to me, as the following: I am a channel the gods use
create that life, but it would be sacrilege to sell it, rather like selling
a child into slavery. Like Lisa, I do not know nor have I ever had the
privilege of meeting Yoshizawa or any of the other wonderful creators, but
at least I was able to see how a belief system might produce a logical
reasoning that came to different conclusions than any I had previously been
able to imagine.

Next, the suggestion:

Would it be possible to create a place where creators could record their
preferences/wishes for their models? This might include things like:

you may not sell or knowingly allow a model of mine to be sold,
you may not put it on display at all,
you may display it only with my name prominently on it,
you may give it to charity knowing they will sell it,
you may sell it for charity only if my name is prominently on it,
you may give it to a charity or sell it even if my name is not on the
creation,
you may sell it only if my name is directly on it,
you may sell it but must offer to tell them the name and/or book and how to
purchase the diagrams,
you may sell it if you sell less than $100/year, if you make between
$100/year and $1000/ year then purchase a small license fee from me, if you
want to sell more than that please contact me for licensing fee,
it may be taught from my book at a class so long as no diagrams are
distributed,
it may be taught and diagrams may be distributed so long as the my name and
the name of the book and how to get it are included,
you may make it and display pictures of it.

These preferences/wishes of the creators could be centralized, and although
perhaps not legally binding I would certainly follow the desires of the
creators, whether I agree or not. It would also be nice to be able to
contact a creator for some sort of special request. The preferences/desires
could, at the creator's wish, apply to certain models/books. I purchase
books for use in the calligraphy/illumination I do for a historical
society. I have bought all that apply to my particular area except one -
the copyright in the front stated that the designs were not to be
reproduced at all, not even once, so I did not buy the book. It is a nice
art book, and perhaps the artist means it to be a springboard for people to
create their own ideas, but I can't draw a straight stick figure, so I
depend on clip art when I need it. Most art books specifically spell out
rights granted in the front of the book, so I know what I am buying when I
buy it. I try to respect the wishes of the authors, but I choose my
coffee-table art books very selectively. I truly care how the creators
feel, but at the same time I am leery of anything that reeks of so much
tension as this subject arouses, and as much as I love origami, this
recurring debate dulls my passion because I don't want the hassles
associated with producing something that may get me in trouble (that
doesn't mean just legally, but ethically means just as much if not more to
me). I hope this has been constructive.

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:23:21 -0500
Subject: Origami Games
Has anyone designed a backgammon board, a chinese checkers board, or the
cross-shaped brain teaser that is a jumping pegs puzzle? I have looked in
the archives a bit, but have not found anything. I was thinking about doing
a display of games done in origami, and I have found several chess boards
so far. Any ideas?

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:23:32 -0400
Subject: complexity

At 06:51 PM 8/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>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

alrighty then...

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?

it's a basic sort of question, but it's valid -- i've noticed that alot of
my models get passed over because, i guess, the folding sequence isn't
worthy of the outcome. i have a few models that use a special repetetive
color-change sequence that i stole, in part, from marc k's raccoon, and
developed into a much more elegant process. few people have really shown
much interest in them because, despite their technical elegance, they seem
like they shouldn't have taken quite as much work as they finally did.

i have concluded that most complex folders are after a look of complexity
rather than the actual process of folding. for me, on the other hand, i
enjoy the process as much as the outcome.

any views on this one?

peace,
alasdair





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:25:30 -0500
Subject: No Text in My Messages?

I received text in all my messages, did others receive it empty? Please let
me know.

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@SCI.FI>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:47:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Cheating with display models

On 31-Jul-98, Joseph Wu (josephwu@ULTRANET.CA) wrote:

>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).

Thank you, Joseph.  That cleared my conscience (regarding my exhibit
models, that is).

--
Jorma Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

Weyland-Yutani - Building Better Worlds





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 19:47:40 -0500
Subject: Houston Group?

Is there a fold of folders in Houston, TX?

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:08:49 -0400
Subject: Re: complexity

> From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
>
> it's a basic sort of question, but it's valid -- i've noticed that alot
> of my models get passed over because, i guess, the folding
> sequence isn't > worthy of the outcome.

Are your models available at .rug or on a web page somewhere? I'd like to
take a look (I'm not into complex models just now so I may not fold them
for a while, but...).

Jeff Kerwood





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:28:50 -0500
Subject: Re: No Text in My Messages?

Aaagh!!! My second worst fears! (Worst was it had come through as an
attachment, instant death here.)

MANY APOLOGIES TO ALL (really, guys, I'm sorry, I know what happened, I'll
try not to do it again.).

At 01:00 AM 8/3/98 +0000, you wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:25:30 -0500, Lynn & Ahliana Byrd
><lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET> wrote:
>
>>I received text in all my messages, did others receive it empty? Please let
>>me know.
>
>All your messages came with text and some HTML formatting codes. It's
>better to use plain text (ASCII) for mailing lists.
>--
>Magda Plewinska                   mplewinska@mindspring.com
>Miami, FL, USA





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:29:55 -0700
Subject: Re: First Crane (or How I Started Folding paper)

I don't think I still have any of my earliest models. They must have
went into the bin on one of my "origami spring cleaning" days. Oh, there
is some piece that looks like a rocket engine, which I did to practice
all those (at that time) neat new folding techniques. I kept it because
I wanted to diagram it one day.

But everything else got thrown away or given away; I wish I had thought
of keeping my first models. I suppose in a few years you'll look back on
those models with nostalgia.

However, what I am starting is a collection of models that are suitable
for teaching. I'll be teaching my very first "real" origami classes this
winter, and since there will be mostly beginners I'm looking for really
simple but elegant models. It's quite difficult to find models that are
both nice to look at and simple to fold, so I try to think back to those
days when even folding a crane was difficult for me. A great help are
the origami books I borrowed from a japanese friend, since they are
aimed at children and contain many traditional models (or what the
authors consider traditional, anyway).

My class will be about traditional japanese, decorative, and modern
origami. The "modern " part will be very interesting; modern origami is,
I think, often associated with complex models. However, folding even
slightly difficult models will be well beyond the skills of the
participants, so I decided to turn to even stranger things: modular
origami, action origami, "monogami" (see my other posting), and Vincent
Floderer's wonderful mushrooms technique. I hope to show with this class
that the limits of the square have not yet been reached.

Matthias, babbling on





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:33:10 -0400
Subject: Choosing a subject (was complexity)

At 07:23 PM 8/2/98 -0400, Alasdair Post-Quinn
<acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU> wrote:

>what do complex folders really want to fold?

I think this question easily goes beyond levels of difficulty. It sounds
like you are really asking about what subjects would interest other
folders. Also, the way a subject is realized affects how receptive other
people are to your art. Origami tends to lend itself to abstarct
representations of forms, so when a highly detailed anatomiacly correct
paper version of subject "x" comes around, people are excited. I think
people are just as excited when a really well done abstarct piece comes
along (I concur w/ Joseph Wu that Sy Chen's "Tea Set" was among the best
Convention pieces). Personally, I always have my pieces give off a
cartoonish appearence, and I gravitate towards simple lines. My models are
still complex, and from what I have heard, people still fold them anyway.

As for choosing a subject, the really easy way to do that is to emulate pop
culture. Do you think it is a coincidence that a handful of Star Wars (TM)
related models came out around the time that classic trilogy of films were
rereleased? The models (origami) became popular, although their creato's
were left with the problem as to what to name them. Generally, pick a
did, and I think my sexually oriented models are among my best work). I
forgot his name, but there was a fellow at the OrigamiUSA Convention who
revealed his origami models of bears. This is a subject that would normally
not interest me, but these creations were obviously executed by someone who
really loves the subject matter, Not surprizingly, this guy is a bear
biologist.
>
>it's a basic sort of question, but it's valid -- i've noticed that alot of
>my models get passed over because, i guess, the folding sequence isn't
>worthy of the outcome. i have a few models that use a special repetetive
>color-change sequence that i stole, in part, from marc k's raccoon, and
>developed into a much more elegant process. few people have really shown
>much interest in them because, despite their technical elegance, they seem
>like they shouldn't have taken quite as much work as they finally did.

That I would love to see, as I always thought my method for making stripes
was about as straightfoward as you could get. I have a simpler version of
that myself, as incorporated in my model of a bee (available at
ftp.rug.nl/origami). The recations of your peers seems to be surprizing
though. I always thought that incorporatimng stripes ans fancy colour
patters is what would get people exited about what is possible with paper.
Are any of these models available to be seen?

>
>i have concluded that most complex folders are after a look of complexity
>rather than the actual process of folding. for me, on the other hand, i
>enjoy the process as much as the outcome.

Having an interesting folding sequence is important to me as well,
regardles of a model's difficulty level. I have always felt that if you
explore different symeties and ratios, and do not getsucked into using
standard origami sequences, you will without trying, end up with
interesting folds.

Marc





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <Tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:38:37 -0700
Subject: 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?

Matthias, monogamist





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 20:49:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

At 01:33 PM 8/2/98 -0400, Unafolder@AOL.COM wrote:

>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.

Now that you have stepped down from your soapbox, I think us more
internet-savy guys know what is really going on here. Namely, the free
hours on your AOL account have finally expired. I actually never knew this
mailing list was moderated one way or another, but if you are going to
start a more open forum, I would be glad to shed light on how to design
shapely human legs (as opposed to insect legs, which are far less
interesting). BTW, it was a different strip club newsgroup that did the
origami invaision.

Marc

P.S. Does this mean you will finally reveal your identity?





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 21:04:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Copyright - A Question, and a Suggestion

At 07:18 PM 8/2/98 -0500, Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET> wrote:

>If there is a 'traditional' model listed in several books, such as the
>frog, is it both legal and ethical for me to create from scratch my own
>diagrams and instructions to give to people as I wish? I've been wanting
>to, and people _always_ love the frog, and it is so easy, that I want to
>give them diagrams in hopes that they may become interested. But I want to
>stay both legal and *ethical*. What about something like the crane?

This is an easy one to answer (as opposed to the rest of the copyright
issues that are a bit too stick for my taste). Even if the process is the
same, you have every right to make and distribute diagrams of traditional
models, and no one coiuld lay a leagal finger on you. Speaking strictly
hypothetically, I suppose someone could find a unique process for making a
traditional model, go through the great evpense and trouble of patenting
it, and then be able to prevent you from diagramming that particular
process. With only a handful of origami models ever paptented, this is
something few of us will ever have to worry about.

Marc

>Would it be possible to create a place where creators could record their
>preferences/wishes for their models? This might include things like:

This sounds possible, but I doubt it would ever be implemented for many
logistical reasons. If you do care about how an author feel's about his
work being reproduced for reasons that go beyoud a "fair use policy (which
you seem to be sensitive towrds), then you can contact the artist through
the publisher. Artists do not want thir work to be reproduced for many
reasons, and sometimes each model could be taken on a case by case basis.
personally, if I knew someone did not fold a model of mine remotely near
how I envisioned it, I would probably hesitate giving permission for
someone else to use it, even for non-commercial purposes.

Marc





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 21:07:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Origami Games

At 07:23 PM 8/2/98 -0500, Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET> wrote:

>Has anyone designed a backgammon board, a chinese checkers board, or the
>cross-shaped brain teaser that is a jumping pegs puzzle? I have looked in
>the archives a bit, but have not found anything. I was thinking about doing
>a display of games done in origami, and I have found several chess boards
>so far. Any ideas?

There is a tangram set diagrtammed in the latest OrigamiUSA Annual
Collection (available through www.origami-usa.org). Just so you know, games
usually do not make for attractive exhibitions, unless you are willing to
make up for it by allowing it to be hands-on.

Marc





From: Andy Carpenter <Andy.Carpenter@MCI.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 22:37:16 -0600
Subject: Re: complexity
Importance: Normal

For me it is not a matter of the process. It is a matter of how the model
finally looks (or is supposed to) and how it represents the actual thing it
is a model of. I have spent many many late night hours folding the likes of
Langs Cuckoo Clock, or Kawasaki's Rose Tessellation, various complex models
by Yoshino, Kawahata etc. Each time I have been thrilled when the model is
complete to my satisfaction (usually the 3rd or 4th try). By the same token
I have several diagrams (complex or not) that I doubt I will ever fold. It's
not that I can't - it's I just don't want to. Most of Yoshino's models and
all of Montroll's models fall into this category. Nothing is wrong with
them - they are just not me.

At one point I was into complexity for complexities sake. The more complex
the model the better it was - period. David Brill's book 'Brilliant Origami'
put a halt to that outlook for me at least. I just loved folding his
animals - most of which are not what I would consider complex. Then I bought
Lang/Weiss 'Origami Zoo' and was again enthralled by the result and not the
process. Maybe it's a phase, but now I am finally starting to create my own
folds I stay clear of overly complex folds if a simpler one has, what I
consider, a more pleasing affect.

I guess the way I look at it is thus: if it looks good I'll go through hell
and high water to fold it

Andy.
----Original Message-----
Post-Quinn
Sent:   Sunday, August 02, 1998 5:24 PM

At 06:51 PM 8/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>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

alrighty then...

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?

it's a basic sort of question, but it's valid -- i've noticed that alot of
my models get passed over because, i guess, the folding sequence isn't
worthy of the outcome. i have a few models that use a special repetetive
color-change sequence that i stole, in part, from marc k's raccoon, and
developed into a much more elegant process. few people have really shown
much interest in them because, despite their technical elegance, they seem
like they shouldn't have taken quite as much work as they finally did.

i have concluded that most complex folders are after a look of complexity
rather than the actual process of folding. for me, on the other hand, i
enjoy the process as much as the outcome.

any views on this one?

peace,
alasdair





From: Magdalena Cano Plewinska <mplewinska@MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:36 +0000 (
Subject: Re: First Crane (or How I Started Folding paper)

On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 06:32:44 -0700, lambertj <lambertj@ROCKETMAIL.COM>
wrote:

>Do you still have your first crane (or your
>first model, if not a crane)?

No, but a lot of my early models go up on the Christmas tree every
year.
--
Magda Plewinska                   mplewinska@mindspring.com
Miami, FL, USA





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:44:07 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Origami Games

In a message dated 98-08-02 20:26:25 EDT, you write:

> Has anyone designed a backgammon board, a chinese checkers board, or the
>  cross-shaped brain teaser that is a jumping pegs puzzle? I have looked in
>  the archives a bit, but have not found anything. I was thinking about doing
>  a display of games done in origami, and I have found several chess boards
>  so far. Any ideas?
>
>  Ahliana Byrd
>  lnahbyrd@onramp.net

Aloha Ms. Ahliana Byrd,

I'm sorry I can't remember where I saw the diagrams, but I remember
seeing a 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe board w/separate 3-D X and O pieces,
maybe in a convention book or newsletter.

Not everything is in the archives. But there is a database of folds and
where (which book) they're diagrammed, online. Odd, I don't
have a URL for that database, and just looked at what I had
bookmarked for Joseph Wu's Origami Page, and didn't see
a link there. Oh well.

Hopefully someone else on the list can track it down.

Don't remember seeing any other board games. Does it matter to you
whether they're modular, or one-piece?

You know, there are origami Chess Sets, to go with the game boards.

I also remember seeing a golf bag w/clubs, recently, I think.

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





From: Dribalz@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:45:28 -0400 (
Subject: $ folds

I know this post is a little late as the thread seems to be gone already, but
in answer to the question as to how much money you have tied up in $ folds:
well, at the present time it is in the order of 50 dollars.

I just folded Roger (?) Glynn's Star of David modular box (the base only at
this time) out of 6 one dollar bills.

Andrew Hans





From: Magdalena Cano Plewinska <mplewinska@MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 01:00:32 +0000 (
Subject: Re: No Text in My Messages?

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 19:25:30 -0500, Lynn & Ahliana Byrd
<lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET> wrote:

>I received text in all my messages, did others receive it empty? Please let
>me know.

All your messages came with text and some HTML formatting codes. It's
better to use plain text (ASCII) for mailing lists.
--
Magda Plewinska                   mplewinska@mindspring.com
Miami, FL, USA





From: Kenny1414@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 01:51:56 -0400 (
Subject: Re: how much money you have tied up in $ folds (was Re: $ folds)

In a message dated 98-08-03 00:53:20 EDT, Andrew Hans wrote:

> in answer to the question as to how much money you have tied up in $ folds

I can't find the beginning of this thread either, so I'm adding my two cents
here.

Last time I looked, I think I had over $200 tied up. I know I have about $50
in
one box of $ Rings, mostly unpublished (of which, maybe a dozen are worth
publishing).

I tried using play money, but that isn't as satisfying.

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





From: David Chow <Davegchow@AOL.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 04:39:24 -0400 (
Subject: Some 'Origami Fantasy' questions.

Greetings!
        I have been working through the beautiful models of this book, and came
across a few questions about which I thought more experienced folders may know
something.
        First, what kind of paper does one use for the more complicated models?
     The
first few work fine with kami, but as the complexity increases, kami no longer
seems to hold up so well to the more "three dimensionalizing" folds (or
perhaps it's my inability to fold at that level :)
        Second, has anyone noted any possible inaccuracies in the diagrams, or
     have
they always been exactly precise?  In three or four of the models, some flap
is sometimes shown to be in a slightly different location or of a different
size than  it is on the folded model.  Of course, I realize that's almost
always the result of inaccurate folding or possibly some approximation that
was made previously.  However, the model then seems to magically re-align
itself to the diagrams some twenty or thirty steps later, and my final model
is fine.  The only reason I was wondering about this was because, in a very
complicated fold, the landmarks might become confusing.  Oh well.

Thank you!

Have fun!

David C.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 08:46:32 +0100
Subject: Re: Origami Games

Kenny1414@AOL.COM sez

>>  a display of games done in origami,

Peter Ford of Birmingham has created a few "burr" puzzles - interlocking
shapes. There are also a number of geometric shapes that combine to
produce (gasp) a different shape. Bob Neale has produced a number of
intriguing puzzles.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

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





From: John Marcolina <jmarcoli@CISCO.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:37:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Some 'Origami Fantasy' questions.

At 04:39 AM 8/3/98 EDT, David Chow wrote:
>Greetings!
>        I have been working through the beautiful models of this book, and
came
>across a few questions about which I thought more experienced folders may
know
>something.
>        First, what kind of paper does one use for the more complicated
models?  The
>first few work fine with kami, but as the complexity increases, kami no
longer
>seems to hold up so well to the more "three dimensionalizing" folds (or
>perhaps it's my inability to fold at that level :)

I recommend wet-folding for most of the models in this book, and the best
paper I know of for wet-folding (still) is elephant hide, or Windstone
Marble, which can be obtained from Fascinating Folds or Kim's Crane, in a
variety of colors. It's colored the same on both sides, has a marbled
finish, and is extremely strong. It's thicker than kami, but much thinner
that a lot of other papers people use for wet-folding. Because of its
thickness, you should start with larger paper (12" or larger) for many of
the models.
For a few of the models which get excessively thick
(tuojan-blah-blah-saurus, pegasus), I used tissue foil with very good
results A lot of great information about making this can be found in the
archives.

If you've never wet-folded, this book gives you a great reason to start.
Again, check the archives for lots of tips.

>        Second, has anyone noted any possible inaccuracies in the
diagrams, or have
>they always been exactly precise?

<snip>

I don't have the book in front of me, but I don't recall any problems like
that. The diagramming in this book is about the best you will ever see, and
is certainly in a class by itself when it comes to diagrams that don't
require text. The graphics provide all the information you need to fold the
models, although sometimes you have to stare at a particular step awhile.
I'm sure the text helps to clarify some of the more difficult steps, but I
got along fine without it. I sure wish I could read the back section where
the author talks about design methods, though!

If you think a particular diagram is in error, let me know exactly which
one it is and I'll see if I wrote any notes in my book about it.

My favorite model from this book? I like the dinosaurs :-)

John (still searching for better wet-folding paper) Marcolina
San Jose, CA.





From: Jason Todd <jrtodd@MS.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:00:14 -0400
Subject: New Hundred $ bills in folds?
Speaking of tying up lots of money in money folds...
I was wondering if anyone has played around with the new hundreds?
Ben's head is so much larger, it seems like it might make for some
interesting, albeit expensive, new patterns.
I think the model would have to be pretty extra special to keep it
though.

-Jason





From: Magdalena Cano Plewinska <mplewinska@MINDSPRING.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:34:48 +0000 (
Subject: Re: No Text in My Messages?

On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:28:50 -0500, Lynn & Ahliana Byrd
<lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET> wrote:

>Aaagh!!! My second worst fears!
>.......
>MANY APOLOGIES TO ALL (really, guys, I'm sorry, I know what happened, I'll
>try not to do it again.).

Well, OK, but WE'LL BE WATCHING :))))))
--
Magda Plewinska                   mplewinska@mindspring.com
Miami, FL, USA





From: Marcia Mau <maumoy@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 13:05:21 -0700 (
Subject: Dollar Bill Fold - Fish Fly

Harry Weiss alerted me to an article in The Washington Post's sports
section on Sunday, August 2, 1998, pg D4.  It will be available on-line
in the Post's archives for two weeks @ www.washingtonpost.com.

The article "When Flyfishing, Capt. Bartlett Makes Sure Humor Runs
Through It" is by Angus Phillips.

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





From: Marcia Mau <maumoy@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 13:11:40 -0700 (
Subject: Dollar Bill Fold - Fish Fly

Harry Weiss alerted me to an article in The Washington Post's sports
section on Sunday, August 2, 1998, pg D4.  It will be available on-line
in the Post's archives for two weeks @ www.washingtonpost.com.

The article "When Flyfishing, Capt. Bartlett Makes Sure Humor Runs
Through It" is by Angus Phillips.  Capt. Bartlett uses crisp $1 bills to
make fish flies.

Marcia Mau
Vienna, VA USA





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 13:46:52 -0400
Subject: Re: complexity

At 08:08 PM 8/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Are your models available at .rug or on a web page somewhere? I'd like to
>take a look (I'm not into complex models just now so I may not fold them
>for a while, but...).

i'm working on this -- most of the models aren't diagrammed, but they will
have photos taken of them soon, so at least that will be on the web. i will
add diagrams as i make them.

don't worry, i'll tell people where to get them

peace,
alasdair





From: Tom Hill <tomh@GROUPWORKS.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:03:35 -0500
Subject: Re: complexity

> 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?
>

I had the same question that someone else had: Where are your diagrams? Have I
seen them and skipped over them? Or have I not yet seen them?

Anyway, to directly answer your question. Here are the folds I'd like to see
right now:

A Bride and Groom, kneeling at the altar, facing each other for vows, lifting
the veil, or placing the ring. Something that's obvious, and meaningful. And,
oh, yeah, I need it today, because my cousin is getting married this Sunday, and
I'm still looking for that 'perfect present'. ;-)

A swimmer, complete with suit (female) about to dive into the water. For my
daughter who just finished her summer season.

A choir singer. Maybe an action model who's mouth would open and close? For my
son who's choir is working up to a tour of England next summer.

A soccer player for my second son.

A dozen roses from a single square. For my wife who's the most incredibly
amazing person on the planet. (She puts up with me, eh?)

For myself, a dragon, complete with fire breathing nostrils, a long thin tail,
and claws on each of it's four feet.

A Noah's ark, complete with animals, for my mother. (I know, I've asked for this
before, and I got a couple of good answers. It's still on my to-do list.)

Well, that's today's list. Ask again tomorrow, and I'll probably come up with
something completely different.

Fold in Peace,

Tom





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:05:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Choosing a subject (was complexity)

At 08:33 PM 8/2/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>worthy of the outcome. i have a few models that use a special repetetive
>>color-change sequence that i stole, in part, from marc k's raccoon, and
>>developed into a much more elegant process. few people have really shown
>>much interest in them because, despite their technical elegance, they seem
>>like they shouldn't have taken quite as much work as they finally did.
>
>That I would love to see, as I always thought my method for making stripes
>was about as straightfoward as you could get. I have a simpler version of
>that myself, as incorporated in my model of a bee (available at
>ftp.rug.nl/origami). The recations of your peers seems to be surprizing
>though. I always thought that incorporatimng stripes ans fancy colour
>patters is what would get people exited about what is possible with paper.
>Are any of these models available to be seen?

soon, they will be. i have about 8 pics left on my roll of film, so i might
as well use them on some of these models. in the past few weeks i've
recalled one dragon and designed four new ones, and recalled one flower and
designed two new ones. the flowers are the ones that have your (marc's)
technique in them -- for striped petals. when i designed the original
flower (called "flora striata") it won the origami by children contest (i
was 17 at the time). so at least someone has shown some interest in it.

the technique really is very basic -- i hesitate, however, to say "simple"
-- but despite this fact few people have used it to its full potential.
that's what i'm trying to do. in the "zig-zag bracelet" i've used the
technique to create a continuous colored zig-zag on a white band,
reminiscent of charlie brown's shirt. in another model that is as yet
unnamed, i used the same technique to create triangles, diamonds, and
circles in a geometric pattern. it's really an elegant technique and
there's no reason it should be confined to simple stripes.

>Having an interesting folding sequence is important to me as well,
>regardles of a model's difficulty level. I have always felt that if you

>explore different symeties and ratios, and do not getsucked into using
>standard origami sequences, you will without trying, end up with
>interesting folds.

exactly -- i can't think of even one of my models that confines itself to
"normal" origami sequences -- my first creation ever, created at 12, used a
set of four sinks which looked as if they should be four-sided but were
actually five-sided, and gave the model four extra points that otherwise
would not have been able to be used.

but back to the original subject of choosing subjects. perhaps unlike other
designers, many of my folds come out of improvisation, and when i come up
with a direction while "doodling" with paper, i go in that direction. thus
i rarely start out trying to create something in particular. this makes it
somewhat difficult to "market" my folds to people, because i'm not thinking
about what people want to see or fold when i'm creating things. my biggest
problems is that some of my favorite models are simply not of subjects that
most complex folders are interested in. does your average complex folder
want to fold a bracelet or a flower, regardless of how cool it looks or how
difficult it is? (this is a rhetorical question. i know the answer)

anyway, i'll stop rambling now.

peace,
alasdair





From: Bryan Feir <jenora@ISTAR.CA>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 14:29:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Origami For the Connoisseur

On Thu, 30 Jul 1998, Dahlia Schwartz wrote:

> this is one of my favorite books, and I love the space shuttle model.  It is
> the essence of simplicity and elegance and it looks precisely like the
> shuttle.  Some other great models are the various sea-shells , the Kawasaki
> Rose, and, of course, the infamously famous stegasorous.

   Ah yes, the shuttle is a beautiful design.  I've got a copy of the
origami shuttle signed by the entire STS-90 crew (the Neurolab experiments
were designed by some of the people where I work, so the shuttle crew was
over here for some last-minute checks).

---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Bryan Feir           VA3GBF|"A half-truth, like a half-brick, is more forcible
bryan@sgl.crestech.ca      | in an argument than a whole one...
jenora@istar.ca            | it carries further."     -- Stephen Leacock





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 15:02:04 -1000
Subject: Re: Monogami?

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Matthias, monogamist

Here's an interesting point on Japanese/English translations.  If a
Japanese were reading your "monogami", one translation would be "mono-
thing", "gami-paper"..."thing-paper"; although to use it properly you'd
say "kami no mono"- paper thing.  Just playing with words, Jan
--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





From: Allen Parry <parry@ESKIMO.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 16:43:28 -0700
Subject: Re: $ folds

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 Dribalz@AOL.COM wrote:

> I know this post is a little late as the thread seems to be gone already, but
> in answer to the question as to how much money you have tied up in $ folds:
> well, at the present time it is in the order of 50 dollars.

Gosh, I have at least $300 in finished models, about $100 in
prototypes, and $75 in new bills in the to-do category. (and these are all
$1 bills)  I good way to save money.

Allen Parry
parry@eskimo.com





From: Dorothy Engleman <FoldingCA@WEBTV.NET>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:32:10 -0700
Subject: Shari Lewis

Shari Lewis, a pioneer of early children' s television and puppeteer of
Lamb Chop fame, died in Los Angeles today.

Shari taught origami on some of her early television shows and
collaborated with Lillian Oppenheimer on two books:  Folding Paper
Puppets and Folding Paper Toys.

I hope David Lister will fill in the details of Shari's association with
Lillian.

I offer in tribute this charming excerpt from Shari's introduction to
Folding Paper Toys (1963):

"In a recently received mail pouch I found the following letter: "Dear
Shari, This morning when you did paper folding on your televisiion show,
I took a piece of paper and I did what you did.  You got a bird and I
got a boat.  What did you do wrong? (Signed) Jennie."

I didn't do anything wrong, and as I wrote and told Jennie that same
day, neither did she.  She had simply stumbled upon the beginnings of
the classic boat fold all by herself, and once she recognized the form,
she had no trouble completing the figure.

And that's the fun of folding paper toys - the excitement of knowing
that around the next fold or under the hidden flap, waiting for your
fingers to reveal it, lies a well-constructed, three dimensioned,
recognizable object with which you can play."

http://www.calendarlive.com/HOME/CALENDARLIVE/HOLD/ap_lewis0803.htm

Dorothy





From: Alasdair Post-Quinn <acpquinn@PANTHER.MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 19:37:59 -0400
Subject: Re: complexity

At 02:03 PM 8/3/98 -0500, you wrote:

>I had the same question that someone else had: Where are your diagrams?
Have I
>seen them and skipped over them? Or have I not yet seen them?

you've probably not yet seen them. at the moment they've just recently been
scanned into pdf format, but haven't been publicized in that form yet.
their main method of distribution has been by mail and at conventions. the
only things i have diagrammed right now are the lonely man, the jellyfish,
the zig-zag bracelet, and something else that i can't remember at the
moment. i've also got the balloon man published in j.c. nolan's latest
compilation book by young creators (i was 17 when i made the model)

i'm working on making the diagrams more readable (i.e. deleting the text i
wrote by hand and replacing it with computer text), and when they're done
they'll be placed somewhere on the web.

peace,
alasdair





From: cyril winebrenner <shasta667@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 19:40:59 -0700 (
Subject: Mark K.

you i assume are like all other origami greats have a stock pile of
origami models that you have never diagrammed.  is there any hope that
you will ever diagram it?





From: Charles Knuffke <knuffke@SIRIUS.COM>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 20:08:52 -0800
Subject: Origami in the News

Small little item in the July 13th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle's
LEAH GARCHIK'S PERSONALS (kind of a witty happening around town section):

--Bob Treuhaft credits the U.S. embargo for the toilet paper origami in
Cuban hotels: Baby-soft American-style stuff ``would wilt in the hands of
an origami artist,'' he writes; the use of ``crinkly European style paper''
makes this art possible.

The article didn't mention whether these pieces were wet-fold or not, but
inquiring minds probably don't want to know ;-)

p.s. - for fun, go to the search engine for any major newspaper, and do a
search on "Origami". It turns up pretty often, although usually as an
adjective applied to something non-origami related.

Regards,

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Charles Knuffke       "Amen the Thunderbolt in the Dark Void"
San Francisco, CA                              -Jack Kerouac
mailto://knuffke@sirius.com





From: Michael Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 21:24:37 +1000
Subject: finished the demon

I finally completed Maekawa's devil today!! There a a few people I would
like thank before I accept this honour:

- Peter Engel for printing a picture of the demon and first sparking my
interest in this model.
- Robert Lang for training my fingers over the past six months with his
devilishly hard models.
- Fred Curtis for helping me find a copy of the diagrams.
- Carmine Di Chiara for offering her support and advice.
- My partner for standing by me in this difficult time (...actually she
sat next to me on the lounge watching TV ;))
- My brain for finally figuring out that tricky step 42.
- Finally Jun Maekawa himself without whom none of this would have been
possible

(Just some light-hearted ramblings in the face of wading through the 110th
gloomy censorship e-mail)

Regards,

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Michael Janssen-Gibson                 e-mail: mig@isd.canberra.edu.au
ISD, Library                   phone/voice mail: +61 6 (06)  201 5271
University of Canberra
PO Box 1 Belconnen, ACT 2616





From: tommy <tomkat@DALLAS.NET>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 00:27:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Origami Puzzles (was Origami Games)

Nick Robinson wrote:

> Peter Ford of Birmingham has created a few "burr" puzzles - interlocking
     shapes.
[snip]

One of Peter Ford's origami renditions of a traditional wooden puzzle is
published in Eric Kenneway's _Complete_Origami_ (ISBN 0-312-00898-8). It
is a cluster puzzle requiring six 5:8 rectangles.

Origami representations of both the Soma Cube and Pentominoes can be
found on the internet.

Sebastian Kirsch has created a Soma Cube using paper strips or ticker
tape to fold each piece. Diagrams for it in postscript format can be
found at the Origami Interest Group's page:
http://www.rug.nl/rugcis/rc/ftp/origami/models/soma.ps
The Adobe Acrobat (pdf) version can be found on Alex Barber's site:
http://www.the-village.com/origami/diagram.html
Although he doesn't mention it I think this technique could be used to
make Pentominoes also.

In the introduction to his diagrams Sebastian mentions a Soma Cube from
Sonobe units by Steve Biddle in _The_New_Origami_. Also mentioned is a
Soma Cube by Maarten van Gelder that uses box pleating to make each
piece from a rectangle. A photo of Maarten's model can be found here:
http://www.kvi.nl/~vgelder/origami/fototxt/soma.htm

I believe that Maarten uses the same technique as his Soma cube for his
origami Pentominoes set. A photograph of the complete set can be seen
here:
http://www.kvi.nl/~vgelder/origami/fototxt/pentomin.htm
There are diagrams in postscript format for the Pentominoes set at the
Origami Interest Group's page:
http://www.rug.nl/rugcis/rc/ftp/origami/models/pentominos/index.htm

There are other ways to construct these these two puzzles using modular
origami. Here is a way that can be used to make both the Soma Cube and a
Pentominoes set. By using the 6 card business card cube as the basic
unit, linking the cubes to form the pieces of the puzzles, and paneling
each piece you can make sturdy models. (See Jeannine Mosely's sponge
page: http://world.std.com/~j9/sponge/index.html for details of the
unit.) Of course you don't have to use business cards, 1:2 rectangles
would also work. How many units will it take? Here are my calculations:

For the Soma Cube (7 pieces)
The six 4-unit pieces require 24 units for the piece and 18 units for
the paneling. The one 3-unit piece requires 18 units for the piece and
14 units for the paneling. Thus you need 162 units for the pieces and
122 units for the paneling for a total of 284 units.

For a complete set of Pentominoes (12 pieces)
Each piece except the P requires 30 units for piece and 22 units for the
paneling. The P requires only 20 units for paneling. Thus you need 360
units for the pieces and 262 units for the paneling for a total of 622
units.

Compare these to a fully paneled level one Menger Sponge which requires
192 units.

There are many other figures besides a cube that can be made with the
Soma Pieces. The cube is actually a fairly easy puzzle because of the
large number of ways (240?) that the seven pieces can be arranged to
form it. Tom Hull provides a method (that works well with the business
card cube method of construction) of making a harder puzzle...

>            Digression:  That makes the soma cube a very "easy" puzzle.
>            If you give the pieces to someone, they'll usually be able to solve
>            it because there are so many different solutions.  However, there's
>            a very easy way to turn the soma cube into a MUCH harder puzzle,
>            one with *only one* solution!  Take any solution to the original
>            soma cube, dissect the 1 piece made from glueing 3 cubes together
>            and reglue these cubes onto other neighboring pieces.  This will
>            give you a puzzle with only 6 pieces, 3 of which will now have
>            5 cubes glued together.  I've made several "soma variations" in
     this
>            way, and it always results in a demonically hard puzzle!  Give it
     a try!

Gluing, of course, is unnecessary with the 6 card business card cube
construction.

I highly recommend choosing any method at all and folding a set of these
puzzles. Once you do, these two web pages will get you puzzling with
your new paper models:

The Soma Cube Page
http://lonestar.texas.net/~jenicek/somacube/somacube.html

The Pentominoes Page
http://lonestar.texas.net/~jenicek/pentomin/pentomin.html

I'm very interested in hearing about other origami puzzles.

Happy folding and puzzling!
Tommy





From: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 00:32:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Secret of the Holes, OftC

The shell with one hole  is in Spirals 1, I know 'cause it's the only
one that I have;) And I believe that the model is credited to Kawasaki
(it is in Japanese so it is hard to tell).

Also Joseph is right the finished model is much smaller than the paper
and is very thick.   The one in OFTC is a little more interesting to
fold . . . I think

The spirals book is well worth it too, if you don't have it already.

 B R E T T

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Andy Carpenter [mailto:Andy.Carpenter@MCI.COM]
                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).





From: PErick3491@AOL.COM
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 00:49:47 -0400 (
Subject: Re: Bah Humbug-- The Departure

Sorry to see you leave the origami list--though it does get picky at times.
Please let me know where you go next.  I like your "attitude".  Pat





From: Sy Chen <sychen@EROLS.COM>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 01:28:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Choosing a subject (was complexity)

First thanks for Joseph Wu and Marc Kirschenbaum for their 'make my day'

As for subject matter
I don't think myself as a so called 'complex' folder. (Am I?) I don't mean
I can't fold complex model. Just my time is so limited and I can't afford
too many failure for those complex models. (i.e. First trial gives a
displayable outlook). Now I would prefer spending time to design my own
instead of folding other's models.
If I am in some kind of folding mood I would enjoy much to fold a show-off
piece. Folding sequence is no importance. People won't see it anyway( well
it depends...).
As for choosing a subject and why people can not see it, There are too many
things/models on display. It highly depends on  displaying/presenting
trick. I gradually learned some lesson (and still learning). e.g. I did
display my teapot model in '96 OUSA convention. I bet most of the visitors
just passed-by w/o seeing it. To my surprise most of them like my $
utensils. Two years later someone reminded me this teapot model thru email
before convention. I decided to give it a new look using better chosen
paper and wet-folding. (My great acknowledgment to Mike Weinstein for
introducing me the wet folding art) And  tea cups are specially designed to
go with teapot. Then...  you know the results.

Action/form changing model is another example. Magic rose cube shows its
beauty by form changing magic. You have to see flasher in action for
Jeremy's super flasher. Same goes with my one-piece flipper model. I did
not do much demonstration so people just don't get it.

|------------------------------------------------------\
|  _   Shi-Yew Chen (a.k.a. Sy) <sychen@erols.com>     |\
| |_| Folding http://www.erols.com/sychen1/pprfld.html --\





From: Lynn & Ahliana Byrd <lnahbyrd@ONRAMP.NET>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 07:03:03 -0500
Subject: Reposting - Delurking - How I Got Started in Origami,

I am reposting this, as I have received requests from those who cannot
receive the junk I sent. Please forgive me.

I was going to wait a bit before delurking, but I suppose now is as good a
time as any.

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.

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.

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  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.

I have done a couple of "Fat Friday" 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" 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 "fancy table setting"
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
mistake! It had taken (I think) about 56 of the 6" hexagons, but almost 900
of the 3"!!! 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.

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.

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.

Ahliana Byrd
lnahbyrd@onramp.net
