HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:10:25 -0400 
From: "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Wolverine

Wolverine is the single most overrated character in the bunch!  He is
used to sell comic books -- nothing more.  It irks me the way he is
passed around like he has been in the past few years.  They all took the
delicate work done on his character by Claremont and capitalized on it,
ruining the character as far as  I'm concerned.  I would much rather see
a good Gambit story.  Gambit is fast becoming one of the most
interesting characters since the introduction of Sabretooth and
Pyslocke.  How about a limited series?  The only thing about Gambit is
that so far only one artist can really draw him -- Lee.
From: rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: X-Problems?
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:56:00 EDT
Organization: The Other Side of Life

In article <1992Sep2.004922.9229@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au> cweller@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Catherine Weller) writes:
> midnight@mdnite.enet.dec.com (Dr. Midnight) writes:
> That and shitstick plots/characters. OK, I can handle the multi-dimensional
> thing; even when it got silly. BUT THE DANGLERS....AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHH!
> 
> Like that Courtney Ross/Sat yr^9 thing since just after the Arcade episode,
> (forget exact issue number, sorry) it's driving me *nuts*. Seems every guest 
> artist (use term loosely) has a guest plot regarding *that* one. I mean, one
> issue it's Coutney, then it's Sat yr; a find-the-lady game of maddening
> scope - first you have to *define* the lady. Sheesh!
> 
> And then there's Jamie. Good subplot going nowhere fast, Excalibur should
> either a/ get involved or b/ get rid of him.

Well, take a look at #55 and the upcoming #56, which involves both of these.
Since returning in #42 (or was it #43?), Davis has gone on a dangler-wrapping-up
tear.

-- 
Rich Carreiro                                  Home: (401)841-8514
rlcarr@animato.network23.com
uunet.uu.net!animato!rlcarr
From: z_moorertw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Wolvie #63
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:35:56 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

Could someone out there give me a review of Wolverine #63.  My comic
book shop ran out and it will be a week before I read it.
Thanks.
From: rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Excalibur #55 ***SPOILERS***
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 3 Sep 92 08:15:05 EDT
Organization: The Other Side of Life

In article <1992Sep2.210449.24278@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <rlcarr.057g@animato.network23.com> rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro) writes:
> 
> >Well, talk about dangling plotlines coming home to roost...
> >(1) It is now confirmed that "Courtney Ross" has been Sat-yr-9.
> >    Of course, this opens the question of how she got away from
> >    Captain UK (Linda McQuillan) [see Capt. Brit. trade paperback].
> 
> Remember that Saturnyne and Sat-yr-9 are _not_ the same people.  Adding in
> Courtney, that makes 3 lookalikes at least running around....

I know that.  However, in the CBTB, there is a "Sat-yr-nin" who dresses
the same way as this "Sat-yr-9" in Excalibur.  And in the end of the
CBTB, "Sat-yr-nin" is captured by Captain UK.

So the question is:
(a) are sat-yr-9 and Sat-yr-nin the same people?  (and yes, Saturnyne is someone
    else).
(b) if so, how did she get away from Captain UK?

-- 
Rich Carreiro                                  Home: (401)841-8514
rlcarr@animato.network23.com
uunet.uu.net!animato!rlcarr
From: lazarus@venture.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Spider-Man is joining the X-Men!!
Date: 10 Sep 92 06:32:41 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: venture.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <BuBxEr.G61@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus) writes:
>And what about Longshot?  He's an alien, not a mutant.

Yes, Longshot is a mutant of his own race... one of the few with true free will!
The same went for Warlock of the New Mutants, whose mutation allowed him to feel
compassion where the rest of his race lacked that trait.

>The Walrus

--
Bart -Laz- Smith
Kansas State University
The 'Cats WILL rule in '92!
"You're too young and I'm too well hung..." -- Spinal Tap
From: katie@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Sara Grey; was Re: The new X-Force and U.X-Men
Date: 12 Sep 1992 05:21:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu

lazarus@venture.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith) writes:
>
>Well, Karma's appeared off and on in Wolvie's title.
>She's in the service of her uncle in Madripoor, and he's supposedly
>looking for her little brother and sister.
>It's an old, tired plot twist, that I wish to hell they'd hurry up and resolve!

Never mind Leong and Nga; where is Sara Grey???

Sara Grey is Jean's sister, who is married and has two kids. She used to
speak out against anti-mutant prejudice. Sometime between UX-Men 210 and
220 -- I don't remember exactly, or maybe it was in X-Factor -- her house
was firebombed, and she and the children were missing. The kids (I forget
their names) eventually turned up during Inferno in the hands of Nanny
(the one who looked like an egg) and Orphan Maker; at the end of Inferno
they went home with Sara and Jean's parents.

Was Sara herself ever found, or is this still dangling?

katie@physics.berkeley.edu
From: daikerjohnc@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Spider-Man is joining the X-Men!!
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:30:40 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

>>>}Yes, it's true!!! Spider-Man will soon be joining all the
>>>}X-Groups as it is revealed that he IS, in fact, a Mutant.

>>>Why should this be a consideration?  They have had non-mutant members.
>>>In fact, one of their field commanders in action has been a non mutant.

>>The only non-mutant to be an X-Man was Mimic.

>I always thought Mimic was a mutant.  And what about Longshot?  He's an alien,
>not a mutant.
  
   I thought Mimic was a mutant too. Anyone REALLY know his origin? As I
recall, it was retold in Marvel Comics Presents, Wolvie vs. The Hulk.
Nowadays he's a Wolvie clone in the most literal sense.

   As for Longshot he IS an alien. But, like Warlock, a MUTANT alien.
He was given the power of luck, but had the mutant power of clairvoyancy.
   Warlock's mutant power was compassion, I guess. His race is basically
unfeeling.

   JCD

Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 1992 20:07:08 -0400 
From: "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: revitalization

Well, we can all go on lamenting the departure of Claremont ( in which I
have also participated), or we can look forward to the new team that we
will be getting soon. Seriously, folks, do you think that this one can
stay around too long?  The best Claremont issues - 190's-200's, had
something to do with the art of Buscema.  I have always thought (meaning
no disrespect to Jim Lee, whom I think is just as good) that Buscema
captured the spirit of the X-Men better than almost anyone (Art Adams,
Jim Lee).  It would be great to see him return!  Maybe some lobbying
could do it, although I have no idea where he is currently pencilling.
From: mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael J. Keating)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Who was the Traitor?
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:55:25 GMT
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Lets think about this for just a minute.  We've all been trying to
figure out who it was that betrayed the team and killed professor X, and
now the crossover goes and gives us an explanation and we ignore it. 
Try to follow along.  First, we are given the hint that the assassin was
Gambit.  Gambit has since become waaaaay to popular for the x-writers to
lose as a team member, so they come up with an alternate traitor --
Cable (who may or may not actually be Stryfe in disguise).  Remember --
the costume Jean Grey was wearing when she made the recording about the
betrayal (the tape that Bishop saw) was her current one. (With the
current trend in comics fashion, that means that the betrayal had to
occur in what would be our immediate future.)  Also, the blast that
supposedly killed Jean on that tape was not indicative of Gambit's
powers, but may have been a blast generated by such weaponry as
Cable/Stryfe uses.
There must be a real connection in there somewhere...
From: kps@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Karthik P Sheka)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: favorites
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:31:01 GMT
Reply-To: kps@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Karthik P Sheka)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1685C12C50.MHART00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> MHART00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (mason hart) writes:
>In article <EefI8jC00iUxI8_M8E@andrew.cmu.edu>
>"Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

[...]

>>Just shooting the breeze

Characters: Kitty Pryde, Doug Ramsey

Art: Byrne, Davis

Cover: X-Men 200, 275

Story:
  X-Men - #275, and the first brood storyline.
  New Mutants - A toss up between "Demon Bear", the return of Karma, the
first trip to asgard, and the suicide issue.
Organization: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:27:08 -0400 
From: "David M. Pahnos" <dp0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Lois London and the xbooks
Distribution: na

>Later, Lois was walking down a backstreet and was attacked by a
>vagabond who, I think, really just wanted a handout, but she was scare and
>pushed him away.  Her powers manifested again when she touched his face, which
>caused it to melt and disfigure.  The man collapsed and Lois was horrified as
>she watched him grope and struggle (he no longer possessed a mouth or nose,
>per se), and died.  She was last shown running down a lonely dark avenue into
>the night.

Well, the way I would write it is this:

Lois discovers an underground sewer tunnel and becomes the one and only
Masque.  Wonderfully tragic ending. (look at the way Rusty looked in
early issues of XFactor when Masque attacked.)

Dangling plotline?:  Whatever happened to the woman (that was burned
badly by Rusty) after she went into the Morlock tunnels to preach to
them that they were ugly becuase the were sinners? (but she was doing it
so nicely!)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Who was the Traitor?
From: yingst@milori.ccit.arizona.edu (Jim Yingst)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 20:50 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Summary: It was Mikhail.  Where were you? :) 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


I personally thought that the traitor was Mikhail, and that the plotline had
already been resolved.  My impression was that Lobdell threw together the
Morlock story as a quickie way of disposing of a plotline he didn't want to
deal with.  (Wasn't it under Byrne and Portacio that the whole thing started? 
I forget who was plotting the book at the time.)  I forget where, but wasn't it 
indicated somewhere that at least some of the fighting in the betrayal had
taken place in the Morlock tunnels?  Certainly Mikhail fits the description of
someone they didn't know very well and shouldn't have trusted.  They even had
Professor X down in the tunnels fighting, so it's conceiveable that if Bishop
hadn't been there, the team could have been massacred - as did occur in the
(now-alternate) timeline from which Bishop originated.  I don't remember any
one action of Bishop's which was so momentous as to cause an immediately
obvious divergence from his own timeline (i.e. singlehandedly saving the
X-men), but it's possible that it was the sum of a lot of little things he did. 
So, Bishop has now created a past different from the one that he knew- which is
what all the time-travellers have done.  End of annoying sub-plot, along with
the Morlocks.  Clumsily done, IMHO, but at least we seem to be moving on now.

Jim Yingst	yingst@ccit.arizona.edu
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Date: Wed,  9 Sep 1992 15:53:04 -0400 
From: "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Buscema --ooops

Just to set the record straight, I've been using the wrong name in
praise of old X-Men art.  It's not Buscema I liked, but Romita!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
From: gt6223b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jerry B. Ray)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Favorites
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:14:40 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Lessee, i guess i'll put in my $0.02 here...

Characters:  All of em, if they're well handled, but specifically..
		Gambit (can anyone but Lee draw him right?)
		Phoenix (the original, esp. with a well drawn 'Phoenix effect')
		Psylocke (pre-ninja)
		Jean Gray

Storylines: 	Dark Phoenix
		Demon Bear (New Mutants)
		'Evolution of Magneto' (sporadic through X-Men, NM)
		Kid Dynamo

Writers:	Alan Davis
		Chris Claremont
		Rob Liefeld (NOT!)

Artists:	Bill Sienkiwicz (NM)
		John Byrne
		Jim Lee
		Whilce Portacio (X-Factor)
		Neil Adams (pre-66)
		Steranko (two great covers!)

That's it for now, i guess...

JRjr

-- 
'Hear the tale of a fallen people, destined to wander their broken land.
Their eyes are vacant, full of empty meaning, and what they're missing they
just don't understand.  Beyond the dark horizon, out where the people are
crying, a Morningstar will be rising, rising to show us the way...' Whiteheart
From: lazarus@venture.ksu.ksu.edu (Bart -Laz- Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Scott Lobdell is still a moron...X-Men 294 spoilers
Date: 9 Sep 1992 02:14:49 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: venture.ksu.ksu.edu


In article <92249.111101EAO102@psuvm.psu.edu>, EAO102@psuvm.psu.edu (Ernie Oporto) writes:
>OK...I'm going to write this as I'm reading X-Men #294.
>Page 3, panel 2: Security parameter?  Ex-squeeze me?  Thats perimeter, you
>    moron!

No... "parameter" works...

>Page 10, Hmmm...writing Gambit as a pushy guy?  Very non-90s.

I don't think I believe in the '90s yet ANYway.  >:)

>Hmmm...the retrun of the Four Horsemen?  Ominous

No, Stryfe's find of that shroud with *GASP!* Apocalypse' likeness on it was
ominous!   >:)

>
>  _____)           ______        _)       _)  EAO102@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
>                               __       __    OPORTO@CORVETTE.ECE.PSU.EDU
>______    ______            ___      ___      Ernie "SHOKK" Oporto
>                               __       __    Computer Lab Attendant
>(_______ _      _ ________ _     _) _     _)  for PSU's CAC Department

--
Bart -Laz- Smith
Kansas State University
The 'Cats WILL rule in '92!
"You're too young and I'm too well hung..." -- Spinal Tap
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
From: clark@netcom.com (Sue Clark)
Subject: Re: Excalibur #56
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 06:39:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:

>Excalibur continues to be a fun read.  While it's hardly sui generis,
>as Gaiman's titles are, for instance, it continues to show how much
>can be done *within* the confines of the sub-genre -- and how far most
>of Marvel's titles fall short.

>Kitty's hiding place was priceless.

>I'll admit that I *could* have survived a few more pages without
>being told that Psylocke's psychic knife was the focused totality
>of her telepathic abilities...  (On the other hand, Davis gets
>points for working Crocodile Dundee, Monty Python, *and* that chestnut
>into a single frame.)

I thought that once again Davis has proved that Mutants and enjoyment
are not mutually exclusive terms.  Nice use of all the characters.  I
can even forgive the appearance of the psychic knife, as nicely as all
else was done.

Sue
-- 
-----------------
Sue Clark
clark@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
From: louzon@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Louzon ronald g)
Subject: Re: Why Claremont Left 
Summary: From his own mouth
Keywords: Claremont, X-Men, COMICS JOURNAL
Reply-To: louzon@aplcen (Louzon ronald g)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 13:17:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.204920.3118@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> kogutt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SCAVENGER) writes:
>There are several stories behind the reason.  But in all of them the finger 
>points to Bob "I can f**k up a book worse than Lobdell" Harris(y'know, no matter
> how much I write that, it still rings true)
>
>Harris thought it would be a godd idea to play Jim Lee against Chris.  This went
>into changing the stories to fit the art, etc.  With the story arc for the new
>series, Claremont had planned to have Xavier loose his powers NOT become 
>crippiled again.  Harris said that this wasn't visual enough, so changed it.
>Harris wanted Chris to essentially become a scripter (letting Jim/bob plot {and
>we all know how that turned out}) on the book that for all intents and purposes
>he (Claremont) had created.  
>

     Actually, Chris wanted to kill Xavier.


>One thing of note, If you get a chance, get Claremont to tell you what his plans
>for the storylines following the creation of the new series.  It's wonderful
>sounding(esp. considering the crap that we got to see).  I'll post it if there's interest.
>

     In the latest COMICS JOURNAL, issue 152, there is a great interview
with Claremont.  In it he discusses his leaving X-Men, the state of the
industry, and his future plans. It was very interesting and informative.
There is also an interview with Todd McFarlane in which you get to see
just what an uneducated ass he really is.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Bishop:Too good For Xmen?
From: <ALWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 15 Sep 1992 10:43:58 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <d-zn5xa@lynx.unm.edu>, kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of
Biscayzee") says:
>
>
>Actually, I, for one, feel that Bishop has shown an extremely keen sense of
>field tactics, and in better hands, I think the character has good potential,
>much more so than Old Cajun Eyes, Longshot, or any of the other "cool"
>characters...at the very least, I think it isn't so much psychopathic
tendencies
he's shown as much as unpredictability, and his teammates haven't reacted very
favorably yet due to unfamiliarity.

Are the X-Men worried by Bishop?  Of course.  He plays for keeps, he's an
unknown, and his methods are...were...not those of this generation of X-Men.
I think the Big Gun image of Bishop is purely done for the covers and splash
page lovers.

  I think someone with a good eye for character
development could do a hell of a lot with Bishop, as is.  Marvel may be (is)
trying to create another fanboy poster child here, but I think they may have
shot themselves in the foot here.  Bishop has potential...maybe if I paid
Connie Hirsch enough...not that she'd go for it, of course.  :)

       I agree with the above comments. Bishop has potential to be a solid
 character. What I like about him is that he does play for keeps he takes
 the aggressive. Most of the other X-men are "soft" and we are always
 reading the tired issue that the X-men aren't killers, etc. I feel that
 Bishop, Wolverine, Psylocke and Gambit are the X-men that take the
 aggressive.

       Isn't it interesting that in stories where the villian gets the other
 X-men to go bad (Shadow King, Magneto in X-men 1-4) they are more dangerous
 and aggressive as villains than they are heroes? I am not saying that the
 X-men should all turn bad but I feel that in the issues where they fight
 they should be more willing to take the fight to the villain rather than
 the same old story "The X-men don't play for keeps."

 Al
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:14:02 EDT
From: mark rieker <MJR127@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: How about this: There is no Traitor.

       Maybe somebody can find a way to get around this...

       In the famous Jean Grey traitor video that Bishop saw, Jean says
       "I've tried calling Alex and Cable....".  Now she would only say
       say that if the betrayal occurred while Alex was head of X-factor
       AND Cable was head of X-force. By the end of the X-cutioner song
       storyline, everyone will know that Cable is no longer head of
       x-force and Sam is.  Why didn't Jean try to call "Alex and Sam"?
             So, since Cable is no longer head of x-force and no betrayal
       has occurred, the timeline that Bishop is from has changed, and no
       longer exists! (Of course now you say "Why did it change?", maybe
        they'll save that for later)

             But, there are some loopholes....

        - sometime in the future Cable leads X-force again. (Yuck)

        - Jean is trying to call Cable singularly, and not his team

        - Cable eventually leads another team (maybe Youngblood :) )

        Well, anybody care to chew on that for a while?
-------
========================================================================
  Mark Rieker   MJR127@psuvm.psu.edu   Go Atlanta Braves!
                                       1991 National League Champions!!
  We are Penn State

 "Well, there's no use crying over spilled mitochodria" -Ren, Ren&Stimpy
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
From: howard@monitor.com (Howard Brenner)
Subject: Re: (More) proof Cable is Nathan Summers (PLOT SPOILER)
Reply-To: howard@monitor.com (Howard Brenner)
Organization: Monitor Company / IE
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:24:01 GMT

David Donald writes
> But they're not all related, at least not by genetic means... Scott,  
Havok, 
> Cable and Stryfe could be, if the latter two are actually Nathan Summers  
in 
> one form or another, but Jean is merely Scott's intended... there's no  
genetic
> connection there... So, am I confused, or missing something obvious??
> 
> Dave

If Scott and Jean are related... ugh!  I don't even want to think about  
it!
From: bxp1628@hertz.njit.edu (Brian Perler)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: Cable is Nathan Summers?
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:31:11 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep15.211347.28402@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> kogutt@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SCAVENGER) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.042927.26802@njitgw.njit.edu> bxp1628@hertz.njit.edu (Brian Perler) writes:
>>In article <79769@ut-emx.uucp> nova@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jennifer Baughman) writes:
>>>Cable as Douglock???  I thought they handled the whole Doug Ramsey/Warlock 
>>>clone situation in X-Force Annual #1....
>>>
>>>Besides, if he were, I think they would have shown him shape-shifting.  Plus,
>>>neither Doug Ramsey or Warlock had telekinetic powers.
>>
>>Of course, neither did Nathan Summers.
>>
>Of course he did.  He could make TK bubbles.  Claremont said so!

I must have missed this.  When did Claremont say this?

It seems to me that if you're telekinetic, making protective TK bubbles
would NOT be a natural instinctive action, as it seemed to be with
Nathan Summers (the REAL one, who I still disbelieve is Cable!)

-- 
"Dog bites man--that's not a story.  Man bites dog--*that's* a story.  And
if the dog and the man slug it out for six issues, and then Wolverine shows
up for a guest appearance, and the dog turns out to be a mutant, that's a
*Marvel* story!"			-Marvel Editorial Handbook
Organization: Junior, Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA