John Smith rightly takes me to task for confusing the artistic folding of Paul Jackson (in which he places one or two, or perhaps three creases in the paper which do not necessarily extend to the edge of the paper) with John's own use of stressed folding in order to create models.

Paul's use of "stressing" is to create sculptural forms of beauty. John's is the more mundane one of creating models. I saw his collection of CURIO models at Utsu and they pointed the way to a wholly new style of Origami. They were not complicated, but neither need CURIO folding of John's kind necessarily be simple.

If Paul looked with disfavour at John's ideas, then I cannot agree with him. John's is a different style, with different objects, which in no way conflicts with or debases Paul's artistic style.

If we are to limit "CURIO" folding to John's style, then what are we to call Paul's. The name "Jacksonian Folding" has often been used, but this style of folding need not be limited to Paul. Can anyone think of another more general name?

I now have five, not four categories of folding in this group:

1. Jacksonian Folding.

2. CURIO Folding.

3. Pure Land Folding.

4. Minimal Folding.

5. One-crease Folding.

As I have said before, classification is useful to help us to analyse the different kinds of folding and to distinguish styles which may be superficially the same, but which are really different. But classification should not blind us to Folding itself and it must never be allowed to become a constraining strait-jacket

David Lister.