




From: Allan findlay <a_findlay@EXCHANGE.CREATIONS.CO.UK>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 03:53
Subject: NO: Not really Ng, but related to what people have been saying.

A strange coincidence, but somebody is selling some of Hitlers handwritten
notes....

Heres a link to the news story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_612000/612922.stm

--------------------------
        Allan           (a_findlay@exchange.creations.co.uk)





From: Jorma Oksanen <tenu@SCI.FI>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 08:32
Subject: Engel's scorpion

Hi!

It's nice to be back, It seems I was dropped from the list for a
few messages (or they are slow getting here.)

Anyway, I seem to be stuck with Engel's scorpion from OfAtZ.
The step I'm stuck with is #27 - and I've been stuck on it over
a month now, on and off basis tho.

The front flap I have at step 27 is the lower right-hand corner
of step 7 - is that right or have I taken a wrong turn somewhere
earlier?

--
Jorma "I stick here" Oksanen   tenu@sci.fi

Weyland-Yutani - Building Better Worlds





From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM
Date: 21 Jan 2000 08:35
Subject: Re: no fold origami

I remember a thick paper-like material you could soak, and clamp into any
configuration :  drying into a ("no-fold")? (origami)?

RPLSMN





From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM
Date: 21 Jan 2000 08:41
Subject: Re: wet-fold and post-wetting

I had a similar problem, but when I started walking in my sleep, and wetting
my parent's bedposts, my father put his foot down.

RPLSMN





From: John Wolf <Aniwaya@AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 12:15
Subject: new at it

I'm am a beginner at origami, so any thing that any one would like to share
would be greatly appreciated.  thanks





From: Dan Gries <dangries@MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 12:42
Subject: Re: Engel's scorpion

the diagrams contain an error.  i have found Namir Gharaibeh's
list of origami book errata to be helpful - very nice site.
it can be accesed from joseph wu's page if you ever forget how
to get there, but the link is

http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/z/zbrown/origami/origami.errata

i was finally able to fold the scorpion after reading it!

-dan





From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 13:07
Subject: Re: wet-fold and post-wetting

Hi Ori-folk,

Please remember to quote a bit of the message that you're responding to in
order for the other folks to understand the context of your reply.

Thanks,

Howard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RPlsmn@AOL.COM [mailto:RPlsmn@AOL.COM]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 5:39 AM
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: wet-fold and post-wetting
>
>
> I had a similar problem, but when I started walking in my
> sleep, and wetting
> my parent's bedposts, my father put his foot down.
>
> RPLSMN





From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 13:35
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

Joseph,
At 11.37 20/1/2000 -0800, you wrote:

> > http://www.ping.be/houghi/nohtml/
>
>Updated URL: <http://www.houghi.org/>

Thanks a lot for the update ! Also to Bernie Cosell who added this URL with
rather complete info's:

http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/listowners/html-off.htm

Roberto





From: DLister891@AOL.COM
Date: 21 Jan 2000 17:15
Subject: Origami and Spirituality, Parts One and Two.

On 19th January I posted an article on Origami and Spirituallity to Origami-L
in two separate parts.

While I have heard that some people received both parts, I have also heard
from at least two people that they received only Part Two.

Part Two without Part One is not really much use. I wonder how extensive this
failing to transmit was. Please let me know.

I can always post Part One a second time.

With apologies,

David Lister.





From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ULTRANET.CA>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 17:25
Subject: ADMIN: Re: Origami and Spirituality, Parts One and Two.

At 17:13 00/01/21 -0500, you wrote:
>On 19th January I posted an article on Origami and Spirituallity to Origami-L
>in two separate parts.
>
>While I have heard that some people received both parts, I have also heard
>from at least two people that they received only Part Two.
>
>Part Two without Part One is not really much use. I wonder how extensive this
>failing to transmit was. Please let me know.
>
>I can always post Part One a second time.
>
>With apologies,

Email never travels in a straight line, and part two can easily arrive much
sooner than part one. Please do not resend, at least not so soon. Anyone who
has not yet received it can (a) wait a little longer, (b) check the
archives, or (c) contact David directly for another copy. I've received no
"undeliverable message" errors from the server regarding David's messages,
so I assume that anyone who has not yet received it will get it soon. Please
note also that the first message had an unusual Subject line:

      ADMIN Changes. Also - Origami and Spirituality. Part One.

----------------------------------------------------------------
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: Doug Philips <dwp@TRANSARC.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 17:27
Subject: Re: Origami and Spirituality, Parts One and Two.

David Lister inquired:

> Part Two without Part One is not really much use. I wonder how extensive this
> failing to transmit was. Please let me know.
>
> I can always post Part One a second time.

I received Part one OK. Further more, it also made it into the archives that
Maarten maintains. Anyone who missed it can access the archives via the web,
or via email without having to wait.

As much as I love your messages, and others, having duplicates in the archives
only makes it more annoying to find things later.

-D'gou





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 18:24
Subject: The Rose

After 3 months I have finally figured out how to fold the now Legendary
Kawasaki Rose.

I think this new-found success can be directly attributed to trying to fold
models from Origami Fantasy and Super Complex Origami, after the Horse or
Stegosaurus other origami seems simple by comparison. Tomorrow I intend to
fold the complete Origami Insects and their Kin from 2" Kami whilst
blindfolded... one arm amy be tied behind my back...

Dave-(Looking forward to a Very cheap Valentines Day)-S





From: Dr Stephen O'Hanlon <fishgoth@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 18:43
Subject: Re: new at it

>I'm am a beginner at origami, so any thing that any one would like to share
>would be greatly appreciated.  thanks

You are more than welcome to look at my website. There is a complete section
for the beginner, and several simple models. All comments are greatly
appreciated.

Stephen

www.geocities.com/paperfolder.geo

or

www.geocities.com/athens/academy/4800

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





From: Elaina Quackenbush <elaina_quackenbush@NETZERO.NET>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 18:45
Subject: Kids and valentines

I have a 4 year old sister, some of you may heave heard me talk, but anyway...I
     want to make her something for Valentine's Day out of origami.  It has
     gotten to the point that I fold for her something made from REAL paper
     (not newsprint or scraps, but I s

Thanks in advance,
Elaina L. Quackenbush
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/library/writers/quack/quack.html





From: dan newman <dnewman@CAPITAL.NET>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 18:56
Subject: Re: Kids and valentines

fold a nice box, fill it with her favorite candy

Elaina Quackenbush wrote:

> I have a 4 year old sister, some of you may heave heard me talk, but
> anyway...I want to make her something for Valentine's Day out of
> origami.  It has gotten to the point that I fold for her something
> made from REAL paper (not newsprint or scraps, but I set out to really
> fold her something to keep) for special occasions.  Now, she does keep
> them, and doesn't tear them up (amazingly enough), so any suggestion,
> and if they come from the web, can I please have a link.





From: "Tam, Aileen" <ATam@HR.UCSF.EDU>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 19:19
Subject: Re: The Rose

Congraduation Dave.  I'm a new member to this Origami listing and so far I
really enjoy hearing from all the people who share the same interest.

I have been folding origami for 6 months to 1 year now.  I'm mostly seeking
variation in flower folding.  I've attempted and accomplished folding the
tulip and lily.

I too, tried to learn the legendary Kawasaki rose, which I've downloaded the
pattern and instruction from the website.  However, I'm not so successful as
you have in figuring out how to fold the rose.  I'm still in step one.
Hopefully, I too can accomplish the Kawasaki Rose after 3 months.  It may
take me longer than that.

Do you mind sharing with me and those who are like me what are some of the
most difficult area or tips to just get started.

Also, do you know if anyone who has fold a Kawasaki Rose, has a photograph
up on the web?  I would like to see a finished product.

Thanks in advance.
Aileen

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Stephenson [mailto:EruditusD@AOL.COM]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 3:24 PM
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: The Rose

After 3 months I have finally figured out how to fold the now Legendary
Kawasaki Rose.

I think this new-found success can be directly attributed to trying to fold
models from Origami Fantasy and Super Complex Origami, after the Horse or
Stegosaurus other origami seems simple by comparison. Tomorrow I intend to
fold the complete Origami Insects and their Kin from 2" Kami whilst
blindfolded... one arm amy be tied behind my back...

Dave-(Looking forward to a Very cheap Valentines Day)-S





From: Dribalz@AOL.COM
Date: 21 Jan 2000 20:26
Subject: Re: ORIGAMI Digest - 20 Jan 2000 to 21 Jan 2000 (#2000-21)

 Shawn wrote:
 has anyone heard of Regina, Saskatchewan?

No, but if you hum a few bars...

Musically,
Andrew





From: Heather Hill <FerrtKeepr@AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 20:31
Subject: Rose paper

I've recently bought some collage paper with real rose petals and leaves in
the paper.  The paper's thicker than I'm used to folding, but I'm going to
give it a shot.  Has anyone used a paper like this, how were the results?  If
it works, it might be a good idea to fold a rose and scent it.

Heather





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@MOEBIUS.INKA.DE>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 21:11
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:11:39AM +0200, Robby/Laura wrote:
> Here are more details on disabling the HTML feature in Netscape 4, Outlook
> Express, and Eudora Pro:

Do you also have information about how to persuade these mailers to use
a sensible quoting style? If I see one more message with "-----Original
Message-----", followed by the *whole* message, I'm gonna be sick (but
not over my keyboard.)

--
Yours, Sebastian <skirsch@t-online.de>

*** Dieses Schreiben wurde mit Hilfe einer Datenverarbeitungsanlage ***
*** erstellt und bedarf keiner Unterschrift.                        ***





From: DORIGAMI@AOL.COM
Date: 21 Jan 2000 21:34
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

Can someone explain to me what HTML code embedding is all about?  I don't
seem to know what you are talking about.......





From: Richard Hunter <rhunter4@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 21:36
Subject: Re: Rose paper

Heather,

The Kawasaki rose is best folded with stiffer, thick paper.....it gives
great substance to the rose petals.....have a go at it!

Dick





From: Heather Hill <FerrtKeepr@AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 22:18
Subject: Re: Rose paper

Dick,

Unfortunately, I don't have the directions for the Kawasaki Rose, Yet.  I'm
hitting the stores tomorrow on a hunt for new books. That's one of the models
I'm looking for.  If I find it, I'll give it a whirl, and let you know the
results.

Heather





From: Phil and Amy <sgt.schulz@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 23:09
Subject: NO: Modus Origami. . .

To rephrase a question posed by Stephen O'Hanlon on 1/16/00:

If you were a master thief in a Pink Panther/Inspector Clouseau-type movie,
what origami would you leave at the scene of the crime?

I'd leave a $ Cat by Kawamura at the scene.  Made from a $100 bill.

Phil

sgt.schulz@worldnet.att.net
Animal stories  &  Origami Star Wars at:
http://home.att.net/~sgt.schulz/





From: Phil and Amy <sgt.schulz@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 21 Jan 2000 23:09
Subject: [NO]What's with lurkers anyway?

David Whitbeck wrote:

>That's alright Carlos I think we've both said our share, but I'm sure
>there's people out there that have something to say.  Hint, hint=8A  What's
>with lurkers anyway?

<emerging from the shadows>

Well,
1)When somebody poses a question or asks for advice, I'm usually unable to
answer it and am just as eagerly waiting for someone else to answer.

2)Lag.
I'm already a day behind since I get the digest form, so somebody always
beats me to the punch.  Why, somebody's probably responded to your post already!

3)I won't tell you where, but I have put my foot in my mouth several times
in different chat rooms and newsgroups, so now I'm really hesitant about
clicking that Reply button.

but that's just me.

   If it makes you feel any better, I got Tomoko Fuse's Unit Origami
(Multidimensional transformations) for Christmas.  Considering I haven't
been much of a modular fan, this book is impressive.  She has MANY different
basic units, so there are lots of things to make.  My Personal favorite is
the Little Turtle Unit. I don't know why. Somehow, it's cute.
  I'm currently playing with the Open Frame II units.  It seems like you can
make an endless array of skeletal geometric shapes. Pretty neat.  very
versatile.
  I don't quite get some of her transformations of one geometric shape into
another.  She'll make a rhombicuboctahedron (her word, not mine) and attach
units to it and eventually build it up into a cube. Couldn't you take these
additional units and assemble a cube out of them initially?  Somehow I feel
bad that I'm burying one shape inside another.  Any thoughts?

Still squinting from the light,

Phil

sgt.schulz@worldnet.att.net
Animal stories  &  Origami Star Wars at:
http://home.att.net/~sgt.schulz/





From: Ron Arruda <arruda@CATS.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:34
Subject: HTML code is...

HTML means hypertext markup language. This is currently used when you
look at a web site: all the things you see, the text the graphics and
photos, the lines, are put on the screen using this coding. That is: The
size of type, what kind of type it is, whether it's bold or italics or
black or red, how big it is, where abouts it appears on the page, whether
its flush left or centered, what color the background is, etc, etc. And
this gets written for every element on every page! So, if you want the
word Origami to appear as say a headline, there is a mass of nonesense
lettering all around it to tell the computer how it should look.

Anyhow! The point of NOT using it in e-mail is that it's entirely
irrelevant to the email set up. The e-mail just get its "look" from a
plain style or "default" setting. Like little black type on a white (or
grey) background. Any instructions are just noise that has to be read
through. Hope this helps.

Yours very truly,

Ron Arruda





From: Tiffany Tam <origamiwing@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 00:51
Subject: When will the next issue of the Paper but out

does anyone know when the next issue of The paper be out and what kind of
diagrams will be in it?

thank you.

wing

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





From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julia_P=E1lffy?= <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 02:14
Subject: Re: Origami and Spirituality, Parts One and Two.

I got both parts all right and enjoyed them.

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 02:50
Subject: Re: Engel's scorpion

Dan Gries wrote:
>
> the diagrams contain an error.  i have found Namir Gharaibeh's
> list of origami book errata to be helpful - very nice site.
> it can be accesed from joseph wu's page if you ever forget how
> to get there, but the link is
>
> http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/z/zbrown/origami/origami.errata
>
> i was finally able to fold the scorpion after reading it!
>

And I thought it was due to my inexperience that I could not fold Engel's
scorpion. "ORIGAMI from Angelfish to Zen" was my first origami book when I
first began folding. However, I could fold his one horned giraffe. Was
there an error too? ;-)

Cheng Chit





From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 03:20
Subject: Re: When will the next issue of the Paper but out

At 09:49 PM 1/21/00 -0800, Tiffany Tam <origamiwing@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>does anyone know when the next issue of The paper be out and what kind of
>diagrams will be in it?

Members of OrigamiUSA on the 1st class mailing plan should have recieved
their copy already. There was a problem with the 4th class mailing service,
but copies should be recieved soon (this problem is being investigated).
The theme is on origami by children, and diagrams by people who used to be
children are included.

Marc

http://marckrsh.home.pipeline.com





From: Larry Finch <LarryFinch@AOL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 08:56
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

In a message dated 1/21/00 9:35:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, DORIGAMI@AOL.COM
writes:

> Can someone explain to me what HTML code embedding is all about?  I don't
>  seem to know what you are talking about.......
>

HTML (HyperText Markup Language) is the "language" that web pages are created
with. It includes commands for setting fonts, colors, positions, embedding
pictures, etc. Many email programs (notably Outlook/Outlook Express and
Netscape) can also use HTML to control fonts and colors in email messages,
and some will do so by default. But many other email programs are not
HTML-aware, so messages sent from a mail program using HTML will be all but
unreadable on one that is not HTML aware.

AOL is a special case; it uses a modified HTML that is not compatible with
other mail programs. So when you send mail from AOL to the Internet AOL
removes any of its custom HTML. And mail coming into AOL with HTML may or may
not display correctly, depending on whether the sending program used AOL's
proprietary system. Unfortunately, it's mostly spammers sending to AOL who
know how to use the custom HTML :(

Larry





From: Larry Finch <LarryFinch@AOL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 08:58
Subject: Re: Rose paper

In a message dated 1/21/00 10:19:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
FerrtKeepr@AOL.COM writes:

> Unfortunately, I don't have the directions for the Kawasaki Rose, Yet.  I'm
>  hitting the stores tomorrow on a hunt for new books. That's one of the
> models
>  I'm looking for.  If I find it, I'll give it a whirl, and let you know the
>  results.
>
 It's in _Origami for the Connoisseur_, and a slightly different (more
difficult but more realistic) version of it is in the Origami archives.

Larry





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 09:58
Subject: Re: The rose - Folding The Rose

I've a few tips for folding the rose:

1. It's not that difficult, once figured out you'll kick yourself.

2. Buy, beg or steal Origami for the Connoisseur the Kawasaki rose diagrams
are in here. There is a more difficult version on the web that looks a bit
more realistic, but I wouldn't recommend trying it until you've got the
easier one in hand. (I managed the difficult version this morning)

3. One bit that seems to stump a lot of people is the first twist fold, I
figured it out by accident. A little while ago someone on the list gave this
tip in order to visualise the twist fold process:

    Imagine a square picture frame, now in you're mind nail it to the center
of a    large square blanket, turn the blanket over so the picture frame is
underneath,     now turn the square through 90o anticlockwise.

If you can't visualise it in you're mind try it in reality it actually works
:) )

4. In the book OftC ignore steps 10 and 11 they are completely unnecessary,
when you get to step 12 pull out some of the paper to the right of a pleat to
form something that looks like this:

                 *
               *       |     *
           *           |           *
           |           |            |     *
           |           |            |           *
           |           |            |                *
           |           |            |                     *
           ******************************************

Finish the point as detailed in the book then continue by doing the same at
each pleat in a clockwise direction, this will automatically open out the
center of the flower. Incidently having 3 paper clips to hand is useful here
as after you complete a point they try to unfold themselves when you go onto
the next.

5. Once past this stage if you look inside the flower there seems to be a lot
of paper just hanging down around the sides of the square, the temptation
here is to flatten them. Don't flatten them as left as they are it help the
rose petals above to look more realistic/unforced.

6. When it comes to weaving the base together I've found it useful to use the
paper-clip to open up the pocket of each point as you insert the preceding
point into it.

Well, I think thats everything, Incidentally spraying rose scent inside works
rather well.

Dave

Im thinking of setting up a web site which is based around extra instructions
for difficult models, translations of written instructions for diagrams in
books which are not available in English and an up-to-date errata file.

Im aware that a lot of the above is available by searching the archives but
in order to search the archives you really need to know exactly what you want
in the first place. Any feed back of the idea is welcome as if somebody else
has already done the above theres no need to duplicate their work.





From: Shawn Allen <gpovey@CABLEREGINA.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 10:40
Subject: Re: ORIGAMI Digest - 20 Jan 2000 to 21 Jan 2000 (#2000-21)

>  Shawn wrote:
>  has anyone heard of Regina, Saskatchewan?
>
> No, but if you hum a few bars...
>
> Musically,
> Andrew
Could you send me an audio clip if you ever figure it out?  Just
wondering about Regina because it seems to be the Origami backwoods of
the world.  Anyone live in the area or ever visit?  I may never make it
to a convention to share ideas and learn new stuff.  Books are okay but
I believe that folding at the kitchen table with a few other folks and
sharing ideas would be fun as well.  Shawn.





From: Nick Robinson <nick@CHEESYPEAS.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 11:05
Subject: BOS website - temporarily off-line

Hi - due to problems beyond our control, the BOS website will be off-
line for a week or two. When it returns it will be much improved! Please
be patient - I'll announce it as son as there's any change.

all the best,

Nick Robinson

email           nick@purplepeople.co.uk
homepage        http://www.cheesypeas.demon.co.uk
BOS homepage    http://www.rpmrecords.co.uk/bos/





From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Friederike=20Noether?= <f_noether@YAHOO.DE>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 11:27
Subject: Origami-Buddha

Some years ago someone showed me an Origamibook with a diagram for sitting
     Buddha (legs crossed)
in front of a big leaf (lotus?). They looked like they were made out of 2
     pieces of paper. The
picture was in black in white and the text in english.
It was a lovely model. much easier than the one on this site:
http://www.parc.xerox.com/csl/members/bern/origami2.html
Does someone out there know of such a book? Or of this model? Who is the
     designer?
Any ideas are welcome.

Friederike

=====
==============================
f_noether@yahoo.de
==============================
__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Yahoo! Auktionen - gleich ausprobieren - http://auktionen.yahoo.de





From: Ian McRobbie <Ourldypeac@AOL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 11:48
Subject: Re: Origami-Buddha

Kasahara's Creative Origami.  It is two pieces and only includes diagrams for
the Buddah part of the model.





From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Friederike=20Noether?= <f_noether@YAHOO.DE>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 11:54
Subject: Re: Origami-Buddha

--- Ian McRobbie <Ourldypeac@AOL.COM> schrieb:
> Kasahara's Creative Origami.  It is two pieces and only includes diagrams for
> the Buddah part of the model.
>

Great!!!!  I ordered the book a few days at amazon. Now I can4t wait the 3
     weeks it takes to get
to Europe.
Thanks a lot!
Friederike

=====
==============================
f_noether@yahoo.de
==============================
__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Yahoo! Auktionen - gleich ausprobieren - http://auktionen.yahoo.de





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 12:59
Subject: Snail Shells

Ive just completed the snail shell in Origami for the connoisseur, after
nearly an hour of trying to make it look like the one in the picture I
realised the author was playing silly buggers, the photographs are all of
shells he managed by finding a way to cut the number of valves from 4 to 1,
does anyone know where there are photo's of the 4 valve version so I can
compare them to see if I've got it right.

C'ya
Dave





From: Elsje vd Ploeg <evdploeg@BETUWE.NET>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 13:58
Subject: Re: Kids and valentines

Dear Valentines on the list,
see: http://www.betuwe.net/pepi/19_origami.html
xxxxxxxelsje





From: Christopher Holt <Ella-mae@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 14:12
Subject: Re: Origami-Buddha

----- Original Message -----
From: "Friederike Noether" <f_noether@YAHOO.DE>
Subject: Origami-Buddha

> Some years ago someone showed me an Origamibook with a diagram for sitting
Buddha (legs crossed)
> in front of a big leaf (lotus?).

I think the Buddha you're referring to is Kawahata's in Creative Origami, I
don't remember if the book has the fold for the lotus leaf that the Buddha
sits in front of, I seem to remember that it's not, but the Buddha is nice.
Good luck. All the best - c!!!

=================================

      With clear melting dew
      I'd try to wash away the dust
      of this floating world
                                  --Basho





From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julia_P=E1lffy?= <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 14:18
Subject: Re: Origami-Buddha

I've seen something like you describe in Kunihiko Kasahara's "Creative
Origami", but it's all in one sheet. There is a photo of a Buddha model
sitting in front of a leaf-shaped thing on p. 16 (all from one sheet), and
diagrams for a seated Buddha, without the leaf, on p. 158.

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 14:39
Subject: Re: The rose - Folding The Rose

>4. In the book OftC ignore steps 10 and 11 they are completely unnecessary,

No offense intended but I disagree.  You're making it harder than it is.
I've folded the model countless times, so much I have it memorized.  If you
just skip the four valley folds on step 10 and simply do the twist and
follow the rest of the steps it works out great.  The only other thing that
should be mentioned is curling the pedals.  I must say Dave that I like
your paperclip idea. I simply curl the point and continue around with the
other folds, curling those points as well.  When I'm through I sweep
through again curling the points and they don't come undone.

David





From: Brian Cox <briancox@JKCC.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 17:17
Subject: Regina Saskatchewan

The Queen city is approx 350 miles west of Winnipeg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whimsical Wizard
http://www.whimsical-workshop.mb.ca





From: Rosalinda Sanchez <RRosalinda@AOL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 17:59
Subject: Re: Geometric Solid Reqeust (rhombic triacontahedron)

> The best thirty-sided geometric solid has
> got to be the rhombic triacontahedron. It
> has all kinds of neat properties. One way to
> imagine one is to think about slowly raising
> the center point of each face of an icosahedron,
> turning each face of the icosahedron into a
> little pyramid composed of three isosceles triangles.
> If you keep on making the little pyramids taller
> until the two isosceles triangles meeting at each
> edge of the icosahedron fall on the same plane you
> have made a rhombic triacontahedron. You can see
> it has 30 sides since an icosahedron has 30 edges.
> I don't know any origami modules for constructing one.
> Has anyone worked this out? If anyone is interested
> here is a URL about this polyhedron,
> http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/five-cube-intersection.html.
>
> Joe

There is a 30 unit version of this polyhedron in Tomoko Fuse's book "Origami
Design."    This particular unit is made from a rectangle derived from a
square by running an angle of approximately 32 degrees from one corner to the
opposite edge then cutting off the shorter half.  The rectangle winds up
being approximately a .6 to 1 ratio.

I've heard a rumor that OUSA has refused to carry this book because a few of
the models required cutting.  Really a sad shame if the rumor is true because
this book has some of Fuse's most unusual, creative projects.  BTW, the above
mentioned rhombic module has no cuts.

Rosa





From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 18:33
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

Sebastian,
At 21.04 21/1/2000 +0100, you wrote:

>Do you also have information about how to persuade these mailers to use
>a sensible quoting style? If I see one more message with "-----Original
>Message-----", followed by the *whole* message, I'm gonna be sick (but
>not over my keyboard.)

(sigh !) An old boring problem. Complaints about overquoting have appeared
on this list several times, but laziness is prevailing. Just clicking on a
"reply" button automatically quotes the whole original message: many people
are too lazy to edit it (leaving just a few lines) before adding their
reply, and don't realize how annoying it can be especially in the case of
multiple quotings (messages where A quotes the whole of B, who has quoted
the whole of C, who......). On seeing this I usually trash the message
without worrying about reading the reply.....

What else can we do ?

Roberto





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 20:39
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

 (messages where A quotes the whole of B, who has quoted
>the whole of C, who......). On seeing this I usually trash the message
>without worrying about reading the reply.....
>
>What else can we do ?
>
>Roberto

Roberto trashing a message because it has the original message in the reply
is just stupid!  You're missing out on so much of what people have to say
by doing that.  That tells me that you're worse than the people that
include the original message, you're so lazy you can't scroll past it!  I'm
just saying this because because I don't think you really mean, I think
that you're exaggerating.  Most of the people on the list don't include so
much messages, and as time goes on fewer and fewer people do that.  It's
not that bad of a problem.

David





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 22:16
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

On 22 Jan 00, at 17:39, david whitbeck wrote:

>  (messages where A quotes the whole of B, who has quoted
> >the whole of C, who......). On seeing this I usually trash the message
> >without worrying about reading the reply.....
> >
> >What else can we do ?
>
> Roberto trashing a message because it has the original message in the reply
> is just stupid!  You're missing out on so much of what people have to say
> by doing that.

Feh!  I do precisely that [and auto-trash things with attachments and
have other filters like that in place to keep my email 'tamed'].  There
is *plenty* of material to wade through to see what people have to say
without slogging through stuff that the author didn't care enough about
to write carefully.

> ..  That tells me that you're worse than the people that
> include the original message, you're so lazy you can't scroll past it!

Lazy?  Because I don't waste time reading the words of an author who is
so selfish, lazy, and/or careless not to proofread the submission and
make sure it is reasonable before sending it?  BAH!!  The world is filled
with too much information and I don't have enough time to keep up with it
as it is, much less making my time *yet*less* effectively used by
fighting with the writing of authors who mostly don't care if their words
are actually read [else they'd take more care to make their prose
reasonable and easy for the reader... surely you remember that stuff from
English Comp 101, that one of the primary tasks for the author is it make
his work attractive and convenient for the *reader*?]

> ..  I'm
> just saying this because because I don't think you really mean, I think
> that you're exaggerating.

He might be, but I could've said the same thing and for-sure I'm not
exaggerating..

> ..  Most of the people on the list don't include so
> much messages, and as time goes on fewer and fewer people do that.  It's
> not that bad of a problem.

So what's your point?  That you have so much time on your hands with
nothing to do with it that wasting it poring over the sloppy-writing of
inconsiderate authors is the best use of your time?

OTOH, you're right: most folk on origami-l are pretty good about using
proper netiquette in their submissions... but for the rest, as far as I'm
concerned to hell with them... [or at least, straight to my 'trashed
messages' folder].  Life's too short.

Note that even for novices and folk not comfortable with their email-
tools, there's no real trick to reviewing the message before you hit the
"send it" button and so avoiding the most egregious breaches of
netiquette..

  /Bernie\

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





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 23:30
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

Dave Stephenson wrote
>
> the author was playing silly buggers, the photographs are all of
> shells he managed by finding a way to cut the number of valves from 4 to
1
>

I've heard of Siamese twins, but Siamese quadruplets? The photos in the
book show an anti-clockwise spiral, one valve snail shell, which is an
abnormality, as a snail shell's growth direction is clockwise. My first
effort in designing a snail shell also resulted an anti-clockwise spiral.
Snails grow from top to bottom but we fold from bottom to top. So the two
directions are opposite. To rectify spiral error, fold from a mirror.

Cheng Chit





From: Tiffany Tam <origamiwing@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 2000 23:32
Subject: Re: When will the next issue of the Paper but out

Oh, okay, thank you very much.  I hope that I will receive my copy soon
because there was some problem with the copy sent to me last time. =-)

Wing

>From: Marc Kirschenbaum <marckrsh@PIPELINE.COM>
>Reply-To: Origami List <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
>To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: Re: When will the next issue of the Paper but out
>Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:21:46 -0800
>
>At 09:49 PM 1/21/00 -0800, Tiffany Tam <origamiwing@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >does anyone know when the next issue of The paper be out and what kind of
> >diagrams will be in it?
>
>Members of OrigamiUSA on the 1st class mailing plan should have recieved
>their copy already. There was a problem with the 4th class mailing service,
>but copies should be recieved soon (this problem is being investigated).
>The theme is on origami by children, and diagrams by people who used to be
>children are included.
>
>Marc
>
>http://marckrsh.home.pipeline.com

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





From: Lynch Family <deenbob@ECENTRAL.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:40
Subject: Re: ORIGAMI Digest - 20 Jan 2000 to 21 Jan 2000 (#2000-21)

Hmmmmmm

No, but I have heard of Moosejaw. I actually have relatives that live
there.

By the way, I have gone through all my mail and I don't recall seeing
the original to this message. That isn't the first time I have seen
parts of a message quoted and not gotten the original message. Is there
a possibility that not all of us get all the messages?

Dee

Dribalz@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>  Shawn wrote:
>  has anyone heard of Regina, Saskatchewan?
>
> No, but if you hum a few bars...
>
> Musically,
> Andrew





From: Lynch Family <deenbob@ECENTRAL.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 00:40
Subject: Little Turtle

>  My Personal favorite is the Little Turtle Unit.

Mine too. There is some wrapping paper I bought several years ago that I
still see occasionally on the shelves (usually at the supermarket,
believe it or not) that is the prismatic kind. The design is 1 inch
(1.5"?) squares that have rays coming out from the center. The squares
are not all completely square, but that first diagonal fold you put into
the unit takes care of that. Makes WAY cool 30 piece Little Turtle Balls
(or whatever that geometrical figure would be called). I have also made
it with some kami (about 2") that has different colored rays coming from
the center of the paper... Not as shiny, but still pretty neat.

Dee





From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julia_P=E1lffy?= <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 02:49
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

Hello,

In my e-mail programme I have a general settings option to quote or not the
message I am replying to (turned to "no quote", of course...). It would be
faster to click that button or checkbox or whatever than to start an
argument. Or is it that not all e-mail programmes have it?

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@MOEBIUS.INKA.DE>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 05:58
Subject: Re: HTML code embedding

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 12:23:32AM +0200, Robby/Laura wrote:
> (sigh !) An old boring problem. Complaints about overquoting have appeared
> on this list several times, but laziness is prevailing. Just clicking on a
> "reply" button automatically quotes the whole original message: many people
> are too lazy to edit it

Yes, there will always be people who overquote out of laziness. But my
point is that some quoting styles simply invite full quotes -- most
notably OE's "-----Original Message-----". Furthermore, this quoting
style prevents you from commenting on the different parts of the
original message.

Therefore, I'd like OE users to adopt the conventional quoting style
(each line quoted with "> ", preceded by a tag line) -- if this is at
all possible with this piece of fecal matter.

> What else can we do ?

Some programs attempt to "persuade" the user to use a sensible amount of
quoting by rejecting messages that contained too much quoted
material. But apparently, this never really caught on. But perhaps the
list server can ... Joseph? (Just joking.) And if nothing helps, we can
still put "X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook" in our filter rules. (I'm
seriously considering this.)

And, concerning David Whitbeck's reply to your article (I read that only
by chance; I plonked him a long time ago): The readers of this list are
under no obligation to read every posting. If we choose to ignore
message with too much quoted material (or messages that use HTML or
multipart/alternative, for that reason), that's entirely our own
decision. That's freedom of speech for you: You can say (ie. write) what
you want, but that doesn't mean I have to read it.

--
Yours, Sebastian <skirsch@t-online.de>

*** Dieses Schreiben wurde mit Hilfe einer Datenverarbeitungsanlage ***
*** erstellt und bedarf keiner Unterschrift.                        ***





From: Matthias Gutfeldt <tanjit@BBOXBBS.CH>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 08:55
Subject: NO - HTML code embedding

Julia Palffy schrieb:
> In my e-mail programme I have a general settings option to quote or not the
> message I am replying to (turned to "no quote", of course...). It would be
> faster to click that button or checkbox or whatever than to start an
> argument. Or is it that not all e-mail programmes have it?

I think I know which checkbox you're writing about, Julia:

"Warning: Your message contains more than 90% quoted material. The
following options are available:
[ ] snip excessive quoting
[x] start an argument"

Well, it's sometimes hard not to accept the default selection :-).

Matthias





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 09:35
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

> In my e-mail programme I have a general settings option to quote or not the
> message I am replying to (turned to "no quote", of course...). It would be
> faster to click that button or checkbox or whatever than to start an
> argument. Or is it that not all e-mail programmes have it?

The problem is that in general 'no quote' is as bad as 'quote
everything'.  Many readers will have gotten hundreds of email messages on
other topics and providing no context at all for your reply is quite
annoying [and can be difficult for the reader, especially if, even if the
reader remembers what the particular thread is about, there have been
other replies and it now becomes a guessing game as to *which* of the
previous comments your reply addresses ... [for example, just look at
your posting, and try reading it in two days [or 500 other email
messages, whichever comes first :o)]: what exactly are you talking about?
What is the topic of discussion?  The 'Subject' says something about HTML
code embedding, and the reader might wonder what quote/notquote has to do
with HTML [does your mail client only put in HTML when you quote the
replied text, or something like that???]]

Once again, the writers seem to be *obstinate* about missing the point:
if the goal is to have your words read and understood and appreciated,
that'll take a little work.  Period.  and the constant bobbing and
weaving to try to make writing as painless as possible is just misplaced -
-- IMO mail clients should make it *harder* to post.. make the writers
*work*harder*.  A poorly thought-out, poorly edited submission will have
saved the author a minute or two and in one stroke inconvenienced and
irratated a thousand or more folk in the forum.

If you think you've found a setting for your email client that makes is
_real_ easy to dash off proper replies, you haven't -- no matter how you
slice it, careful writing... writing that is worth reading... takes work.
The easist trick for writers-who-can't-be-bothered is instead of finding
clever 'quote/noquote' tricks and such, find some way to configure your
mail client so it doesn't have a "send it" button... that'll save the
most time for everyone involved...

BTW: There's nothing inherently wrong with selecting "no quote".  It is
just generally considered much harder for the author [especially in
incendiary forums although origami-l is not one such].  A very good
writer can "include the question in the answer" [remember, we were all
taught *that* in school, too..:o)], but it can be tricky to do and you
have to be good about it to pull it off.  If you think that that
selection will be a time saver, you're probably wrong: the general
consensus [over a LOT of years of collected experience with email/news]
is that it is, in general, harder properly paraphrase or otherwise back-
reference your reply (and have it 'read' reasonably) than to have spent
the twenty seconds paring down the original.

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





From: Dribalz@AOL.COM
Date: 23 Jan 2000 11:22
Subject: Masu boxes

I would like to make a Masu box.  Is there a specific formula for the
starting size of the paper needed to make a finished specific size.

I would like to make a box that has the finished dimensions of 54 mm on a
side (or 2 1/8 inches).

Any ideas?

Andrew Hans





From: Robby/Laura <morassi@ZEN.IT>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 11:39
Subject: Re: Origami-Buddha

Julia,
At 20.14 22/1/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>I've seen something like you describe in Kunihiko Kasahara's "Creative
>Origami"

I'm not writing about this ! There are again problems with your e-mail
encoding (have you changed your mailer program ?). Your name in the heading
now appears as

=?Windows-1252?Q?Julia_P=E1lffy?= <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>

where "Windows-1252" is your charset. You may have to modify the charset,
and/or check about special characters (like an accented "a") which cause
problems and have to be avoided.

Good luck again !
Roberto





From: Merida Weinstein <mekkisan@DRAGONBBS.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 12:23
Subject: Re: Masu boxes

Yes; to end up with the classic cuboid masu, start with a square of paper
three times the width of the desired finished dimension. That would mean a
9" square for a 3" box. If you're contemplating making a cube box(as tall as
it is wide) then you need to multiply the diagonal of the desired size by 3.

Merida(numerically challenged, but intuitive enough to have backed into the
Pythagorian theorem)
----------
From: Dribalz@AOL.COM
To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Masu boxes
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:23:55 -0500

I would like to make a Masu box.  Is there a specific formula for the
starting size of the paper needed to make a finished specific size.

I would like to make a box that has the finished dimensions of 54 mm on a
side (or 2 1/8 inches).

Any ideas?

Andrew Hans





From: Alan Shutko <ats@ACM.ORG>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 13:16
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

Julia Palffy <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH> writes:

> In my e-mail programme I have a general settings option to quote or not the
> message I am replying to (turned to "no quote", of course...).

Quoting itself isn't bad.  It helps remind the recipient of the
context of the message.  What's bad is quoting the whole message,
because a few people doing that makes things very long, very quickly.
Imagine an email conversation among 7 people using MS Outlook trying
to solve a problem... over the mere 30 messages sent in about an hour,
they were quickly topping 200 lines apiece, even though each person
posted around 3 lines of original content.

Ideally, posters trim the stuff they're quoting to the bare minimum,
but that requires a little extra work, and not every poster does it.

--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
For adult education nothing beats children.





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:03
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

Well Bernie, Sebastian you are both prone to hyperbole.  This email list
only gets about twenty to fifty emails a day.  Out of those, the emails
which have the original message in the reply are so small it would only
take a few minutes to read those.  Have we ever had 500 emails in two days?
Not reading them is simply lazy, and there's no getting around it.  It's
hypocritical to complain about laziness in keeping the original message
when it's just as lazy not spending less than five minutes more a day
reading those emails.  And what does my grammar have to do with it?  If you
think you're being subtle, you're not.  So far I've only heard
exaggerations and insults at me, but not a real argument.  Do you have a
real argument?  Give me and the rest of the people on this list for whom
you have insulted a good argument on why you are so superior to us.  Would
you like to know why you don't see the problem disappearing?  People are
adding on to the list all the time.  Those people didn't expect people like
you to be on the list who won't even listen to them because they're
breaking your precious etiquette.

David





From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Julia_P=E1lffy?= <jupalffy@BLUEWIN.CH>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:27
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

Matthias wrote:
I think I know which checkbox you're writing about, Julia:

"Warning: Your message contains more than 90% quoted material. The
following options are available:
[ ] snip excessive quoting
[x] start an argument"

Well, maybe someday they'll invent computers sophisticated enough that the
programs have options like:

 - Refuse / accept teasing messages

... one can always dream....

Julia Palffy
Zug, Switzerland
jupalffy@bluewin.ch





From: Sheldon Ackerman <ackerman@DORSAI.ORG>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:35
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

>
> Well Bernie, Sebastian you are both prone to hyperbole.  This email list
> only gets about twenty to fifty emails a day.  Out of those, the emails
> which have the original message in the reply are so small it would only
> take a few minutes to read those.  Have we ever had 500 emails in two days?
> Not reading them is simply lazy, and there's no getting around it.  It's
> hypocritical to complain about laziness in keeping the original message
> when it's just as lazy not spending less than five minutes more a day
> reading those emails.

You may as well lump me with Bernie and Sebastian as well. I do not bother
reading messages embedded with HTML code. And no, I am not lazy.
I have more constructive ways of "spending less than five minutes more a
day".

>  And what does my grammar have to do with it?  If you
> think you're being subtle, you're not.  So far I've only heard
> exaggerations and insults at me, but not a real argument.  Do you have a
> real argument?  Give me and the rest of the people on this list for whom
> you have insulted a good argument on why you are so superior to us.  Would
> you like to know why you don't see the problem disappearing?  People are
> adding on to the list all the time.  Those people didn't expect people like
> you to be on the list who won't even listen to them because they're
> breaking your precious etiquette.
>
I have no idea who first began this thread, but did it really begin with an
insult or did someone simply state their preference? This seems to be the
most etiquette conscious list I have come across in a long time. People have
their own opinions, and are entitled to their own opinions. One does not
really have to be put on the defensive to defend their opinion.

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





From: Michael Janssen-Gibson <mig@ISD.CANBERRA.EDU.AU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:39
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Dave Stephenson wrote:

> does anyone know where there are photo's of the 4 valve version so I can
> compare them to see if I've got it right.

One of those recurring mysteries....the shell in the photo is from Origami
Spirals by Tomoko Fuse - checking most of the online origami bookstores
should yield a result (eg Sasuga). The folding sequence is quite simple,
but the shell turns out to be quite smaller than the OFTC example (I
*think*, it has been a while since I have folded it).

regards
Michael





From: Lory <lory@NETSIS.IT>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:41
Subject: take notes on diagrams

> I would like to make a Masu box.  Is there a specific formula for the
> starting size of the paper needed to make a finished specific size.

When I finish a models I always draw on diagrams the ratio between the
real model dimensions and the sheet length. This help me to obtain the
model as big as I wish the next time. Often I fold quickly the model
to know this/these ratios and then fold the good one.
Does anyone do the same or can suggest me other interesting features
to note on diagrams?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

 ----------------------------------------
   Lorenzo Lucioni       lory@netsis.it
   Parma, Italy             ICQ: 397363





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:42
Subject: Engel Models

Well I've been folding Engel's alligator, which is a great model.  Now I'm
wondering what are your favorite models of Engel(addressed to all on the
list)?  What are the models you dread?  And your overall impression of his
form?  Happy folding :)

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:46
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

You speak sense Sheldon.  Email has some odd way of blowing up issues that
are almost irrelevant.  Maybe virtual reality will overcome the internet in
the future and we'll actually be talking to one another (I know it sounds
absurb but I think it will happen, our technology increases exponentally).
I think then that threads like this would pass.  Have a good day!

David





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 17:50
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

I know of a picture online!  Just go to http://chocolate.custard.org/

Emma does a good job on her models, and she has a help section on the rose.
When I first started folding the rose I couldn't get it right until I
asked for help from her.  Her shells are good, but it is interesting that
she didn't twist the ends.  Whatever happened to her?  Is she still on the
list?

David





From: Lory <lory@NETSIS.IT>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 18:11
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

> I've heard of Siamese twins, but Siamese quadruplets? The photos in the
> book show an anti-clockwise spiral, one valve snail shell, which is an
> abnormality, as a snail shell's growth direction is clockwise. My first
> effort in designing a snail shell also resulted an anti-clockwise spiral.
> Snails grow from top to bottom but we fold from bottom to top. So the two
> directions are opposite. To rectify spiral error, fold from a mirror.
>
> Cheng Chit

I could be mistaken, but I believe you need only do the opposite
choose when the diagrams show a fold not symmetric. I'm very sad to
learn that the real spiral is clockwise.. I've just folded four snail
shell, all anti-clockwise, such the diagrams :(

The photos in OFTC are from a different shell, more easy and, I think,
more realistic, from O. El Mundo Nuevo.

Lorenzo

 ----------------------------------------
   Lorenzo Lucioni       lory@netsis.it
   Parma, Italy             ICQ: 397363





From: Ron Arruda <arruda@CATS.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 18:23
Subject: Re: take notes on diagrams

I mark the ratios right on the model itself too, on some inconspicuous
part if possible.

Ron Arruda





From: Ron Arruda <arruda@CATS.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 18:34
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

Regarding "reversed photos": Sometimes photos get mirror-reversed in
books, usually by accident. This is not to easy in the US, where we use
negative film, but at least in Europe, they use positive film to print
offset, and it's easier to strip them up backwards, especially if in a
hurry at deadline time!

Also: You do see deliberate reversal of photos, especially in magazines.
Often this is in the picture of a person, whom art directors usually feel
should look "into the page" rather than off the edge of it.

Ron "Former Lithographic Technician" Arruda





From: Alan Shutko <ats@ACM.ORG>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 18:40
Subject: Re: NO - HTML code embedding

david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU> writes:

> Well Bernie, Sebastian you are both prone to hyperbole.  This email list
> only gets about twenty to fifty emails a day.  Out of those, the emails
> which have the original message in the reply are so small it would only
> take a few minutes to read those.  Have we ever had 500 emails in
> two days?

Maybe not, but I usually receive 300-400 messages a day.  While I
don't autoskip poorly formatted messages (I have an extremely
efficient mail reader), I can see an amount like that being
overwhelming.  (I've cut down... when I received 500+ messages a day,
it was definately too much.)

Generally, the more mail you see a day, the more you appreciate the
simple formatting guidelines we've been talking about.  Every bit that
makes a message easier to read means more time you can devote to
thinking about the message instead of managing your inbox.

--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Do not underestimate the power of the Force.





From: david whitbeck <dmwhitbeck@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 18:42
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

There is a shell by Derudas in one of the Tanteidan convention books, it
looks really good.

David





From: Lory <lory@NETSIS.IT>
Date: 23 Jan 2000 18:53
Subject: Re: Snail Shells

david whitbeck wrote:
>
> I know of a picture online!  Just go to http://chocolate.custard.org/
>
> Emma does a good job on her models, and she has a help section on the rose.
> When I first started folding the rose I couldn't get it right until I
> asked for help from her.  Her shells are good, but it is interesting that
> she didn't twist the ends.

What do you mean with "she didn't twist the ends"? I looked the
picture but it seem like the one on OFTC, dosn't it?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

 ----------------------------------------
   Lorenzo Lucioni       lory@netsis.it
   Parma, Italy             ICQ: 397363
