--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:

> Here's the proof that it was "Barry" who didn't know what "work for
> hire" means. Given the date of my posting (and I looked at every one of
> mine since Tuesday to find it), anyone can easily visit the yahoo groups
> page and find the full text of his posting:

> > Subject: Re: adobe/o'reillly publishing?
> > Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:00:56 -0400
> > From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> > Reply-To: qalam@yahoogroups.com
> > To: qalam@yahoogroups.com
> > References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14
> >
> >
> > i18n@... wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to read farther than p. iv to know for your

very own

> > > > self. It's a "work for hire."
> > >
> > > What is a work for hire? Each section is hired by you? The book

itself

> > > is hired by OUP?

It would be better manners if, when about to criticise a statement
that seems ludicrous, one considered alternative interpretations. If
that's your proof, all I can say is 'Case dismissed. An action for
frivolous prosecution would appear to be in order.' The last two
questions tell you that a definition was not being sought.

Richard.