>>Inheritance (in the OOP sense) implies adherence to the Liskov Substitution Principle: that a child object can be used anywhere a parent object can be. A child object "is-a" parent object. I don't think this applies to your example.
>
>I don't know about this. It sounds more like encapsulation to me than inheritance.

I was going to say the same thing about your description! :)

>What I'm describing is behavior oriented. Whether or not the behavior is technically part of the child or parent, is, to me, irrelevant since the end result is the same.

I agree about that. But since the child can't be used wherever the parent can be used, it doesn't behave as a parent, hence fails the usual OOP definition of inheritance.

We in the OOP world are accused too often of disagreeing on basic definitions. I guess this is just an example. :)