




From: Dan Gries <dangries@MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 02:59
Subject: Jewelry

hi,

i am interested in making origami jewelry, i already have a pretty good
idea of what kind of designs i will have.  i just need a little advice
on putting them together.  in particular, i want to know what kind of
lacquers one can use to make them pretty stiff and permanent.  i know
this has been discussed on the list many times - i checked the archives.
however, i found so many suggestions there that i am left confused, and
want to get it down to just a few things i can try.  specifically, i
would appreciate some advice from someone who currently makes or who
used to make jewelry.

(if this discussion is inappropriate for the whole list, some personal
e-mail would be appreciated.)

i am thinking of ordering the tsuyadashi from kim's crane, please
someone let me know how what type of results this gives.

i think for some models i would want the result to be very hard,
almost like plastic.

i don't want something that will fill up crevices with thick layers
of lacquer, or would like to know if there is a technique for avoiding
this if it tends to do so.

i am interested in making both glossy models and models with a more
matted appearance.

one more thing, i know that this is important to many people here, but
i'm not majorly interested in the environmental impact of any of these
substances - maybe you can include this information, i just mean to say
that i don't intend to start a conversation about the environment with
the subject heading "Re: Jewelry"!

but i do care very much about the environment!!

oh, except for trees.  cut 'em all down so i can make bunnies and elephants!!

thanks,
-dan





From: Karen Reeds <reeds@OPENIX.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 06:10
Subject: 1) Japanese textiles "Origami Pleat"   2) napkin folds

 Spotted during a recent visit to San Francisco:  The exhibition on
contemporary Japanese textile design at the San Francisco Museum of Modern
Art --worth visiting in any case-- has an "origami pleated" fabric. A
paper template is pleated into chevrons and unfolded. A sheer fabric rests
upon the template; the paper and cloth are pleated together and ironed to
set the fold in the cloth. The dye collects in the folds to make lovely
shading around the folds.  I'm sorry I can't recall the designer's name or
the technical details.

My daughter clipped for me a couple pages in Wallpaper (a UK design/living
magazine) in "High Table: a new series which sets the standard of modern
table manners and gourmet gear" that  illustrates and diagrams five napkin
folds by "Lap technician Kelly Russell" who is also, I gather, Wallpaper's
interiours editor. The directions and diagrams are reasonably clear; the
photos striking. The issue is March 2000, pp333-334.  The folds are called
1 "Swirl"
 2 "French Lily"
3. "Candlestick"
4. "Palm Leaf"
5. "The Boat"

Karen
reeds@openix.com





From: Gilad Aharoni <gilad.aharoni@ICC.CO.IL>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 13:41
Subject: =?windows-1255?Q?=FA=F9=E5=E1=E4=3A_Remove_me_from_your_e-mail?=

----- -----
: Origami Mailing List [mailto:Origami@MIT.Edu] Linda Fragnito
:   19 2000 19:02
: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
: Remove me from your e-mail list

<< ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >>
take me off from your e-mail list





From: Paula & Gerard <su008787@WOLMAIL.NL>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 13:11
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Doug Philips wrote:

>Dave Mitchell, refering to David Brill's book Brilliant Origami, indited:
>
>>If, as a designer, you limit yourself to the 'true square' all it means is
>>that many of your designs will become unnecessarily complicated, bulky and
>>inelegant - so not excellent - or that you will restrict yourself to
>>subjects that can be treated elegantly from the square - so probably not
>>very original.
>
>You may have noticed that Robert Lang's books at one point used nonsquare
>paper. I think he's even posted about the transition he took from nonsquare
>"back" to using square paper. My one line summary is that "non square is
too
>easy to design for."
>
>While I'm not a square snob, I think he's right. Design "advances" most
>directly in the presence of contrainsts.

I would like to quote Alice Gray:

"A model made from one sheet of paper is better than an equally successful
model of the same subject made from two or more sheets.
If several sheets are used, it is better to lock them together in the
folding than to paste them.
A model without cuts is better than an equally successful model of the same
subject in which cuts are used.
Other things being equal, a model from a *square* sheet of paper is better
than one of the same subject made from paper of any other shape.
When the finished models are equally pleasing, a simple one is better than a
complicated one."

(Taken from the book Complete Origami by Eric Kenneway page 151, who quoted
from The Origamian, vol.12, issue 2)

I agree with Alice Gray. It's better to use a non-square only if the result
is more beautiful than if you use a square.
Personally I rather have a simple and elegant model made from a rectangle
than a very complex one from a square...
For example I like the easy kangaroo by Kimura Yoshihisa (Tanteidan #5, page
22) better than the kangaroo by John Montroll (Animal Origami for the
enthusiast, page 54).

The best is of course an elegant model made from a square!

Greetings,
Paula from Holland.
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/gerard.en.paula/





From: Dave Mitchell <davemitchell@MIZUSHOBAI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 13:05
Subject: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Doug Philips  wrote:

>BOMAS? Brilliant Origami Mothers Against Scissors?

Nice idea .... but it actually stands for British Origami Mutual Admiration
Society.

>You may have noticed that Robert Lang's books at one point used nonsquare
>paper. I think he's even posted about the transition he took from nonsquare
>"back" to using square paper.

Oddly enough, I did have Robert in mind when I wrote what I did ....
especially the contrast between his burr puzzle piece - in which he cleverly
finds the necessary angles within the geometry of the square - and my
admittedly rather older one - in which I simply took advantage of the
natural geometry of the A4 rectangle. I suppose it depends how you conceive
the challenge of design ...

>My one line summary is that "non square is too easy to design for."

Well, I disagree. Any model can be designed / folded from any paper shape
.... however there's always one shape that does it better than any other. In
my opinion that's normally the one to use.

>While I'm not a square snob, I think he's right. Design "advances" most
>directly in the presence of contrainsts.

True .... but the point is how you react to the constraints .... whether you
overcome them with technique or turn them directly to advantage .....

I just happen to prefer the latter course.

>If all you want is efficiency of paper, that's fine, but it's a pretty
limited view of
>excellence.

Yes, it would be. I believe efficiency is important - it's interesting, for
instance to see how much of the surface of the paper is left visible in the
masks of Eric Joisel compared to those of other folders - but other
aspects - for instance, spreading the thicknesses of the paper as evenly as
possible throughout the design - can be equally important.

The one criterion that many people look for - that the model should be
challenging to fold - is one I have some difficulty with. I can't help
suspecting that many 'challenging models' are designs that still need
refining. A good designer will do the extra work required to make the
folding sequence as accessible as possible.

Of course, it may still be challenging ... but it will only be challenging
because it has to be.

But you've heard all this before ....

>I don't think I'd say any one book is the best, not even this one, though
>Brilliant Origami would probably make it somewhere on my top 15 list
though.

Perhaps I should have said 'best all round origami book ever'?

Must learn to hedge my bets a little.

Dave Mitchell





From: Lar deSouza <fresco@SENTEX.NET>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 09:20
Subject: Tomoko Fuse Masks

Hey ho :)

I was wondering if folks on the list can help me track down just who or
what some of these characters from Tomoko Fuse's most excellent "Masks"
book are! :)  I've done a fair bit of research myself and know a bunch of
them, but as the names seem to be specific to characters from Japanese
folklore and plays, it's very difficult to figure out from English
translations who is what.  I've also been told that the names are in old
Japanese (the 'high' version of the language, not the regular version used
for common everyday speaking).

I'm happy to exchange info and share what I know with whomever is
interested :)  I think I've got about half of them figured out.

Later!

Lar

**********
The Many Faces of Lar
http://www.sentex.net/~fresco/faces

The ArtGuys:
http://www.internet.com/~artboy





From: Carlos Alberto Furuti <furuti@AHAND.UNICAMP.BR>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 10:48
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

>>From: Paula & Gerard <su008787@WOLMAIL.NL>

>>I agree with Alice Gray. It's better to use a non-square only if the result
>>is more beautiful than if you use a square.
(Almost) fully agreed.  I think it's ok using a shape which can be obtained
from a square only by folding, without complicated measurements
(e.g., a 1:3 rectangle or equilateral triangle are fine). However, since
doing this:
- can add to the paper thickness, making complex maneuvers harder, and
- wastes "useful area" since I almost always purchase precut squares,
for practical/mundane rather than "philosophical" reasons I prefer
the good old square.
Also, let's remember: "all other things equal", so do not
compare, e.g., Maekawa's two-sheet dragon with claws with his
one-sheet with simple feet...

>>For example I like the easy kangaroo by Kimura Yoshihisa (Tanteidan #5, page
>>22) better than the kangaroo by John Montroll (Animal Origami for the
>>enthusiast, page 54).
>>The best is of course an elegant model made from a square!

That's why my favorite roo is the one by Engel: uncut square, quite
realistic, easy to fold and memorize, elegant and revolutionary use
of bird base - plus a joey!
No other kangaroos I know - Montroll's in AOftE and BOtL, Kasahara's in CO,
recent BOS, Crawford's, Lang's in CBO, Ansons's in OUSA annual,
Maekawa's in V!O, Kimura's in OT5, Corrie's in AO, and a lot more -
IMHO comes even close in all those topics.

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





From: Dave Brill <davebrill@WORTHHALL.DEMON.CO.UK>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 14:58
Subject: Brilliant Origami and Cambridge convention postscript

Dear all

Thank you to everyone who has said nice things about my book "Brilliant
Origami". I'm sure that it's mere coincidence that many of those people
who did comment favourably also happened to be people that I bought
drinks for at the bar at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge at the BOS
convention last weekend! (keep up the good work folks: I'll buy you
doubles next September in York; dates for your diary 15th -17th
September!)

May I take advantage of the list to say THANK YOU to everyone who
contributed to the great success and enjoyment of the BOS convention
weekend. We were very delighted that Eric Joisel could be with us at
very short notice, and equally thrilled that Robert Lang had been able
to organise one of his business trips to the UK to coincide with our
convention. (Vice-President's privilege, eh, Robert?!)

Everyone is of course more than welcome at the BOS Autumn Convention
York, BOS member or not. Please try to be with us!

For those not able to make it to Cambridge last weekend, you can taste a
very small flavour of the goings-on at the convention by getting hold of
the Convention book from Ian Harrison, BOS supplies officer at his email
address: I.Harrison@open.ac.uk

Payment can be arranged by Mastercard or Visa if you like.

Costs including postage:

BOS members
UK: #5.50 stg
Overseas: #6.50 stg

Non-BOS members (be honest, or better still send of your subscription to
Penny Groom!: see below for details)
UK: #6.00 stg
Overseas: #7.00 stg

As far as the square/non-square argument is concerned, I prefer to use
squares too, but economy of the paper is the over-riding concern, I
think. I am also fascinated by the inherent geometries of other paper
sizes such as "A" size, or equilateral triangles etc. Even with squares,
I do get a bit fed up with bird/fish/frog geometries which still seem to
govern the shapes in modern origami. There are so many other
possibilities available, so why not think about other ways before taking
your edge to the diagonal?
Yours, and very best wishes from

Dave Brill
brill@worthhall.demon.co.uk

British Origami Society home page:
www.britishorigami.org.uk





From: Julie Rhodes <kettir@GEOCITIES.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 10:02
Subject: cats

Peter Muller wrote:

>who knows good cat models?

There's a really fine "Halloween Cat" in Origami: Paper Folded - from the
Best of Origami by Randlett.  Made from one piece of paper, it's really
quite easy, looks like you worked hard on it, and it stands up by itself.
Two very tiny cuts are required on the head, so if you are a purist, you
might not like that.

--
kettir at | You'll never find Zen at Costco. And even if they had
geocities | it, you'd have to buy way more than you need.
dot com   |                      [Charleen]





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 15:26
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Dave Mitchell wrote:

> Any model can be designed / folded from any paper shape
> .... however there's always one shape that does it better than any
other. In
> my opinion that's normally the one to use.

Dave, I'm curious ...how does one *know* which shape 'does it better
than any other' for a particular model?

I can see how in a few specific instances it might be better to try to
design -- say -- an octopus from a square or an octagon, rather than
from a
triangle or hexagon; or a snowflake from a hexagon, rather than a
square, but in most instances I don't see how a square, or a 2x1, or a
3x1, or an A4 -- or whatever shape one can think of -- can be seen as
'better'.  (Granted, to most of us, a square has a certain 'rightness'
compared to other paper shapes, but this isn't the issue here)

What criteria are you using to judge the relative suitability of a
paper shape for a particular subject/model?  For example, Dave Brill's
wonderful Horse is from an equilateral triangle, but intuition and
tradition might suggest that a square is a 'better' shape from which
to make a four legged animal.

Isn't it up to the creativity of each creator to invent and re-invent
which shape is 'better' for any subject/model, rather than attempt to
pre-judge the suitability of a shape before beginning to create?

Regards,

Paul Jackson
mpjackson@btinternet.com
www.origami-artist.com





From: Sebastian Marius Kirsch <skirsch@MOEBIUS.INKA.DE>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 15:51
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 01:05:16PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Nice idea .... but it actually stands for British Origami Mutual
> Admiration Society.

Can I join?

> Yes, it would be. I believe efficiency is important - it's interesting, for
> instance to see how much of the surface of the paper is left visible in the
> masks of Eric Joisel compared to those of other folders

... and how much surface of the paper is left visible in the hedgehog of
Eric Joisel compared to those of other folders. SCNR.

--
Yours, Sebastian <skirsch@moebius.inka.de>

Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into ~/.signature and help me spread!





From: Casida Mark <casida@ERE.UMONTREAL.CA>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 11:38
Subject: Re: Fortune Teller Paper doll thread (french translation?)

>
> Any one know how to say "The Fortune Lady" in French?  It would be nice if
> it included the word "Belle".
>
> Thanks,
> Kalei
>

A fortune teller is a "diseuse de bonne aventure" or a "tireuse de cartes"
(the latter refers to card reading).  For the name of the lady, how
about "La Belle Diseuse de Bonne Aventure" (i.e. the beautiful fortune teller)?

                                       au revoir
                                           -Mark

--
*-------------------------------------------------------*
|          Mark E. Casida                               |
|                  Mark.Casida@umontreal.ca             |





From: Joe Wezorek <joew@DYNAVOXSYS.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 12:19
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Hi everybody,
        I'd thought I'd delurk and give my two cents on this topic...

The shape of the paper leads naturally to models that contain certain forms.
If you start with a square and proceed in a "natural" way, you are going to
end up with a model that has lots of angles of 45, 22.5 and 11.25 degrees in
it. It is, of course, possible to design a model from square paper that
exhibits
a much different geometry, for instance, a model whose crease pattern has
lots
of 72, 36, and 18 degree angles in it, but it will not be natural in the
sense that
you will have to bend over backwards for landmarks, the edge of the paper
will
not magically fall on to the crease pattern in a pretty way, etc. If you
would like
to design a model that has lots of 72, 36, and 18 degree angles in it and
would
like the folding sequence to proceed as simply as possible, you will be
better off
beginning with a different paper shape; one good choice would be a regular
pentagon.
In this sense, such a model is more elegant than the same model folded from
a square.
        Saying that squares are in some way better than regular pentagons sounds
to me like saying that the 22.5 degree forms (the traditional bases and
derivatives)
are in some way better than forms of other geometries. I think people should
really be trying to explore these nontradtional forms. I personally would
really
like to see someone come up a complex fold from a golden rectangle that is
nontrivially dependent on the golden-ness of the golden rectangle, for
instance.

Joe





From: "Kennedy, Mark" <KennedyM@DNB.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 12:17
Subject: Origami Sunday

Folding Sunday
(Formerly Folding-Free-For-All)

Origami Sunday will be held this Sunday in Room 319 at the Museum of Natural
History

Any OrigamiUSA members in or visiting the New York City area on the 4th
Sunday of each month are welcome to join our monthly folding meetings at the

American Museum of Natural History from 1:00 to 4:00 PM.

Please bring folding paper plus something to share. It's especially
appreciated if you
bring a model to teach, but if you're not comfortable teaching yet please
bring something else to contribute such as a model to show that you've been
enjoying folding, an origami book or newsletter others might find of
interest, or paper for the group. We will have a special "sharing table" set

aside for display of models to teach, models to show, books, publications,
and paper contributions.

These monthly meetings are a continuation of the tradition Lillian
Oppenheimer began over 40 years ago of encouraging paperfolders to get
together to teach each other and exchange ideas. OrigamiUSA is able to
provide a meeting space - the rest is up to those attending. When you arrive

at the museum please check at any information desk for the meeting room
number.

The folding sessions are similar to the informal folding at convention.





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 22:16
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Robert J Lang on April 20, 2000 wrote:
>
> I went back to exclusively
> squares for pretty much the reason that Doug paraphrased: using squares
> forced me to find new and interesting (and, dare I say, occasionally
> elegant?) folding techniques. Had I succumbed to the belief that using a
> square meant my designs would be "unnecessarily complicated," etc., then
I
> never would have found the new techniques.
>
Just as freedom without laws degenerates into anarchy, creativity without
constraints would be meaningless. In the context of origami, the square
would confer a higher degree of constraint, and therefore allows for
greater creativity, than, say, a rectangle, or a polygon with more sides. A
horse from an equilateral triangle? That would be brilliant!

Cheng Chit





From: Dan Gries <dangries@MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 14:28
Subject: squares RULE!!!!

ok, that subject line is a joke...

i am finding this discussion interesting, in that it discusses the
philosophy of this art in terms of elegance and simpleness.  however,
i hope everyone by now has realized that when people say things like
"squares are more challenging" or "it makes more sense to use ____
instead of ___", etc., that they are really just expressing what
they find the most fascinating and enjoyable in origami, rather than
what approach is superior.  i think this discussion would be less
argumentative if this is kept in mind.

personally, i like using squares only, no cuts.  but this is because
i find it to be a simple set of rules, and a nice challenge.  i can't
totally justify trying to make a six-petalled flower from a square
instead of a hexagon, but i appreciate the challenge.  in any case
i just mean that i usually put this constraint on myself, because
that's what i enjoy.  i think of cuts as "cheating," but only because
i'm playing my solitaire game by my rules.

some people find the end result the most fascinating, some people find
simplicity in using the most appropriate polygon, some people find
simplicity in restriction to one polygon, and not everyone wants to
be challenged to great lengths, they just want to make something
beautiful.  everyone has their own way, that they find the most
enjoyable.  it really makes no sense to come up with a philosophy that
is supposedly superior; it's like saying "this is the way origami is
the most interesting and enjoyable for YOU."

anyway, i enjoy the conversation, because everyone essentially gets
to say what kind of enjoyment they get out of origami, in terms of
folding sequences and finished products.

i think most of us are already talking from an open viewpoint - but
i'm seeing a little judgement leaking out here and there...just wanted
to put in my 13 cents, a subway token, and some pocket lint.

-dan





From: Howard Portugal <howardpo@MICROSOFT.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 11:49
Subject: Re: squares RULE!!!!

I am also finding this conversation interesting. Certainly more-so than much
of the content here.

Anyway, I don't hold any particular shape or style (single-piece, modular,
etc) near and dear. I do find that more often than not I fold from squares,
or $ Bills because they're readily available without having to modify
existing paper. I've also recently come into a small stash of A4 (thanks
Martin and Aimee ...) so I've been folding with that as well.

Howard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Gries [mailto:dangries@MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 11:28 AM
> To: ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: squares RULE!!!!
>
>
> ok, that subject line is a joke...
>
> i am finding this discussion interesting, in that it discusses the
> philosophy of this art in terms of elegance and simpleness.

<snip>





From: Doug Philips <dgou@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 18:02
Subject: Re: Cats.

Robin Glynn (http://www.keme.net/~rglynn/)indited:

>I'm not saying they're any good, but there are diagrams for a cat on my
>website. It is somewhat stylised as the cat is a character from a Japanese
>animated film.

I'm not saying they aren't good either. Not knowing the character, I like
the model for its crazed, demented look, something esp. good for Halloween.
Thanks for sharing it.

-D'gou
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: "Brannon, Dennis" <Dennis.Brannon@COMPAQ.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 19:12
Subject: Littleton Origami Group (LOG)  meeting notice, Tuesday April 25,

The Littleton Origami Group (LOG) [Littleton, MA USA]
will be meeting the last Tuesday of the month at the Littleton
library in the "Large Meeting Room" downstairs.

During the entire month of May, we will have an origami
display in the large display case at the entrance to the
library.  Please bring your models to display to the meeting.
This is a dry run to make sure we're prepared for when we
get access to the display case Monday evening (May 1st) from 7-9pm.
The people who show up Monday get to decide what goes where
in the display case.

Hopefully this won't take up the whole meeting, so...

Please bring your favorite origami models
to share, teach, or just show off.

If you are planning on coming, could you please send me email
so I have an idea of how many people to expect.  Thanks!

Dennis Brannon
dennis.brannon@compaq.com

When: Tuesday, April 25, 2000, 7:00 - 9:00pm.
Where: Reuben Hoar Public Library, Shattuck Street, Littleton, MA
Telephone: (978) 486-4046.

=================================================
Directions:  Get to the junction of routes 2A/110, 119 and 495.
This intersection is in the center of town at the only traffic light.
There's a Mobile station and Bob's Solid Oak nearby.

1. Coming from 2A East take a left at the lights onto King Street (110/2A
West) toward Ayer, MA.
Coming from 119 West take a right at the lights onto King Street toward
Ayer, MA.

2. You'll pass Bob's Solid Oak and a Shell station on the right, then a
cemetery.  At 2 tenths of a mile from the light is a right hand fork -- this
is one entrance to Shattuck Street.

If you miss it, continue on 110/2A for 5 tenths of a mile.  The other
entrance to Shattuck Street is on the right opposite Badger Funeral home.
The sign says Town Offices.

There is free parking to the left and rear of the building.





From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER <THE_ORIGAMIMASTER@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 16:47
Subject: Re: Jewelry

cruel
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Gries <dangries@MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
To: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 11:59 PM
Subject: Jewelry

> hi,
>
> i am interested in making origami jewelry, i already have a pretty good
> idea of what kind of designs i will have.  i just need a little advice
> on putting them together.  in particular, i want to know what kind of
> lacquers one can use to make them pretty stiff and permanent.  i know
> this has been discussed on the list many times - i checked the archives.
> however, i found so many suggestions there that i am left confused, and
> want to get it down to just a few things i can try.  specifically, i
> would appreciate some advice from someone who currently makes or who
> used to make jewelry.
>
> (if this discussion is inappropriate for the whole list, some personal
> e-mail would be appreciated.)
>
> i am thinking of ordering the tsuyadashi from kim's crane, please
> someone let me know how what type of results this gives.
>
> i think for some models i would want the result to be very hard,
> almost like plastic.
>
> i don't want something that will fill up crevices with thick layers
> of lacquer, or would like to know if there is a technique for avoiding
> this if it tends to do so.
>
> i am interested in making both glossy models and models with a more
> matted appearance.
>
> one more thing, i know that this is important to many people here, but
> i'm not majorly interested in the environmental impact of any of these
> substances - maybe you can include this information, i just mean to say
> that i don't intend to start a conversation about the environment with
> the subject heading "Re: Jewelry"!
>
> but i do care very much about the environment!!
>
> oh, except for trees.  cut 'em all down so i can make bunnies and
elephants!!
>
> thanks,
> -dan





From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER <THE_ORIGAMIMASTER@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 16:47
Subject: Re: Jewelry

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Gries <dangries@MATH.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
To: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 11:59 PM
Subject: Jewelry

> hi,
>
> i am interested in making origami jewelry, i already have a pretty good
> idea of what kind of designs i will have.  i just need a little advice
> on putting them together.  in particular, i want to know what kind of
> lacquers one can use to make them pretty stiff and permanent.  i know
> this has been discussed on the list many times - i checked the archives.
> however, i found so many suggestions there that i am left confused, and
> want to get it down to just a few things i can try.  specifically, i
> would appreciate some advice from someone who currently makes or who
> used to make jewelry.
>
> (if this discussion is inappropriate for the whole list, some personal
> e-mail would be appreciated.)
>
> i am thinking of ordering the tsuyadashi from kim's crane, please
> someone let me know how what type of results this gives.
>
> i think for some models i would want the result to be very hard,
> almost like plastic.
>
> i don't want something that will fill up crevices with thick layers
> of lacquer, or would like to know if there is a technique for avoiding
> this if it tends to do so.
>
> i am interested in making both glossy models and models with a more
> matted appearance.
>
> one more thing, i know that this is important to many people here, but
> i'm not majorly interested in the environmental impact of any of these
> substances - maybe you can include this information, i just mean to say
> that i don't intend to start a conversation about the environment with
> the subject heading "Re: Jewelry"!
>
> but i do care very much about the environment!!
>
> oh, except for trees.  cut 'em all down so i can make bunnies and
elephants!!
>
> thanks,
> -dan





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 20:07
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

> I personally would really like to see someone come up a complex fold from a
> golden rectangle that is nontrivially dependent on the golden-ness of the
golden
> rectangle.
> Joe

Since a square is in itself just a special form of rectangle is it possible
to create a model from a golden rectangle that is anything other than
trivially dependent upon the golden-ness?

Genuinely curious
Dave





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 20:14
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Hi all,
   One of the reasons I prefer the square for origami is simply that it's
very easy to make a good usable square out of any piece of paper in
seconds... however its not quite as easy to make a rectangle to the ratio's
1:x where x is equal to any obscure fraction, or any shape where the number
of sides is less than or greater than 4.

It's interesting to note that most of the unusual folding shapes are made by
working on the geometric properties of the square... are you folding from a
given shape or are you really just folding the square into that shape.

You may cut the paper but its seems this is more for convenience than
anything else...

Oh, Amazon sent out 'Brilliant Origami'  this morning, it's easily the best
all round origami book I own... now if only I could try folding something
than the dragon (^_^)

Happy Folding
Dave

(Incidentally I managed the horse from a square... not particularly elegant
but it is possible, sorry I still consider cutting the square to be anathema
to origami (^_^)





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 20:25
Subject: Origami Freebies (To everyone I referred)

Hi,
   Just wanted to say that if you're having any difficulty finding the paper
that ends up under the value of the voucher with delivery mail me and I'll
sort the address out for you.

Thanks to everyone who responded so far.
   Dave





From: Mike Kanarek <kanarekorigami@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 17:39
Subject: Origami of Kingston, NY meeting

The Origami Kingston Club meets on the second and fourth Saturday's of
the month at the Kingston Area Library.
The library is located at 55 Franklyn Street in Kingston NY.
Information may be gotten at 914-331-0988
Meeting start at 10:30 and last about a hour and a half and are in the
Childrens library.
See you there. Mike Kanarek
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Leong Cheng Chit <leongccr@SINGNET.COM.SG>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 09:24
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

>
> > I personally would really like to see someone come up a complex fold
from a
> > golden rectangle that is nontrivially dependent on the golden-ness of
the
> golden
> > rectangle.
> > Joe
>
> Since a square is in itself just a special form of rectangle is it
possible
> to create a model from a golden rectangle that is anything other than
> trivially dependent upon the golden-ness?
>
> Genuinely curious
> Dave

That's an interesting thought. Has anyone folded the so-called Penrose
tiles? These are also derived from the Golden Ratio and consist of two
polygons which will tile the plane non-periodically. Different colors could
be used for the two polygons which would be folded such that they can
assemble together.

There are also non-periodic three-dimensional space filling polyhedrons,
which are also related to the Golden Ratio. Has anyone folded these?

Cheng Chit





From: Bob Nienhuis <nienhuis@WGN.NET>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 11:39
Subject: LA Times article about Chris Palmer

Today's LA Times had a nice article about Chris Palmer's tessellations
executed in fabric and used as clothing.

See it at:

http://www.latimes.com/living/20000419/t000037052.html

The original has some nice pictures of the rather elegant dress
designs which are not shown on the electronic version.

Michael LaFosse,  Robert Lang, Shuzo Fujimoto and Jeremy
Shafer were also mentioned. LaFosse even got a plug for his
book.

Bob
nienhuis@wgn.net
Origami page: http://www.wgn.net/~nienhuis/





From: Dave Mitchell <davemitchell@MIZUSHOBAI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 10:57
Subject: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Robert Lang wrote:

> I went back to exclusively
> squares for pretty much the reason that Doug paraphrased: using squares
> forced me to find new and interesting (and, dare I say, occasionally
> elegant?) folding techniques.

and

>I still fold mostly single squares, but have been known to fold
>composite origami (Allosaurus skeleton), box-pleated rectangles (organist),
>and even modulars (assorted) in recent years.

So it was just a phase. That's okay!

Seriously though .... I believe the only reason that most folders get so
uptight about the square is that pre-cut origami paper happens to come in
that shape (Alice Gray notwithstanding) .... which in turn may only be
because of the bird base (historical input required here!) .... so that,
probably, it's all the fault of whoever first designed that most inelegant
of folds, the traditional crane.

>If you want a single book that gives a well-rounded set of top-notch
models, you'd be hard-pressed
>to do better than Brilliant Origami.

Quite. That was what I tried to say.

Worth yet another drink, Dave? Stack em up.

Paul Jackson wrote:

>Dave, I'm curious ...how does one *know* which shape 'does it better
>than any other' for a particular model?

and

>in most instances I don't see how a square, or a 2x1, or a
>3x1, or an A4 -- or whatever shape one can think of -- can be seen as
>'better'

Nor do I .... and I hope I didn't say anything remotely resembling this.
This would be to apply the principles of 'squarism' to other shapes. There
clearly aren't any objective criteria to say that one (convex?) shape is
better than any other .... except in relation to a particularly design.

Take the famous FIT for instance. Would we really prefer to make the modules
from squares? It's possible to do so - in several different ways  - but the
3 x 1 rectangle is surely the 'best' shape for this particular model. First
...  there is enough paper to double the edges - so making them reasonably
rigid, then there is enough length in the paper to allow the tetrahedra to
interweave reasonably tightly, and the number of layers in the tabs/sockets
are kept to a minimum. Second  .... the paper size is one that is easy to
achieve. (I think we already know it's not exactly mathematically correct).

So, no, I'm not saying that silver rectangles are better than squares ...
just that they are equally as good. Most designs evolve in the designing.
Changing the paper shape is only one of a number of improvements that may
need to be made to bring a design to 'perfection'.

I accept though that a designer like Robert Lang may not need to do this as
often as someone like myself. Robert seems to design mathematically ....
while I design by exploration and serendipity ... so that Robert's designs
ought to be closer to the ideals of economy and balance etc in the first
place.

Dave Mitchell





From: Robert Allan Schwartz <notbob@TESSELLATION.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 11:13
Subject: Space-filling polyhedra [was Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance,

>That's an interesting thought. Has anyone folded the so-called Penrose
>tiles? These are also derived from the Golden Ratio and consist of two
>polygons which will tile the plane non-periodically. Different colors could
>be used for the two polygons which would be folded such that they can
>assemble together.
>
>There are also non-periodic three-dimensional space filling polyhedrons,
>which are also related to the Golden Ratio. Has anyone folded these?

I know about some periodic 3d space-filling polyhedra, but I don't
know about non-periodic same. Where can I learn more?

Robert
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Allan Schwartz     | voice (617) 499-9470
PMB 354                   | fax   (617) 249-0330
955 Massachusetts Ave.    | email notbob@tessellation.com
Cambridge, MA 02139-3180  | URL   http://www.tessellation.com/index.html





From: Doug Philips <dgou@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 14:10
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami

Gillian Wiseman indites:

>You won't regret buying Brilliant Origami, especially if you like dragons.
>I
>love that dragon, have folded it four or five times, and have still not
>gotten the leg folds just the way they are supposed to be. Make it with a
>red-backed paper, so you can color-change the tongue!

After having re-read the discussion about elegance, squares vs. non-squares,
etc. I re-read the above message and it clicked why David won't be buying me
drinks anytime soon (Ok, so he'd have to catch me first ;-) )....

His dragon and his Rabbit/Hare(/Dragon-food ;-) ) have a limitation because
their heads have to be folded back or towards the side. That is great for a
particular scene for which they may have been created (I don't know what
David's "goals" were with those models in particular), but it limits the
models 'usability' (or 'display-ability') and it is for this reason, not for
any shape or dry.vs.wet folding issue, that I am somewhat restrained in
recommending Brilliant Origami.

-D'gou

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: THE' ORIGAMIMASTER <THE_ORIGAMIMASTER@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 11:10
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

Hi, can someone tell me please,  what are silver and golden rectangles? and
do they have a   certain  special size ?  if  so,  what size is that?  and
why are they so special?
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Mitchell <davemitchell@MIZUSHOBAI.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
To: <ORIGAMI@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 2:57 AM
Subject: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

> Robert Lang wrote:
>
> > I went back to exclusively
> > squares for pretty much the reason that Doug paraphrased: using squares
> > forced me to find new and interesting (and, dare I say, occasionally
> > elegant?) folding techniques.
>
> and
>
> >I still fold mostly single squares, but have been known to fold
> >composite origami (Allosaurus skeleton), box-pleated rectangles
(organist),
> >and even modulars (assorted) in recent years.
>
> So it was just a phase. That's okay!
>
> Seriously though .... I believe the only reason that most folders get so
> uptight about the square is that pre-cut origami paper happens to come in
> that shape (Alice Gray notwithstanding) .... which in turn may only be
> because of the bird base (historical input required here!) .... so that,
> probably, it's all the fault of whoever first designed that most inelegant
> of folds, the traditional crane.
>
> >If you want a single book that gives a well-rounded set of top-notch
> models, you'd be hard-pressed
> >to do better than Brilliant Origami.
>
> Quite. That was what I tried to say.
>
> Worth yet another drink, Dave? Stack em up.
>
> Paul Jackson wrote:
>
> >Dave, I'm curious ...how does one *know* which shape 'does it better
> >than any other' for a particular model?
>
> and
>
> >in most instances I don't see how a square, or a 2x1, or a
> >3x1, or an A4 -- or whatever shape one can think of -- can be seen as
> >'better'
>
> Nor do I .... and I hope I didn't say anything remotely resembling this.
> This would be to apply the principles of 'squarism' to other shapes. There
> clearly aren't any objective criteria to say that one (convex?) shape is
> better than any other .... except in relation to a particularly design.
>
> Take the famous FIT for instance. Would we really prefer to make the
modules
> from squares? It's possible to do so - in several different ways  - but
the
> 3 x 1 rectangle is surely the 'best' shape for this particular model.
First
> ...  there is enough paper to double the edges - so making them reasonably
> rigid, then there is enough length in the paper to allow the tetrahedra to
> interweave reasonably tightly, and the number of layers in the
tabs/sockets
> are kept to a minimum. Second  .... the paper size is one that is easy to
> achieve. (I think we already know it's not exactly mathematically
correct).
>
> So, no, I'm not saying that silver rectangles are better than squares ...
> just that they are equally as good. Most designs evolve in the designing.
> Changing the paper shape is only one of a number of improvements that may
> need to be made to bring a design to 'perfection'.
>
> I accept though that a designer like Robert Lang may not need to do this
as
> often as someone like myself. Robert seems to design mathematically ....
> while I design by exploration and serendipity ... so that Robert's designs
> ought to be closer to the ideals of economy and balance etc in the first
> place.
>
> Dave Mitchell





From: Doug Philips <dgou@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 14:58
Subject: Re: Commonly available paper shapes...

Howard Portugal indited:

>Anyway, I don't hold any particular shape or style (single-piece, modular,
>etc) near and dear. I do find that more often than not I fold from squares,
>or $ Bills because they're readily available without having to modify
>existing paper.

This raises an interesting question as to why there aren't more models made
from 8.5x11 "murrican" paper. (8.5x14 is also very widely available in US).
Perhaps Alice's promulgation of the square-as-best was effective? Or maybe
since its easy to make a square from a rectangle, potential 8.5x11-ers have
just been making squares instead? Given the attitude that origami is an
inexpensive hobby that can be done with found papers, I'm surprised at the
dearth of 8.5x11 based models.

-D'gou

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com





From: Dave Stephenson <EruditusD@AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 15:06
Subject: Montrolls humming bird (Birds in origami)

I've just noticed that if you do a closed sink on the two triangles left over
from the petal folds on each wing the model looks much better...  you can
then pleat the wings to give them a more natural look.

Give it a try!
Dave





From: Kim Best <kim.best@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:02
Subject: Re: Brilliant Origami, Squares, elegance, etc.

I just have one question in regard to this whole squares vs. other
polygons debate.

Will I have to precut a bunch of triangles, pentagons, hexagons, and
golden rectangles, before I can fold with you guys at the next
convention?  Or what?

--
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: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 21:00
Subject: Creative Motivation (was: Brilliant Origami)

D'gou wrote of Dave Brill's dragon:

> His dragon and his Rabbit/Hare(/Dragon-food ;-) ) have a limitation
because
> their heads have to be folded back or towards the side. That is
great for a
> particular scene for which they may have been created (I don't know
what
> David's "goals" were with those models in particular), but it limits
the
> models 'usability' (or 'display-ability') and it is for this reason,
not for
> any shape or dry.vs.wet folding issue, that I am somewhat restrained
in
> recommending Brilliant Origami.

I agree that a turned head may limit the 'display-ability' of this
model.  However, I disagree with D'gou's opinion that a creator should
create to please the most number of people, the most number of times,
by creating animal models that hold a neutral stance.

It has puzzled me for quite some time now why with all the
extraordinary technical sophistication now at the fingertips of so
many creators, that very few want to create living creatures (real,
imaginary and extinct) doing anything other than just standing there
as stiff as a board, legs vertical, head looking straight forward.
It's just so unimaginative and dull -- OK perhaps for the origami
creations of former decades, but surely anachronistic by now.  Why not
make models like Dave's head turning Dragon or prancing Horse, and
create animated animals that are leaping, crouching, stalking,
sleeping, running, eating, snarling, fighting, etc?  This would seem
to be a greater challenge than creating yet more versions of
stiff-as-a-board animals with ever more sticky out bits (whoops!  I
slipped back six months, there! :-) )

But more importantly (for me), D'gou seems to assume that Dave's
primary motivation for creating his Dragon is so that other people can
fold it for a display.  I don't want to put words into Dave's mouth,
but like most other creators I've discussed this with (and not just
origami creators), I'd guess that he creates *primarily* to please
himself, not to please others.  If others like his work...that's a
terrific added bonus, but crowd pleasing probably isn't the primary
motivation.

Is D'gou suggesting that origami creators should regard their work as
a kind of 'gift craft', done more for the satisfaction of others than
for one's own satisfacton?  Is it reasonable to criticise Dave's
Dragon because it has a limited potential for displays?  Surely this
is to miss the point of why anybody creates anything.

Unless ...unless there *are* a number of origami 'gift craft' creators
out there, motivated more to please others than to please themselves.
Any takers?! :-)

Regards,

Paul 'Oh no, he's being deep again' Jackson
mpjackson@btinternet.com
www.origami-artist.com





From: Michie Sahara <michies@WESTWORLD.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:16
Subject: origami sighting

In May/June issue of Rubber Stamper Magazine origami is featured in Roberta
Wax's article titled "Fold"...how to incorporate origami with rubber stamp
design to make greeting cards.  Among the photos of samples are two cards
designed by my mother Masako Sakai (and actually myself which they forgot to
mention).





From: Ron Arruda <arruda@CATS.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:31
Subject: Silver, Golden rectangles

Silver rectangle means the ratio of the sides is 1 to the square root of 2.
This shape is especially important because it is the standard shape of
European and British everyday typing paper! And it has all these neat
geometric possibilities of course.

Golden rectangle, I forget! I never see it as a pre-made paper size. Help
someone. Is it 2 to the square root of 5??

Ron Math Challenged Arruda





From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@FANTASYFARM.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 17:08
Subject: Re: Silver, Golden rectangles

On 21 Apr 2000, at 13:31, Ron Arruda wrote:

> Golden rectangle, I forget! I never see it as a pre-made paper size. Help
> someone. Is it 2 to the square root of 5??

The golden rectangle is one in which if you remove [or add] a square the
resulting smaller [larger] rectangle has the same proportions.  The ratio
between the sides is ( 1 + sqrt(5) ) / 2 [or (1 - sqrt(5)) /2 ]

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





From: Paul Jackson <Mpjackson@BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 00:15
Subject: Re: Creative Motivation (was: Brilliant Origami)

 (D'gou sent me this response to my posting of earlier today,
believing
 it was going to the List.  I liked it very much and suggested he sent
 it to the List for everyone to read ...but he'd not saved a copy.
So,
 with his permission, I'm posting it on his behalf, since I now have
 the only copy.  That's why it's 'From' me, when it's *actually* from
 Doug Philips!)

 Paul Jackson raises some very interesting questions:

 >I agree that a turned head may limit the 'display-ability' of this
>model.  However, I disagree with D'gou's opinion that a creatorshould
>create to please the most number of people, the most number of times,
>by creating animal models that hold a neutral stance.

 I never claimed that. What pleases people is up to them. See below
 re:neutral stance.

>creations of former decades, but surely anachronistic by now.  Why
not
 >make models like Dave's head turning Dragon or prancing Horse, and
 >create animated animals that are leaping, crouching, stalking,
 >sleeping, running, eating, snarling, fighting, etc?  This would seem
 >to be a greater challenge than creating yet more versions of
 >stiff-as-a-board animals with ever more sticky out bits (whoops!  I
 >slipped back six months, there! :-) )

 Well, in my terseness I seemed to have put the wrong words "between
the
lines." Let me be more explicit. I much prefer Neale's Dragon over
Brill's,
because despite the "diagrammed" lifeless pose, Neale's model is far
more
malleable, more poseable, more open to the folder's possibilities. The
fact
that Brill's Dragon cannot look forward is a let down, considering the
other
models in the book, and as a folder it bothers me to have a more
limited
model to fold. Neale's Dragon, however, can look sideways, backwards,
etc.
and is less limited. In any event I make no demands on what creator's
create, nor what they publish. But that doesn't mean I don't put a
critical
on what I choose to fold or recommend, either.

 >But more importantly (for me), D'gou seems to assume that Dave's
>primary motivation for creating his Dragon is so that other people
can
>fold it for a display.  I don't want to put words into Dave's mouth,

  But you'll put them into mine, eh? ;-)

>Is D'gou suggesting that origami creators should regard their work as
>a kind of 'gift craft', done more for the satisfaction of others than
>for one's own satisfaction?  Is it reasonable to criticise Dave's
>Dragon because it has a limited potential for displays?  Surely this
>is to miss the point of why anybody creates anything.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back on the beginnings of this list, a message was
posted by John Montroll about why he diagrams models. The position he
put forward was that it was the most efficient way to get his work in
front of the most people. Putting on shows, exhibits, etc. couldn't
touch what books would get, in terms of audience, exposure, etc.

 But the issue I was trying to raise really has nothing to do with why
anyone  designs models, nor even why they publish books. The issue I
was addressing was one of a consumer evaluating origami books, and in
particular, the model's contained in them. At the point where a model
is diagrammed and dispersed, the creator's intent is irrelevant.
Consider John Montroll's "Teach Yourself Origami." His intent there is
quite
different than David Brill's in "Brilliant Origami", just considering
the  name. None-the-less, I am still free, as a folder, to evaluate
the models  with my own criteria. I have not rendered a judgement on
Brilliant Origami
(or any other book, so far as I am aware) based on what you might
learn from  the process of folding the models in it, or on the
cleverness, or enjoyment  of the process of folding the models. Merely
on the results, the final models, that one attains. As a consumer of
model diagrams, and a producer of  folded models not of my own design,
I prefer models that are more adaptable  than ones which are not. I
tend to recommend the same. We could take this conversation in another
direction, and say that, oh, perhaps, the only reason the models have
turned heads is because they have to, not because they were
intentionally made to be that way. And we could  then evaluate origami
model design space(s), such as whether forcing a  turned neck is worth
the gain of a closed back, etc. Or
whether forcing a closed back is worth the gain of a turned neck. ;-)

  -D'gou

______________________________________________________________________
 __
  Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
 http://www.hotmail.com





From: Mike Kanarek <kanarekorigami@HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 18:29
Subject: Diagrams: Collecting

Wanted:

I collect package diagrams, (the kind packaged with paper), and would
     appreicate help in compiling them.
I am looking information as to when they started to include them with the paper
     and as to whoes' designs they are if possible.
Would like to see some from before the universal symbols were developed if
     anyone has any that old.           Thank's                          Mike
     Kanarek                          17 Clinton Ave.
     Kingston, NY 12401
Kanarekorigami@Hotmail.comGet Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
     http://www.hotmail.com





From: Darryl Sheldon <Johydee1126@AOL.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 23:28
Subject: Re: Sad news  and 1000 cranes question

  I'm so sorry to hear of this tragedy and your friends loss.  Please send me
an address and I will gladly send you cranes.
      Try to hang in there,   Darryl





From: Michael Anderson <manderso@ACAD2.DANA.EDU>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 22:40
Subject: Re: Sad news  and 1000 cranes question

I will send cranes. Let me know the requirements. I feel for you and
your friend and his family.

Michael





From: =?big5?B?tOW0y7TX?= <giawgwan@SINGLE.URL.COM.TW>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:21
Subject: Re: Silver, Golden rectangles

Does anyone have a model starting with a gold rectangle????
I wonder...

You Seng Peng
