Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
> --- 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.

Even worse: the questions indicate that he guessed at the meaning of the
phrase, and guessed wrong, and _should have_ requested a definition if
he wasn't doing so by asking "What is a work for hire?" See previous
posting on UK vs. US "hire."
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...