




From: "<Ryan Becker>" <RyBecker@AOL.COM>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:17:11 -0500 (
Subject: Viva Origami!

Just an idea for getting "Viva Origami!" back in print.
What if someone set up a method of recording people's names on their web site
(something like a guest log?).  Anyone desiring to buy this book if it came
back in print could sign their name.  This list could then be sent to the
publisher.  Is this a possibility?  I can say for myself that I wouldn't even
have to think before putting in my order!

Ryan





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:37:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)

At 02:48 1999-01-16 -0500, you wrote:
>I agree, these models are not good exemplars of origami as most
>people, including myself, would understand it.  But I do think we need
>to discuss them a bit differently than most origami models.  I think
>we need to keep in mind what he was trying to achieve, the materials
>he had to work with and then judge the final results. ... But
>when trying to apply critical judgement to the work we would need to
>take into account the artist's intent and whether or not he succeed in
>what he meant to do.

Why do we need to give him preferential treatment? His work is there for all to
see, and whether or not he worked in isolation is immaterial. Granted, art
criticism should go beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it", but those weren't
the criteria that I was applying. What I said was that the models are shapeless
and unrecognizable. They do not achieve what Rojas was trying to do because
they are not animal origami figures, except in the crudest of forms. Until the
painting is done, I cannot accept them as the animals that he claims them to
be, therefore they are failures from an origami point of view.

>What I find interesting about the Rojas book is that he has a
>different approach and attitude toward origami.  Most likely because
>he didn't know the rules or that there were any.  His book challenged
>my thinking as to what I considered to be origami and what I didn't.

This is fair enough, but that still doesn't make his work good.

>I don't know if it is acceptable to combine posts on this list but
>since both of you made the same point this seems like the easiest way
>to address it.

No problem.

>The basset hound model is recognizable as a medium
>height, four legged animal with a snout and a tail without any
>decoration.  I agree, that it only becomes a basset hound with the
>painting and that depending on how it was decorated it could be made
>into several different breeds of dogs or possibly a lion quite easily.
>However, painting it pink would not make it a recognizable pig, nor
>would putting spots on it make it a cow or a leopard.

"Four legged animal"? I don't recall it having legs. It's just a rectangle that
is double-pleated at one end to form the ears, and then folded in half. If he'd
just left it at that and called it a basset hound, then you might argue that
he'd done a good piece of reductionist representation (as opposed to realistic
representation), but the painting on of the features indicates that he wasn't
trying to do that.

>For the second point, I would argue that a single fold can constitute
>an origami model.  I would suggest that the single fold stegosaurus is
>an origami model...possibly on the fringe of origami but still
>origami.  I would also suggest that should I fold this model and lay
>it on my desk that no one would recognize what it was and think that
>it was just an oddly folded piece of paper.

Of course a single fold can constitute origami. The stegosaurus you mention is
mine, after all. But this takes us back to the argument about "achieving the
artist's purpose". The one-fold stegosaurus (and many other one-fold models)
are exercises in minimalism. They do what they are supposed to do by being
simple. Adding paint would not make them better, nor is it needed. But Rojas is
not working towards minimalism. He's trying to make recognisible animals...but
they don't work without the paint.

>I don't think +ACI-Paper Art+ACI- or +ACI-Fun with Paper+ACI- would accurately
>describe these models. I think they are closer to being origami than
>paper art.  The same way I consider Takahama's wisteria an origami
>model even though it requires a lot of cutting and sculptural elements
>to complete.

Yes, they are close to origami... 8)

>To this, I whole heartily agree.  And it is in the spirit of such
>discussion that I offer my opinions on Rojas book.  Given the
>limitations of his background and the availability of materials his
>solutions to creating a set of animals to play with as a child are
>worthy of a serious thought or two.  I don't enshrine his models but I
>don't dismiss them either.

Fair enough!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Norman Budnitz <nbudnitz@DUKE.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:03:43 -0500
Subject: correction

OOPS!  Martin Carbone's company is called Papershops, not Papersource as I
called it in my recent posting.  My apologies.

Norm

*******************************************************************
Norman Budnitz          919-684-3592 (day)
nbudnitz@duke.edu               919-383-0553 (eve)
                                919-684-6168 (fax)

Dept of Zoology, Duke University, Box 90325, Durham NC 27708-0325 (work)
4115 Garrett Drive, Durham NC 27705-8005 (home)

PROGRESS: the victory of laughter over dogma.
(Tom Robbins, Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas)





From: Norman Budnitz <nbudnitz@DUKE.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:03:43 -0500
Subject: correction

OOPS!  Martin Carbone's company is called Papershops, not Papersource as I
called it in my recent posting.  My apologies.

Norm

*******************************************************************
Norman Budnitz          919-684-3592 (day)
nbudnitz@duke.edu               919-383-0553 (eve)
                                919-684-6168 (fax)

Dept of Zoology, Duke University, Box 90325, Durham NC 27708-0325 (work)
4115 Garrett Drive, Durham NC 27705-8005 (home)

PROGRESS: the victory of laughter over dogma.
(Tom Robbins, Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas)





From: Ian McRobbie <Ourldypeac@AOL.COM>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:15:08 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Viva Origami!

   Great Idea!!   You wouldn't be able to stop me from buying that book if it
came back in print!!  I third that idea!!

                       -Ian McRobbie





From: Thies de Waard <twaard@C.ECUA.NET.EC>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 21:37:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Langs Bat? (LOCATION)

Askinazi, Brett wrote:
>
> Post the website so we can all see it.
>
> B R E T T
>

Brett.

see in
http://www.parc.xerox.com/csl/members/bern/origami.html

N.J.

Thanks! I didn't have the URL anymore, only new it had something
to do with copiers... For those who have asked me to keep them
updated on information where to find Lang's Bat: I haven't had any
reaction; it seems it has not been published (yet).

Ciao, Thies
----------------------------------
Thies de Waard
Apartado Postal 01-01-862
Cuenca, ECUADOR
+593-7-822052 (thuis/home/casa)
+593-7-840254 (werk/office/oficina)
Ik heb nu slechts n email-adres/
I now have only one email address/
Ahora solo tengo una direccin de correo electrnico:
twaard@c.ecua.net.ec





From: Jeff DeHerdt <jadeherd@IUPUI.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:46:38 -0500
Subject: Iso-area Folding

In response to my question about the definition of iso-area folding,
Thomas C. Hull wrote:

"An origami fold is called "iso-area" if the model is "doing the
same thing" on the white side of the paper as on the colored side."

After folding some Kawasaki cube models and variations, and still not
understanding iso-area folding, my fiancee said the exact same thing. But,
I guess if you don't feel like an idiot every once in a while, you're not
learning anything. Well, at least tomorrow I can try that SR-71 model....

                                Thanks,

                                        Jeffrey DeHerdt





From: Rjlang@AOL.COM
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:33:32 -0500 (
Subject: Re: Iso-area Folding

Tom wrote:

> An origami fold is called "iso-area" if the model is "doing the
> same thing" on the white side of the paper as on the colored side.
>
> Here's another way to think of it:  First fold the model.  Then
> magically make the white side of the paper become colored amd make
> the colored side of the paper white.  (I know, you can't really do
> this - use your imagination!)  If the result looks *exactly* like
> the original model, after you first folded it, then it's iso-area.
>
> Here's a more mathematical definition, just for fun!
> An origami model is iso-area if when you look at the crease
> pattern the set of all valey creases looks just like the
> set of all mountain creases, only rotated.  (I.e., they are
> isometric.)

The two definitions Tom gave are not quite the same thing. Kasahara gives the
definition (which he attributes to Kawasaki) of "iso-area" as "the obverse and
reverse of the paper are exposed to equal extents" (Origami Omnibus, p. 97).
He gives as an example a two-tone pinwheel by Yoshizawa.

Now the two-tone pinwheel doesn't actually look the same if you interchange
the colors. (It does if you interchange the colors, rotate 1/4 turn, and turn
the model over.) But on both sides of the model, the amount of "white" that's
visible is equal to the amount of "colored" that's visible, and the white and
colored shapes are congruent. So, I believe that's a definition that's closer
to what Kawasaki intended. (Or so I infer from Kasahara's rendition.)

Note that that definition leaves open the possiblity that all sorts of crazy
stuff is going on inside the model where you can't see it. For example, if you
take Montroll's chessboard and fold it in half with the squares on the
outside, the result certainly satisfies both Tom's first definition (and mine)
of iso-area, but it certainly does not have a crease pattern that is the same
under interchange of mountain and valley.

Conversely, there are many crease patterns that satisfy Tom's second
definition -- the valley creases look just like the mountain creases, only
rotated -- that are not iso-area. For example, if you take the two-tone
pinwheel and rotate the crease pattern 45 degrees with respect to the square,
the result is no longer iso-area in the sense of exposing equal amounts of
both colors, even though it retains the mountain/valley crease symmetry. In
fact, it's very easy to construct crease patterns that have this particular
symmetry with respect to the crease patterns but are single-color on both
sides of the model. I've proposed the term "iso-parity" to describe this
second property. Iso-parity comes up a lot in twists and tessellations.

To summarize:

"iso-area" = congruent regions of both colors exposed on both sides of the
model

"iso-parity" = the valley creases make the same pattern as the mountain
creases, but rotated or shifted in position.

Some models, of course, have both properties.

Robert J. Lang
rjlang@aol.com





From: Kathleen Wolf <lkwolf@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 23:34:30 -0800 (
Subject: Re: Lucky stars

On the question of where to find paper to fold lucky stars:

A really neat way to use up leftover or used copy paper (not wrapping
paper because it's too thin and doesn't puff up properly unless you use
a *really* long strip) is for these stars. You can cut an 8 1/2" x 11"
sheet of paper lengthwise into strips about 1 cm by 11 inches. (This
makes about 21 or 22 strips per sheet.) I think you might also be able
to use copy paper that has been run through a shredder.

I learned this from a friend of my sister at college who gave these
stars to my sister on her 22nd birthday.  She had placed 22 each of
maybe five or six different colors of stars into a frosted glass cubical
candleholder that had "Happy Birthday" etched on it. It was a really
cute present and I *really* had to know how to fold the stars :-;

Happy star folding!

-Kathy

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





From: "K.A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:33:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)

Joseph Wu:
+AD4AIg-Four legged animal+ACI-? I don't recall it having legs. It's just a
rectangle that
+AD4-is double-pleated at one end to form the ears, and then folded in
half. If he'd
+AD4-just left it at that and called it a basset hound, then you might
argue that
+AD4-he'd done a good piece of reductionist representation (as opposed to
realistic
+AD4-representation), but the painting on of the features indicates that
he wasn't
+AD4-trying to do that.

+AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8-
I hope we are not discussing different books :).  In the book I have,
+ACI-Origami Animals+ACI-, this model begins with the bird base we all know
and love.  Rojas doesn't call it a bird base, he calls this +ACI-basic
figure+ACI- (his words), dragon.  It does have four legs with the ear
flaps joined to the front legs, a head peeking out from beneath the
ear flaps and a separate curved tail.  It is folded from a single
uncut square.  In fact, the four legged animals in the book all have
four legs, not a three legged one in the bunch, and the legs are not
achieved by cutting in most of the models.  The birds have wings, a
beak, and two legs (he uses very strange cut away versions of the bird
base for most of them.)  Which only proves that you can fold anything
if you start with the right paper shape +ADw-grin+AD4-.

Joseph Wu:
+AD4-Of course a single fold can constitute origami. The stegosaurus you
mention is
+AD4-mine, after all. But this takes us back to the argument about
+ACI-achieving the
+AD4-artist's purpose+ACI-. The one-fold stegosaurus (and many other one-fold
models)
+AD4-are exercises in minimalism. They do what they are supposed to do by
being
+AD4-simple. Adding paint would not make them better, nor is it needed.
But Rojas is
+AD4-not working towards minimalism. He's trying to make recognisible
animals...but
+AD4-they don't work without the paint.

+AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBf-
Oups...I knew I should have looked up the artist on that one.
:::blushing with embarrassment:::  I think what happens with his
models is that when viewed the overpowering thing seen, especially by
anyone familar with origami, is the paint.  The Rhinoceros Beetle, for
example, turns out with 6 legs a horn and a divided shell case from a
single uncut square, though it does require a dab of glue at the very
end (if you used foil the glue wouldn't be necessary).  Not a mean
achievement, if he didn't know anything about origami when he created
it.

Joseph Wu:
+AD4-Why do we need to give him preferential treatment? His work is there
for all to
+AD4-see, and whether or not he worked in isolation is immaterial.
+AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXw-
It is the isolation that I find interesting.  It is intriguing, to me
(maybe it shouldn't be, but it is) that he was able to stubble upon
the bird base, the blintz and some of their applications at all.  And
I think it would be interesting to find out which of these models, if
any (or all), he created after he found out about origami.  That
information could very well change how I view his work.

Kalei - klundber+AEA-mnsinc.com +AHwAfA- ICQ 23969466
http://www.monumental.com/klundber





From: Maarten van Gelder <VGELDER@KVI.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:15:47 +0100
Subject: ADMIN: subscription, postpone and archives

How to UNSUBSCRIBE from this list ...
   Send a message to:                        listserv@mit.edu
   with in the body a line saying only:      signoff ORIGAMI
___________________________________________________________________

How to SUBSCRIBE to this list ...
   Send a message to:                        listserv@mit.edu
   with in the body a line saying only:      subscribe ORIGAMI
___________________________________________________________________

You may have PROBLEMS with your (un)subscription:
 - The unsubscribe is not effectuated within a reasonable time (some days).
 - You get all messages twice (via two email addresses).

In both cases, send a mail to the list owners:

  origami-request@mitvma.mit.edu

mentioning which email address to remove from the list.
The list owners are human beings with a limited amount of time, so be
patient while awaiting your deletion from the list.
___________________________________________________________________

When you don't get messages from the list (even not your own messages) you
are probably set to NOMAIL. You can do it yourself (when going on holiday),
but in the past months it happend to several members at random.  To set the
status again to normal:
   Send a message to:                        listserv@mit.edu
   with in the body a line saying only:      set ORIGAMI MAIL
___________________________________________________________________

For those of you who have forgotten how to ACCESS the ARCHIVES ......
You may get information, programs, diagrams, old messages and other stuff
from the archives via FTP, WWW and Email. The FAQ tells you how to do this.
   Send a message to:                        origami@www.rug.nl
   with in the body a line saying only:      faq
Or have a look at URL:
   http://www.rug.nl/rugcis/rc/ftp/origami/faqs/index.htm
___________________________________________________________________

MIND: THE THREE EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.





From: Michael Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:40:02 +1100
Subject: Re: Mask Origami

I was a little suprised that Nich Robinson did not take the opportunity to
advertise the Neal Elias booklet on faces and busts (;}) available
from the BOS website though i assume
he was taking the requests for "masks" literally and discounted it. I tend
to lump the whole lot together when thinking about masks (you can wear
them all, if you are so inclined).

The theatrical masks by Akira Yoshizawa referred to in an earlier post are
available in "Compilation of Masterworks or "Lively Origami" (depending on
where you shop). There is a photo in "Creative Origami", but sadly no
diagrams (as with quite a few of the photographed models in this book).

Discussions on wet-folding techniques can be found in the intro to most
Lang books (brief), in David Brill's "Brilliant Origami" and in John
Montroll's "Prehistoric Origami". These should be available in your
library system also.

As an aside, I am glad to see another topic emerge on the origami
list which causes all the "biggies" to strap on their six-shooters and
come out blazing! Being away from work for three days has left me with an
inbox full of opinions that leave me smirking at my desk and entertained
for a good hour or so.

Please don't think I am casting dispersions on those involved - I respect
these diverse opinions and enjoy hearing all sides. The smirking is
because these heated debates remind me of when I first joined this list. I
signed up in the middle of of a copyright debate (or was it a Yoshizawa
debate?), and for the first few days/weeks I did not know what I had let
myself in for.

Don't mind me, I am just the guy with popcorn cheering in the stands ;}

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: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:17:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)

At 04:33 99/01/18 -0500, you wrote:
>I hope we are not discussing different books :).  In the book I have,
>+ACI-Origami Animals+ACI-, this model begins with the bird base we all know
>and love.  Rojas doesn't call it a bird base, he calls this +ACI-basic
>figure+ACI- (his words), dragon.  It does have four legs with the ear
>flaps joined to the front legs, a head peeking out from beneath the
>ear flaps and a separate curved tail.  It is folded from a single
>uncut square.  In fact, the four legged animals in the book all have
>four legs, not a three legged one in the bunch, and the legs are not
>achieved by cutting in most of the models.  The birds have wings, a
>beak, and two legs (he uses very strange cut away versions of the bird
>base for most of them.)  Which only proves that you can fold anything
>if you start with the right paper shape +ADw-grin+AD4-.

Apologies. I don't have the book (I didn't want to waste any money on it),
so I guess I mis-remembered. Likely I'm remembering one of Sano-san's models.

>Oups...I knew I should have looked up the artist on that one.
>:::blushing with embarrassment:::  I think what happens with his
>models is that when viewed the overpowering thing seen, especially by
>anyone familar with origami, is the paint.  The Rhinoceros Beetle, for
>example, turns out with 6 legs a horn and a divided shell case from a
>single uncut square, though it does require a dab of glue at the very
>end (if you used foil the glue wouldn't be necessary).  Not a mean
>achievement, if he didn't know anything about origami when he created
>it.

This is fair enough. Perhaps I should look at the book again. I doubt it
will change my mind significantly, though. You are right: it is the paint
that I find objectionable. And it is not the fact that he uses paint, but
the fact that his models seem to require paint to be effective. Without it,
they are not much good.

>It is the isolation that I find interesting.  It is intriguing, to me
>(maybe it shouldn't be, but it is) that he was able to stubble upon
>the bird base, the blintz and some of their applications at all.  And
>I think it would be interesting to find out which of these models, if
>any (or all), he created after he found out about origami.  That
>information could very well change how I view his work.

Yes, that is intriguing, but the standards for the quality of work does not
change. We might be able to say, "wow, look at what he achieved in
isolation", but we can also say, "still, the models themselves aren't all
that good."

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Thomas C Hull <tch@ABYSS.MERRIMACK.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:17:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Iso-area Folding

Robert "I'm a precise guy, for an engineer" Lang proposes

>>>
"iso-area" = congruent regions of both colors exposed on both sides of the
model

"iso-parity" = the valley creases make the same pattern as the mountain
creases, but rotated or shifted in position.
<<<

Right - these are different things, but for two basic reasons.
One is that, yes, the inside of the model could be all wacky and
not symmetric at all.  (I was hoping to let that slide in
my previous post - sometimes I forget that people like Robert
are reading this list... ;)

But another reason has to do with the shape of the paper.  In fact,
there are a lot of models that "look" iso-area, but only if
folded from an infinite sheet of paper, or only if the crease
pattern extends infinitely small to the center.  (I'm thinking
of Fujimoto's self-similar collapse models, as seen in some
back issue of ORU. Chris Palmer also has some models that do this.)

Thus is the nature of trying to make exact mathematical/scientific
definitions.  After looking at the models in OftC, one has a clear
sense of what "iso-area" should be, but the simple definition
of the mountain creases being the same as the valleys, only
shifted or rotated, breaks down sometimes when the boundary of the
paper gets in the way.

I can accept Robert's definitions, but I'd prefer one that
defines iso-area as something independant of the shape of the
paper you're using.  It seems to me to be a property of the
crease pattern, rather than the shape of the paper used.

---- Tom "let's get philisophical" Hull
     thull@merrimack.edu





From: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:45:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Viva Origami!

Instead of sending reply's to this email, someone or some group will have to
take ACTION.  A simple list will not be sufficient and will never get
through to the proper party.

Simply replying to an email will get nothing accomplished.

Write a letter to the original publisher, including a list of names of
people that would be the book.
Write a letter to another publisher, giving them the details, Name, author,
publisher, ISBN, to see if they can buy the rights.

It will be VERY difficult however, because the original publisher SANRIO is
very difficult for Americans to deal with because they are in Japan.
I have put an inquiry or 2 through myself, and never received a response.

I do WINDOWS but I don't do windows.
B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   Ian McRobbie [mailto:Ourldypeac@AOL.COM]
Sent:   Sunday, January 17, 1999 8:15 PM
To:     ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: Viva Origami!

   Great Idea!!   You wouldn't be able to stop me from buying that book if
it
came back in print!!  I third that idea!!

                       -Ian McRobbie





From: Kimberly Crane <kcrane@KIMSCRANE.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:58:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Viva Origami!

>From the For What It's Worth Department:  Please view,
"http://www.sanrio.com"       for information on the company SANRIO and YES THEY
ARE TIGHT!!!  If SANRIO still has the publishing rights, and you live in the San
Francisco Bay area and want this book republished you might make a personal
appearance on hand and knee to their facility : - ) Remember the squeaky oil
gets the grease!!!!
Sincerely,
Kimberly Crane

Askinazi, Brett wrote:

> Instead of sending reply's to this email, someone or some group will have to
> take ACTION.  A simple list will not be sufficient and will never get
> through to the proper party.
>
> Simply replying to an email will get nothing accomplished.
>
> Write a letter to the original publisher, including a list of names of
> people that would be the book.
> Write a letter to another publisher, giving them the details, Name, author,
> publisher, ISBN, to see if they can buy the rights.
>
> It will be VERY difficult however, because the original publisher SANRIO is
> very difficult for Americans to deal with because they are in Japan.
> I have put an inquiry or 2 through myself, and never received a response.
>
> I do WINDOWS but I don't do windows.
> B R E T T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Ian McRobbie [mailto:Ourldypeac@AOL.COM]
> Sent:   Sunday, January 17, 1999 8:15 PM
> To:     ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:        Re: Viva Origami!
>
>    Great Idea!!   You wouldn't be able to stop me from buying that book if
> it
> came back in print!!  I third that idea!!
>
>                        -Ian McRobbie





From: Jasmine Chong <jasmine@DLSJUBM.COM.MY>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:16:43 +0800
Subject:

well, i'm not sure about getting those paper online but you certainly can
buy paper from shops and then cut them into strips for making stars.
There's actually another way of making stars that is through drinking straw.
but that's rather tough you know and it really hurts ur finger....
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Andersen <ema@NETSPACE.ORG>
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 17 January, 1999 6:01 AM

>Hi everyone,
>I received this email recently, and I was wondering if anyone has heard of
>this.
>
>-Eric :-P
>origami@netspace.org
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:43:23 -0800
>From: RGUSS <RGUSS@prodigy.net>
>To: origami@netspace.org
>
>Hi!
>
>My friend went into LA one weekend and brought me back a rectangular box
>filled with thin strips of colored paper.  Using the paper you can fold
>them into pentagons and then pinch the edges so it puffs up into a small
>star.  Do you know of anywhere I can find such paper online?  THe box had
>Japanese writting on it and had a flower closure on top. I hope you can
>help me!
>
>
>Carly  :)





From: Krystyna i Wojciech Burczyk <burczyk@MAIL.ZETOSA.COM.PL>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:20:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Iso-area Folding

Kunihiko Kasahara mentions in "Origami Omnibus" iso-area folding as The
     Kawasaki Theory.

Is it a theory in mathematical sense ?

Wojtek Burczyk
http://www1.zetosa.com.pl/~burczyk





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 02:40:25 -1000
Subject: paper box request

Lovargurl@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi I was just wondering if you could send me directions to making paper boxes,
> please do.  Thank you!
>
>
     Lovargurl
I received this email and wondered if anyone has a website with
instructions to boxes could respond.  Thank you.
--
<http://www.gotomymall.com/hawaii/origami/>
Origami by Jan website...the Fodor folder





From: Paul & Jan Fodor <origami@ALOHA.NET>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 03:23:23 -1000
Subject: Re: Phonetics

Joseph, Will you put in accent marks so we don't have a "NA ga no"/ "Na
GA no" debate?  Jan.





From: Pat Slider <slider@STONECUTTER.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:02:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Iso-area Folding

Just a small addendum that might help. The "iso" in "iso-area" comes from
the Greek word "isos" meaning "equal."

pat slider.





From: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:00:39 -0600
Subject: Re: Complex Models

OOOOhhhhhhh !!!!!

Smoke from the Little Man :-)

B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   Peter Budai [mailto:peterbud@MAIL.DATATRANS.HU]

At 11:16 PM 1/11/99 +0200, Jorma Oksanen wrote:
Considering you, Jorma, try this: fold a normal-sized model, then squeeze it
together to end up with a small-scale one... :)





From: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:03:51 -0600
Subject: Re: Complex Models

Or how about Jorma with the 15cm suggestion.  Now that is SASSY :)

B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   John Sutter [mailto:sutterj@earthlink.net]
                2)  There usually aren't photos of the models available and
I've
found that I prefer 10" paper even
for models that only are 40 to 50 steps :) I'm not as expert as you are or
as sassy! :)
Ria  ^   ^





From: John Sutter <sutterj@EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:12:16 -0800
Subject: Re: origami defined

Claire,

I, too, remember the early origami books with the animal models that were
printed on and when I do some models at school with the kids they often add
features to them.  I also like Kasahara's simple models!  So I see your
point of view.  BTW, Where can the 3 pc. dragon model from a bird base be
found?  I have a few Kasahara books, but I don't recall seeing that dragon.

Ria Sutter  ^   ^





From: "K.A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:38:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Wu +ADw-josephwu+AEA-ULTRANET.CA+AD4-
To: ORIGAMI+AEA-MITVMA.MIT.EDU +ADw-ORIGAMI+AEA-MITVMA.MIT.EDU+AD4-
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)

+AD4-At 04:33 99/01/18 -0500, you wrote:
+AD4APg-I hope we are not discussing different books :).  In the book I
have,
+AD4APgAi-Origami Animals+ACI-, this model begins with the bird base we all know
+AD4APg-and love.  Rojas doesn't call it a bird base, he calls this +ACI-basic
+AD4APg-figure+ACI- (his words), dragon.  It does have four legs with the ear
+AD4APg-flaps joined to the front legs, a head peeking out from beneath the
+AD4APg-ear flaps and a separate curved tail.  It is folded from a single
+AD4APg-uncut square.  In fact, the four legged animals in the book all have
+AD4APg-four legs, not a three legged one in the bunch, and the legs are not
+AD4APg-achieved by cutting in most of the models.  The birds have wings, a
+AD4APg-beak, and two legs (he uses very strange cut away versions of the
bird
+AD4APg-base for most of them.)  Which only proves that you can fold
anything
+AD4APg-if you start with the right paper shape +ADw-grin+AD4-.

Joseph Wu:
+AD4-Apologies. I don't have the book (I didn't want to waste any money on
it),
+AD4-so I guess I mis-remembered. Likely I'm remembering one of Sano-san's
models.

+AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwB
     fAF8AXwBfAF8-
I agree, if I had seen this book myself I probably would not have
wasted any money on it.  It was given to me as a present.  Even, then,
I would have probably not have folded any of the models and put it on
the shelf without a second thought...except the reason I was given the
book was so I could make the elephant models for the giver (she
collects elephant related things).  She knew she didn't have these
models in her ever growing collection of origami elephants and was
quite proud of herself for finding models I didn't know about :).

Joseph Wu:
+AD4-Yes, that is intriguing, but the standards for the quality of work
does not
+AD4-change. We might be able to say, +ACI-wow, look at what he achieved in
+AD4-isolation+ACI-, but we can also say, +ACI-still, the models themselves
     aren't
all
+AD4-that good.+ACI-

+AF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8AXwBfAF8-
Also, agreed.

Kalei - klundber+AEA-mnsinc.com +AHwAfA- ICQ 23969466
http://www.monumental.com/klundber





From: "Dolphin G." <dolphing@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 18:04:58 -0800 (
Subject: New member

    Hello, I just signed up.  Sorry about the nickname;  I have a phobia
about giving my full name on the Internet.
    I bought Robert Lang's "The complete book of Origami" last year  but
never made the scorpion because I don't have the patience to divide a 90
degree angle into sevenths with a ruler/compass/whatever.  Has anyone
figured out a way to divide it just by folding alone?  Thanks for any
info!

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





From: Krystyna i Wojciech Burczyk <burczyk@MAIL.ZETOSA.COM.PL>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:25:18 +0100
Subject: Origami axioms

I have found origami axioms on Tom Hull page
http://chasm.merrimack.edu/~thull/geoconst.html
and some comments on Alexander Bogomolny page
http://www.cut-the-knot.com/pythagoras/PaperFolding

I have found several problems.

1. Existence of a point.

There is no possibility to proof the existence of a point.
Every axiom describes existence of a line, but no one describes points.

2. Axiom O5.

Alexander Bogomolny remarks that this axiom can't universally hold.
If point P1 lies below parabola with focus in P2, there exist two such lines
     (folds).
If point P2 lies above parabola no such line (fold exist).

3. Axiom O6.

Alexander Bogomolny stated that there exist _unique_ fold.
On Tom Hull list of axioms axiom O6 postulates only existence
(not necessary unique) of fold.
If fact such fold always exist. Tipically there exist three such folds, but it
     is possible to find situation with 2 or 1 fold.

4. Why fold must be right.

No axiom guarantee that a fold creates stright line.

Can anybody help me ?

Wojtek Burczyk

PS
I have found also Paolo Bascetta's page in Italian
http://www.essenet.it/cdo/artgeo.htm
that contains a list of 9 origami axioms (I hope).
Unfortunatelly I don't understand Italian.





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:27:30 -0800
Subject: Re: Phonetics

At 13:23 1999-01-19 +1100, you wrote:
>Could someone provide the phonetics for the following names, or possibly
>point me to another source where I can find this information?
>
>Tomoko Fuse

Toe-moe-koe Foo-say

>Issei Yoshino

Ih-say Yoe-shee-noe

>Tanteidan

Tahn-tay-dahn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Xuxa Rojas <RojasXu@AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:01:33 -0500 (
Subject: Hector Rojas

hi everybody.

my name Xuxa Rojas. I am Hector sister.  I read thing you say that Hector is
not good origami.  Hector paint and work very to make book you say about.  I
tell him I see things bad about Hector.  He not is happy.  Hector all he can
do is work with the hands.  He can not do else.

Please not to be talk about Hector bad any more.

Xuxa Rojas





From: Patty Manders <pmanders@WCSU.K12.VT.US>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:37:57 -0400
Subject: Owl Models

I am looking for some simple origami owls for elementary students just
beginning to fold....but please they must look owly!





From: "Chamberlain, Clare" <Clare.Chamberlain@HEALTH.WA.GOV.AU>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:59:57 +0800
Subject: origami defined

The debate over Roja's book intrigues me, as one who learnt origami in a
Japanese kindergarten.  My recollection of folds and early books was that
several models were full of cuts, and most were painted.  I even recall the
earliest English language origami books had completed models stuck in them
(cheap labour!) that were always drawn on.  I also find that when I teach
very young children they often draw in eyes, feathers etc.  I am not sure
whether we need such a defined definition of origami - those of us who are
really interested know what we like (and after all, even here views are very
disparate), and surely anything that draws in new folders can't be all bad.
I have more arguments against issues such as copyright.
I guess a clear example of our friendly differences is the fuss about Viva
origami - I own 4 volumes of these and rarely use them - I mush prefer
simpler models, my favourite folder probably being Kasahara (who's 3 piece
bird base dragon has to be THE best)........but I'm sure many would find
such talk heresy!!  (So burn me at the stake, fuelling the fire with my
simple origami models!!)
On a final note - just to sho what a true heathen I am - I also practice
(wait for it) other paper arts, including the black art of quilling - where
one can get strips of paper in many widths, some most suitable to the puff
stars - but then are puff stars origami or quilling - after all they utilise
a form of spiralling paper.................

Clare from down-under (and it's hot here - most be close to Hades ;-)  )





From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@USAOR.NET>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:17:56 -0500
Subject: Re: New member

>     I bought Robert Lang's "The complete book of Origami" last year  but
> never made the scorpion because I don't have the patience to divide a 90
> degree angle into sevenths with a ruler/compass/whatever.  Has anyone
> figured out a way to divide it just by folding alone?  Thanks for any
> info!

Dolphin, I asked the same question a while back. Since you are new let me
mention * THE ARCHIVES *. All emails posted to this newgroup are archived
and may be searched. So go to http://www-japan.mit.edu/origami
and do a search on scorpion and you'll find out what it is this group has
had to say on this topic.

Good luck, Jeff





From: Gerard Blais <gblais@NORTELNETWORKS.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:34:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Dove of Peace

There are a few pigeons by Adolfo Cerceda in Fascinating Origami that would
make very nice doves.  There is also another one in The Magic of Origami by
Alice Gray and Kunihiko Kasahara.  The ones by Cerceda are nicer and more
realistic I find.

Gerard

        From: Denise Mallett
        I am searching for an origami diagram for the Dove of Peace to help
with
        kids in Childrens Hospital. Do you know where I can find it? I saw
it in a
        book in the library a few years ago, but all art books have been
        redistributed since then.





From: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:03:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Owl Models

Carlos Alberto Furuti wrote:
> Most owl models found in commercial books are intermediate, not simple.
> I'd mention
> -KASAHARA Kunihiko, Creative Origami, Japan Publications, 1967, English,
> available in most online bookstores
> -KAWAI Toyoaki, Creative Origami, English (the simplest I know)
> -Steve & Megumi Biddle, The New Origami, St.Martin Press, English

There are some simple and very cute owls in Robert Neale's and Thomas Hull's
"Origami Plain and Simple".

-D'gou





From: Jason Todd <jrtodd@MS.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:14:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Complex Models: Binding of Origami Books

O'Reilly & Associates publishes quite a few of their computer books in a
"lay-flat binding" which seems to be an ideal hybrid.  From the spine
and outside of the book, it appears to be a normally bound book, but
there are actually two spines: one hard outside spine and one flexible
inner spine.  The two connect to the front and back covers about a
quarter inch from the spine.  This allows the flexible spine to pull
away from the hard spine and the book lays open.

Here's a crude diagram as if you were looking from the top of the book
down the spine while it's laying open.  The part that looks like a house
or a church is completely open, and you can look all the way through to
the other end of the book.

            flexible
            spine
  pages here  /\   pages would be here
_____________|  |_____________________
 cover     |______|    cover
            spine

The other thought I had, what that it shouldn't be that hard to rebind
your book in a spiral fashion.  If you really want it that way.  If the
book is bound too tight and you want to open it flat, then the spine
will crack anyway, so it's not like you are destroying the book much
more than you would normally.

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Black Eagle [mailto:rbe@FLASH.NET]
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 11:36 AM
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Complex Models: Binding of Origami Books

Dover publications uses a binding method that allows books to lie
flat, but few publishers do the same, and Dover doesn't always do it.





From: Andy Carpenter <Andy.Carpenter@MCI.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:20:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas

I agree with Carly. It seems to me that those of us who don't like a
particular model/designer should merely not fold it or buy the book.
Personally I applaud Hector Rojas for having a book published in the first
place - I know that my models are not up to that. As such he, and all other
folders in print, have my admiration even if I choose not to buy their books
because their models do not fulfill my personal tastes.

As for the question 'is it origami?' - who cares! If you think it is and you
like it, fold it. Otherwise don't. If you wish to put constraints on your
own definition of what origami is that's great, fold within those
constraints.

-----Original Message-----
From:   Origami Mailing List [mailto:Origami@MIT.Edu] On Behalf Of WILLIAM F.
SINDEL
Sent:   Tuesday, January 19, 1999 9:34 AM
To:     ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: Hector Rojas

I would like to express my common feeling that the people on this list are
all too critical of each other and of others.  I have written several
things on the list, all of which have been criticized and cut apart, so
much so that I felt like a first-class idiot.  Why do you die-hard origami
fans have to be so insensitive, arrogant, and self-righteous?
Just my thoughts.
Carly





From: "K.A. Lundberg" <klundber@MNSINC.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:37:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Owl Models

Another simple owl, made from 2x1 rectangle, by Robert Neale can be
found in +ACI-The Flapping
Bird+ACI- by Samuel Randlett.

Kalei - klundber+AEA-mnsinc.com +AHwAfA- ICQ 23969466
http://www.monumental.com/klundber

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Philips +ADw-dwp+AEA-TRANSARC.COM+AD4-
To: ORIGAMI+AEA-MITVMA.MIT.EDU +ADw-ORIGAMI+AEA-MITVMA.MIT.EDU+AD4-
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Owl Models

+AD4-There are some simple and very cute owls in Robert Neale's and Thomas
Hull's
+AD4AIg-Origami Plain and Simple+ACI-.





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:50:42 -0200
Subject: Re: Phonetics

Just complementing Joseph's answer, the stressed syllables should be:
>>From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
>>Toe-moe-koe Foo-say
      ^^^     ^^^
>>Ih-say Yoe-shee-noe
     ^^^     ^^^^
>>Tahn-tay-dahn
           ^^^^
All the syllables should have equal length, except the "ss" of Issei, which
is a bit longer (the "I" "lingers") IMHO.

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





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:08:16 -0200
Subject: Re: Owl Models

>>From: Patty Manders <pmanders@WCSU.K12.VT.US>
>>
>>I am looking for some simple origami owls for elementary students just
>>beginning to fold....but please they must look owly!
Most owl models found in commercial books are intermediate, not simple.
I'd mention
-KASAHARA Kunihiko, Creative Origami, Japan Publications, 1967, English,
available in most online bookstores
-KAWAI Toyoaki, Creative Origami, English (the simplest I know)
-Steve & Megumi Biddle, The New Origami, St.Martin Press, English

The horned owl and snowy owl in John Montroll's North American Animals
in Origami (Dover/Antroll) and the owl in Animal Origami for the
Enthusiast (Dover) are somewhat more complex, not recommended for
absolute beginners.

The cute owl in YOSHIZAWA Akira's Sousaku Origami (NHK, Japanese) is
difficult in the unique Yoshizawa way...

There are several owl models in privately published books and convention
packs. Maybe someone has diagrams available online.

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





From: "WILLIAM F. SINDEL" <CISSITT@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:33:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas

I would like to express my common feeling that the people on this list are
all too critical of each other and of others.  I have written several
things on the list, all of which have been criticized and cut apart, so
much so that I felt like a first-class idiot.  Why do you die-hard origami
fans have to be so insensitive, arrogant, and self-righteous?
Just my thoughts.
Carly





From: Pancho <jperezanda@GEOCITIES.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:54:43 -0800
Subject: Re: Complex Models

Hi Peter,

I can't imagine where I can get a paper of that size. Could you tell me
more about that paper? Where did you get it? What kind of paper it was? How
it came packaged? I'm very curious about it. (I will have to get a room
that size also).

Thanks,
Regards,
Pancho.

At 10:05 AM 16-01-99 +0100, Peter Budai wrote:

>Also the very big ones! I've folded some big models (i.e. Montroll's
>elephant from the Origami Sculptures, with the dimensions of about 1.5 meter
>long and 0.5 meter high, as far as I remember, from a 4 meter x 4 meter
>paper - I had to evacuate the room before folding :)





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:05:48 -0800
Subject: [LONG] The State of the Art (was Re: Hector Rojas)

At 15:42 99/01/19 +0100, Jean-Jerome Casalonga wrote:
>I've been involved in Origami for the last 15 years, and it has always been
>"Oh yes, I like your model", even if the model was NOT nice.
>This is definitely NOT the way Origami will go forward.
>On all other art, there are arts critics.  And no one is ashamed to say that
>he/she doesn't like the paintings by Picasso, or the music by some Heavy
>Metal band.  Some people are even paid to do this job.

This is precisely the spirit in which all of my comments have been made. My
intent is not to say terrible things about someone to hurt them, but to
point out room for improvement so that the art benefits. At the New York
convention last year, I helped to organise and chair the first ever origami
peer review where people could bring their work to be criticised. Why? So
that their work can improve.

>It is sad that hector cannot participate in this debate, as his comments
>would be welcome.

Yup. I agree.

>No, I'm sorry Xuxa, but we MUST talk bad about Hector, and about Montroll,
>and about lang, and about yoshizawa, and ....
> (but NOT about me - that, I can do it myself !)
>Otherwise, Origami will simply not improve !
>IMPORTANT NOTE : I only express my point of view on this subject.  Maybe I'm
>the only one on this list to think like that.

No, you're not the only one, JJ, but it will be an uphill battle to
counteract the "everyone must be nice" attitude that seems to pervade
origami. Anyone who puts themselves in public view should be prepared for
comments, good and bad. Accept the praise, and consider the complaints. If
they are valid, learn from them. If they are not, ignore them.

At 11:33 99/01/19 -0500, Carly wrote:
>I would like to express my common feeling that the people on this list are
>all too critical of each other and of others.  I have written several
>things on the list, all of which have been criticized and cut apart, so
>much so that I felt like a first-class idiot.  Why do you die-hard origami
>fans have to be so insensitive, arrogant, and self-righteous?
>Just my thoughts.

I must admit that I don't recall which of your messages were "cut apart", so
if I had any part in that I apologise. But then again, do I have to accept
your cutting remarks about me being "insensitive, arrogant, and
self-righteous"? Perhaps I am, but I always admit when I'm wrong. There are
certain attitudes in the origami culture that are detrimental to the
furtherance of the art, and those are the things that I speak out against.
Check the archives for my rantings if you wish.

At 10:20 99/01/19 -0700, Andy wrote:
>I agree with Carly. It seems to me that those of us who don't like a
>particular model/designer should merely not fold it or buy the book.
>Personally I applaud Hector Rojas for having a book published in the first
>place - I know that my models are not up to that. As such he, and all other
>folders in print, have my admiration even if I choose not to buy their books
>because their models do not fulfill my personal tastes.

Hmm. So we have no right to express the fact that we don't like certain
books / models? Can no one benefit from our opinions?

>As for the question 'is it origami?' - who cares! If you think it is and you
>like it, fold it. Otherwise don't. If you wish to put constraints on your
>own definition of what origami is that's great, fold within those
>constraints.

If we do not seek to define what we do, how can we discuss it in an
intelligent fashion? If we do not criticise what we do, how can we improve?

At 15:26 99/01/19 -0200, Carlos Furuti wrote:
>However, as an information storage, it should be _precise_ and
>_reliable_. If someone expresses an opinion about a controversial
>subject, it's _expected_ in a public media like this one that
>such opinion is to be criticized, enhanced, reinforced or
>corrected. Would you rely on a single point-of-view?

Bingo. We're not here to hurt feelings, but sometimes things get said in
ways that are either misunderstood or are unintentionally hurtful. But the
point of the list is to discuss origami in its myriad forms. Be open-minded
about what people say, and be prepared to apologise for your own words if
you say something badly.

>Often discussions and flame guerrillas have turned into realistic,
>helpful and more down-to-earth suggestions (in the binding issue,
>reading weights, Rep-Kover and other lay-flat technologies).
>I think I'm stating the obvious when I write that discussions here
>just improve the origami community as long as we discuss people
>achievements, not people themselves.

You got it. I don't know Hector, and I don't mean to attack him personally.
But I stand by my opinions on his work. He, or anyone else, is free to
disagree with me and to dislike my work as well. Comments are welcome.

>Gee, I do not remember any hard criticism on your posts. Anyway,
>should I unintentionally make a misleading statement on this list
>[*mind you*, I'm not implying _you_ did] (e.g. recommending a book
>as including a model while it does not) I'd personally prefer being
>corrected at once. The same applies when I advertise my favorite
>technique for keeping models from unfolding --- I'd like to hear
>improvements from either the highest "biggie" or the youngest newbie.

Thanks, Carlos. That's just the attitude we need.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Origami Artist and Multimedia Producer
t: 604.730.0306 x 105   f: 604.732.7331  e: josephwu@ultranet.ca
w: http://www.origami.vancouver.bc.ca





From: Michael Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:40:19 +1100
Subject: Re: origami defined

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, John Sutter wrote:

> Claire,
>
> I, too, remember the early origami books with the animal models that were
> printed on and when I do some models at school with the kids they often add
> features to them.  I also like Kasahara's simple models!  So I see your
> point of view.  BTW, Where can the 3 pc. dragon model from a bird base be
> found?  I have a few Kasahara books, but I don't recall seeing that dragon.
>

Ria, the mentioned model can be found in "Creative Origami". I believe the
photograph has the model folded from foil. I found this book in a library
remainder sale many years ago, long before I ever realised there was an
active origami community. Previously the only origami books I had seen
were Robert Harbin's and Eric Kenneway's. For a long time this book was my
"bible", containing everything you could possibly need or want to fold.
Although I have since grown older and (hopefully) more wiser, and my
collection hs considerably expanded, this book has a special
pride-of-place feel about it.

Regards,

Michael Janssen-Gibson





From: Kim Best <kim.best@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:08:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Phonetics

Joseph Wu wrote:
>
>
> Toe-moe-koe Foo-say
>
> >Issei Yoshino
>
> Ih-say Yoe-shee-noe
>
> >Tanteidan
>
> Tahn-tay-dahn

Any idea how to pronounce Xuxa Rojas?

--
Kim Best                            *******************************
                                    *          Origamist:         *
Rocky Mountain Cancer Data System   * Some one who thinks paper   *
420 Chipeta Way #120                * thin, means thick and bulky *
Salt Lake City, Utah  84108         *******************************





From: Michael Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:23:25 +1100
Subject: Phonetics

This is a question I have been meaning to ask for a while now, and I have
never got around to it.I have a problem with the pronunciation of
certain designers' names, and whenever I am having a verbal conversation
about origami I feel that I am doing a great injustice to these people.
The problem stems from only having ever read these names in print (though
it is a problem I have always had ;}).

Could someone provide the phonetics for the following names, or possibly
point me to another source where I can find this information?

Tomoko Fuse
Issei Yoshino
Tanteidan

Any help is, as always, appreciated

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
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: "Askinazi, Brett" <brett@HAGERHINGE.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:28:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)

I'm glad you brought up the beetle.

I liked the way that model looked in the book.  But when I folded it from
plain paper (foil or back coated) it didn't really look like a rhinoceros
beetle.  I checked the book out from the library for that single model.

I was extremely disappointed.  Had I purchased the book, I would have
returned it because it didn't suit my needs.

What looked like a good model turned out to be a disappointment.

In my experience on the list, everyone has put out helpful hints,
suggestions and blatant warnings.

Other on the list have the right to know and learn from the experience of
others.

This is not blasting the author as Xuxa mentions or the ListMember that
liked the book.  It just offers help to others.
B R E T T

-----Original Message-----
From:   K.A. Lundberg [mailto:klundber@MNSINC.COM]
Sent:   Monday, January 18, 1999 3:34 AM
To:     ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject:        Re: Hector Rojas' book (was Re: Kusudama's Ball Origami)
Oups...I knew I should have looked up the artist on that one.
:::blushing with embarrassment:::  I think what happens with his
models is that when viewed the overpowering thing seen, especially by
anyone familar with origami, is the paint.  The Rhinoceros Beetle, for
example, turns out with 6 legs a horn and a divided shell case from a
single uncut square, though it does require a dab of glue at the very
end (if you used foil the glue wouldn't be necessary).  Not a mean
achievement, if he didn't know anything about origami when he created
it.
