'Onering' and 'May' weave variants
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   

Shall I submit these as weaves - are they 'valid'?
None at all
11%
 11%  [ 2 ]
New variants only, the article suffices for basis
11%
 11%  [ 2 ]
some of them (noted in reply to post)
17%
 17%  [ 3 ]
All, even the old Onering(s)
58%
 58%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 17

Author Message

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

'Onering' and 'May' weave variants
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun May 27, 2012 4:04 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Somewhen in 2009 I discovered a new group of modifications for the JPL weave family, that I named 'Whatif'. And I found even a somewhat stunning variant, that I later called 'Onering', as I found, that at least that one variant's basis version was already previously published in a forum post, but not submitted as weave, by MAIL user Oneringshortofafullcoil. Well, I was discouraged back then, to submit these imho valid weave variants, but as I didn't want to get the collected experiences lost, I published them in the article WHATIF - Variants of Jens Pind Linkage (JPL).

I am also active in a maillers' group on Facebook, besides MAIL, where we have a monthly submission challenge - and this month's topic was to publish something 'May' related. So I set out to find and publish some weaves, and name them May-something.

Some of the results are following ones; on top twice Onering-3 with different large-ring sizes; below are some variants, where rings were interwoven with the basis chain, for example orbiting the small ring in different orientations. But there are more, shown below in more detail (click on the images to get larger versions on your screen).


The first new one is 'Maybe' - orbiting the core ring horizontally, bracketed between the large ring pairs - depending on chosen large basis chain and orbing ring size the latter ones can be arranged stacked, alternating stacked, or not touching each other. Shown here as sample is a stacked variant; another sample, finished as bracelet, can be seen in the gallery.


The next one is 'Mayday' - an asymmetric chain variant, featuring a crossed 'half-orbiting' ring pair at one side of the chain, see side view.


Last but not least there is 'Mayfair' - this time weaving the crossed half-orbiting crossed ring pair lengthwise, also resulting in an asymmetric but well-behaving weave variant. This is basically a 2in1 chain interwoven with the basis Onering chain. Shown here are only top and bottom view - a side view can be provided on demand.


If you have a closer look at the next-to-last sample in the top image, you may note another orbiting variant, that I wove alternating with Maybe - this one is 'Maypole', that is a weave I like to credit to MAIL user Maille_Fantasy.

A last comment: Some of these variations (and even more) are also possible, if applied to the JPL5 based Onering-5 weave...


So - what do you think about these?


-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: May 08, 2010
Posts: 1159
Submissions: 11
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun May 27, 2012 7:10 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I can't say whether they should be submitted as new weaves as weave theory is not my thing...but which weave is at the bottom of the top picture? That one is gorgeous!

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun May 27, 2012 7:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

That's Mayfair - the last sampe in my list.

BTW: I cast a vote myself, as I wanted to see the result of possible votes... Smile

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: January 29, 2011
Posts: 240
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun May 27, 2012 11:47 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Neither am I especially well-versed in weave-theory, but I voted to submit them all. I consider them valid, but would yield to the opinion of someone more experienced and impartial, who could explain why they might be accepted or not.

The 'May-' series are gorgeous. I would definitely plan to learn these weaves, and hope you submit them with tutorials.

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2275
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 2:06 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I voted and think you should submit them all. The differences are large enough that it looks as if it would create a significant change in the weave. Granted I am not an expert in this area, or any, but I think it should qualify.


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 622
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 4:52 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I voted for the article, but then semi-changed my mind afterwards...
I don't want all of the onerings to add to the JPL clutter, but they are a significant change from being normal JPL.

Ideally, I would like a nice readable database... but this one seems to be building on a sortable database. What I would really like is for the variant tag to link to what it is a variant of (and perhaps a way to omit variants in the search).

Ultimately isn't my call though.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: July 18, 2007
Posts: 60
Submissions: 69
Location: Geelong, Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 9:05 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Both Onering and WHATIF are based on JPL, which makes them weave variants by definition:

7. A submitted weave that differs from any precursor weaves by the addition or alteration of a structural element that directly affects the shape or behaviour of the weave will be classified as a weave variant.

What you have done with them and what you continue to do with them, is significant, however and deserves recognition. (Thank-you for including my small contribution, as well, I appreciate the gesture)

You have already submitted an article: http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/articledisplay.cgi?key=56914 in which you acknowledge in your opening statement as being 'only' a variant and throughout the article you refer to them being variants. So why the change of opinion? This is a valid question and one that I feel deserves a genuine answer. Why have you changed your opinion from this being 'only' a variant to now wanting them being recognised as independent weaves?

Personally, I think that Onering and WHATIF and the 'May' variants are as different as any other family of weaves and as such, should be grouped accordingly. As each of the weaves progresses to another level, the original JPL weave becomes only significant as the backbone of the weave as the other supporting rings/structural rings become the real focus. Is this then enough to validate them as a new weave or new weaves?

I have no say in the way this goes. I have made only a minor contribution to the progress of this weave. Since you made the original start with MAYBE, then maybe that is the one that should be submitted as the new weave and the rest as variants to it? Perhaps Onering and WHATIF need to be recognsed variants to JPL and then the MAY weaves listed as mods?


Submit MAYBE as a new weave. In the end it can only be accepted or denied

Good luck on your quest.


Kelly Clitheroe
Maille_Fantasy

Maille Fantasy
What we do in life echoes in eternity-Maximus Decimus Meridius (Gladiator 2000)

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 10:42 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Trenchcoatguy: If I decide to submit the Onerings, only Onering-3 as basis, and Onering-5 as first progression step are submitted - further ones do not only leave the 'sanity zone', but are simply straight forward progressions that are doable by anyone who is able to weave the JPL counterpart.

Maille_Fantasy: Back then, when I found the Whatif/Onering variant group, I was somewhat convinced already, that they were significant enough to be embedded into the database. But obviously I did not yet recognize, how significant the change really was. And Oneringshortofafullcoil obviously didn't see the implications of that change as well - he had made a now-called Onering-3 with only slightly enlargened large rings, but never followed the concept further. So neither he nor I had 'drive' enough to submit to the weaves database, after some negative comments were received.

See that the basic structure remained being a JPL, and 'just the behavior changed a bit'. Nowadays, after having discovered the May variations, I simply know more about this weave group, as only the Onerings allow the building of the May variants - the basic JPLs don't allow not much more than hanging shaggy rings from their outer perimeter loops. So retroactively the validity of the Onerings is proven, in my opinion. On the other hand, the multitude of Whatif variants has emerged into a group of combos of alternating JPL and Onering, so these are not more valid for submission, and the existing article suffices to tell about the possibilities.

The May* weaves group is one with MANY possibilities of orbiting and interweaving other rings - besides Maybe, Maypole (by Maille_Fantasy), Mayday, and Mayfair there are many further possible variants, as Onering has emerged as versatile 'platform weave' - for example I tested already a similar sideways weaving concept with single Maybe cells (2 large 1 small 2 large), that Corvus once followed to connect single Half-Byzantine-Rhino cells sideways to Persephone. And I experimented already with some sheeting and webbing methods - there's a multitude of further possibilities. So I'm a little bit unsure, how far I should go in this case, and which, and how many of these modifications are significant enough to be worth to be embedded into the Weaves database - and which ones are not and just to be mentioned in a (yet TBD) article that also serves as basis tutorial.

Currently I think about submitting all three I published here, and to ask M_F to submit Maypole (except she asks me to do so, as we both happened to do these at the same time, after I showed Maybe). And I'll see whether I can reach Onering, to see who of us both submits Onering-3. But in any case the first discoverer/inventor/publisher will be credited...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: July 18, 2007
Posts: 60
Submissions: 69
Location: Geelong, Australia

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 11:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:

See that the basic structure remained being a JPL, and 'just the behavior changed a bit'. Nowadays, after having discovered the May variations, I simply know more about this weave group, as only the Onerings allow the building of the May variants - the basic JPLs don't allow not much more than hanging shaggy rings from their outer perimeter loops. So retroactively the validity of the Onerings is proven, in my opinion. On the other hand, the multitude of Whatif variants has emerged into a group of combos of alternating JPL and Onering, so these are not more valid for submission, and the existing article suffices to tell about the possibilities.


So you are saying that now you consider Onering to be a valid weave on it's own because it is more versatile than it's predecessor? And that WHATIF is merely a variant with no more options than it's predecessor and therefore you are not interested in submitting it?

ZiLi wrote:
The May* weaves group is one with MANY possibilities of orbiting and interweaving other rings - besides Maybe, Maypole (by Maille_Fantasy), Mayday, and Mayfair there are many further possible variants, as Onering has emerged as versatile 'platform weave' - for example I tested already a similar sideways weaving concept with single Maybe cells (2 large 1 small 2 large), that Corvus once followed to connect single Half-Byzantine-Rhino cells sideways to Persephone. And I experimented already with some sheeting and webbing methods - there's a multitude of further possibilities. So I'm a little bit unsure, how far I should go in this case, and which, and how many of these modifications are significant enough to be worth to be embedded into the Weaves database - and which ones are not and just to be mentioned in a (yet TBD) article that also serves as basis tutorial.


So Onering should be considered as an Alpha weave from which many variants, including the MAY* weaves can be derived? Is that the definition of an Alpha weave? A weave in it's basic form that leads to the construction and development of modifications both structural and aesthetic?


ZiLi wrote:
Currently I think about submitting all three I published here, and to ask M_F to submit Maypole (except she asks me to do so, as we both happened to do these at the same time, after I showed Maybe). And I'll see whether I can reach Onering, to see who of us both submits Onering-3. But in any case the first discoverer/inventor/publisher will be credited...
-ZiLi-



I consider Maypole to be a modification only. The orbiting ring serves no purpose except for cosmetic reasons (and because it could be done,) and therefore, in my opinion does not deserve individual weave status. Maybe, Mayday and Mayfair all show more significant structural changes.

I am only trying to clarify what it is EXACTLY that you are proposing. The poll suggests that you would be open to submitting ALL weaves to the database, some of the weaves or none of the weaves, based on opinion, not on the advice of the weave submissions panel. The alternative is that you write an article, similar to the one you have started here showing the weaves/variants and mods. Either way, the credit goes to you as no one else would be able to submit them as they are previously acknowledged as having been invented first, by you (or oneringshortofacoil is that his name?)

As another person has mentioned, the weaves library can get cluttered with weaves which aren't much more than a cosmetic addition or an added ring hanging off another (I'm being dramatic, but most here would know what I mean) from a more well established one. The craving for the 'status' of being credited with a new weave is a lure for most people (myself included) but this doesn't mean that all and sundry should be admitted. On the other hand I would genuinely hate to see the progress of chainmaille becoming stifled due to an overly harsh assessment of what constitutes 'New". I have to say that I appreciate that many of the new weaves are not only aesthetically attractive, but also functional, which is something that can't be said about some of the older 'weaves' I have come across in the library.

Your weaves have technical merit. They are aesthetic and functional. It would be up to the weaves submission panel to judge whether they join the ranks.


Kelly Clitheroe
Maille_Fantasy

Maille Fantasy
What we do in life echoes in eternity-Maximus Decimus Meridius (Gladiator 2000)

Joined: August 14, 2006
Posts: 1890
Submissions: 50
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 3:29 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Here's the criteria I've been trying to apply to my evaluations:

Is the weave created by adding rings to a base weave in such a way that the added rings do not interact with the base weave in a manner different than any other ring in the base weave (i.e. kinging, scaling)? Generally this demonstrates a technique that can be applied to many weaves. If the answer is yes, this I see as equivalent to the M.A.I.L. tag "Modification" and is more a gallery item than a weave item.

Is the weave created by adding rings to a base weave in such a way that the added rings interact with the base weave in a manner different than any other ring in the base weave (i.e. Atlantis Weave, Wolfweave)? Generally this demonstrates a technique that can only be applied to a specific weave or branch of weaves. If the answer is yes, this I see as equivalent to the M.A.I.L. tag "Variation" and is a suitable (in my opinion) weave item.

Notably, shaggy is an oddity, here. The rings interact differently than the base weave, but with a sufficient AR of the base weave, it can pretty much be applied to any weave. In my opinion, Shaggy Loops is possibly as valid an entry in the weaves DB as an example as the 2-in-1 chain entry, but I think perhaps both of those ought to be moved to either gallery, or even article locations.

The other thing I'm starting to try to do is to get things down to as small a ring size as possible, when I can, to really see what is happening regarding interactions. A fairly recent example of this is the discussion Can Someone Name This Weave?. sakredchao had to point it out to me that what was being displayed was a chain of European 4 in 1 similar to Flowers 4 in 1, but with varying ring sizes that made a fairly pretty chain, but did not change what it was. I cut the ring groups down to single rings and assembled a sample in the smallest ring sizes I had that would work.

So, anyway, after all that is said, my opinions:
The Onerings are modifications, good gallery or, as you have done, article fodder. They change ring size, but the connections remain the same as in JPL, if I understand things correctly.

The Mays are variations, they add additional rings to the JPL weave. Just because they require the JPL Onering modification, does not, in my eyes, validate the Onerings as anything other than JPL, although it is a modification to JPL that gives it a bit different look than is typically associated with it.

Did any of that make any sense?


Comprehensive Diameter Database: Web Page | Online Spreadsheet | About the database

"When you have bigger wire, you make bigger maille. It's neat like that." -Cynake, January 15, 2009

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2278
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 5:39 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I agree with ED.

The Mays are certainly acceptable weave variants. However, if the changes with the Onerings are simply a change in the ring sizes, but the connections are exactly the same as in JPL then they should go to the gallery as change in ring size is not enough to validate them as new weave entries. A change of only ring size is on the fringe of being either minor modification or design.



Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Author Website

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 6:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

First: The German language seems to use Variation and Modification in a slightly different manner as the English/American language seems to do. So please excuse, if I confuse the terms from time to time. For me a modification is, if a structural change is done, while a variant is (for example), if only some ring sizes are changed, without changing basic stucture or behavior. I'm a bit unsure in that regard, how native English speakers use the tems.

Kelly: Yes it's not only a simple modification/variation, as the difference between a JPL and its associated Onering variant is addition of further linking possibilities - not yet explored back then, but visible now, after discovery of the May weaves. This is imho a significant alteration of the basis weave's behaviour, and so makes Onerings worthy members of the weave database, even if 'only' ring sizes are changed, and the basic chain's structure not at all. To avoid cluttering the database with possible but insane progressions, only the basis Onering-3 and the first progression step Onering-5 should enter the DB, imho. Whatif is imho only a possible combo, doable by alternating JPL and Onering segments - no weave database stuff, but good for Gallery, and mentioning in an article, as already done sufficiently. I may have discovered the Whatifs first, but in the end that does not more matter - the Onerings are the most reduced, aka basis weaves that use this variation/modification technique. But this doesn't make the Onerings Alpha weaves, as the JPLs they base upon are the Alphas - without any doubt. The May* weaves are further modifications/variants (?), that became possible by the Onering's 'new' feature of many more interweaveing possibities, that simply did not exist for the basis JPLs. Which ones are weave database stuff, and which ones are not more so, is up to the weaves admin, who surely has to draw a line. I can imagine dozens of possible variations and modifications - and I did weave already more than the currently published ones like the sideways expanded ones analog to the Persephones compared to Half-Byz-Rhino. But in my opinion a couple of basic ones should get their place in the weaves DB.

ED: Answering your reply I could mostly repeat what I wrote above. But I may add, that three years ago the AR limits of JPLs were not yet really fathomed - but this was later done by lorraine and me. Note that JPLs are weaves that have upper AR limits defined by geometry, and not only by practicability, what is comparably seldom amongst maille weaves; most weaves don't have a geometrical upper AR limit, but JPLs devinitely have, what limits their interlinkability down to shaggying and side-by-side bolting of chains. Onerings are a clear, proven possibility to burst the AR corset. And that is a SIGNIFICANT alteration. Note that I wrote in a previous post, that I did not recognize the implications of this three years ago. But I do now, after having discovered the May* group.

And I expect that some naysayers that criticize my opinion now (and/or did back then) get their pliers, some AR 2.7 to 2.9 rings, and some larger rings of same wire thickness - and experiment themselves. There might be the one or other Saulus, who will be a Paulus thereafter...

A remark about weave approval policy: I remember times, when every 'dren' entered the database, even absolutely insignificant, profane entries without any practical use. Currently the pendulum seems to have swung in the other direction, so even absolutely valid entries, according to the rules, get denied. This is imho just as wrong -or even worse- as approving all submissions is. I HATE to lose information that could be worthwhile. See that the Weaves database is the anchor point to find information - there the references to Gallery and Articles are given - and not or only seldom vice-versa. So a valid weave that is 'only' listed in the Gallery will fall into oblivion, in the long run...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: November 16, 2009
Posts: 162
Submissions: 3
Location: Finland

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 6:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I agree with ED and Narrina on with one, but would like to bring to attention another factor:
I'd vote for submitting simply because it's the easiest way to find these weaves for someone who doesn't know their existence. When Zili first brought the weaves to the FB page, not many even knew of Onering simply because the lovely "Random Weave" search does not cover articles.

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 6:55 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Narrina it's not 'simply' changing of ring sizes, as some VERY specific rules for ring sizes have to be followed, to have a stable Onering weave. Not every size change or ring sequence is possible. IF there was a free ring size and sequence choice, your argument were valid. But that is NOT given here - Onerings are VERY special in that regard.

Pick up your pliers please, and experiment - with JPL and Onering, and compare the features. Hint for AR selection: 2.7 to 2.9 for the small ones, and that AR plus two or more for the large rings and orbiters/captives are a good start - I used rings in the AR range of 4.7 up to above six for my experiments...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2278
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon May 28, 2012 7:36 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
Narrina it's not 'simply' changing of ring sizes, as some VERY specific rules for ring sizes have to be followed, to have a stable Onering weave. Not every size change or ring sequence is possible. IF their was a free ring size and sequence choice, your argument were valid. But that is NOT given here - Onerings are VERY special in that regard. Pick up your pliers please, and experiment - with JPL and Onering, and compare the features...

-ZiLi-


ZiLi, I said that 'if' that were the only change, than their validity is highly questionable. If however, there is more to the change than simply that or there is a structural change as a by-product of this ring size change than further consideration should be given regarding them. And as I have not made any of the Onering's, it was my hope that, if there was more to this change or if its interaction with the weave structure caused a change to it, that you would clarify how this is different than a simple change in ring size. I will however, try and find time to perform my own experiments with these so I can make better observations about them.

The issue of whether the changing of ring sizes in a weave is enough to consider something a 'new' weave/variant/modification is a tricky issue and one I wish to be careful about. Snake Skin changes the ring sizes used for Euro 4-1, but it is still considered European 4-1 and something that should never have made it into the weave library as the change is minor and structurally is still the same. Most of the time, a change in ring sizes used for a weave has been considered to be a design. Consider for a second the graduation of a weave. This touches very closely on this issue, yet it is still considered a method of design.

I'm not saying that there is no validity to the Onerings and your argument for them, but that we really need to be careful about this as it is difficult enough sometimes to draw the line between weave/variant/modification and design as it is. To allow new weaves based upon a change in ring size is a slippery slope to know where it crosses the line between a possibly valid variant and design.



Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Author Website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3. Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:29 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: