Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Said individual is plenty familiar with "work for hire", and some of the
> > subtleties involve in it - which you seem not to be, feeling "work for
> > hire" and a copyright notation in a book are sufficient information
> > about the state of a series of contracts regarding intellectual property
> > to make a financial decision on. Sheesh.
> Any such decisions are your pipe dream, not mine.

Not my dream, pipe or otherwise. I am not the one who as or ever had any
intellectual property rights in the material being discussed. I have no
contracts or other relationship with you or OUP. That is material
associated with *you* that we are discussing.

> > Instead of putting words in my mouth about not being familiar with a
> > term, be a man and quote me on it.
> I delete postings after I read them.

Probably so you don't have to actually look back and follow a thread.
That says a lot about you man, thanks for sharing that tidbit too. We
will remember whenever you claim to be concerned about what someone said
more then one post ago.

Print out and post near your monitor that I will remind you relentlessly
that when you fling about information from a thread that doesn't make
much sense except if you are stuck somewhere between what you thought
you read and making it up completely based on some preconceived
emotional political activism crusade.

> If it wasn't you who said he didn't know what it meant, who was it?

It was you dreaming. Only you and I discussed it.