Thai academic opposes military coup | 30.11.05

But perhaps not rumors about one.

From Matichon, November 27, 2005:

อจ.มธ.ปูดทหารปรึกษา “ปฏิวัติ”

ที่มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ ในประชุมเชิงปฏิบัติการ “ประสบการณ์เยอรมนี ญี่ปุ่น และไทย สันติภาพ สงครามและการฟื้นฟู บทเรียนจากอดีตสู่การแสวงหาแนวทางในปัจจุบัน” นายกิตติศักดิ์ ปรกติ อาจารย์ประจำคณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ กล่าวตอนหนึ่งถึงกรณีที่มีกระแสข่าวทหารบางส่วนเริ่มมีแนวคิดปฏิวัติว่า มีขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวรัฐประหารอยู่เป็นระยะ โดยเฉพาะทหารที่ไม่ชอบใจรัฐบาล มีหลายครั้งที่ทหารเหล่านั้นมาหารือขอคำปรึกษาทางด้านกฎหมายกับอาจารย์ในคณะนิติศาสตร์ของมหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ รวมทั้งมหาวิทยาลัยต่างๆ เพื่อขอคำแนะนำว่าจะทำรัฐประหารยึดอำนาจได้อย่างไรบ้าง ไม่มีใครเห็นด้วยกับการกระทำเช่นนั้น

Thammasat professor reveals military consults [him] about “coup” [literally “revolution” but customarily “coup d’état”, as Thailand has never witnessed a real revolution, only military coups billed as such –ed.]

In a conference at Thammasat University titled “German, Japanese, and Thai experiences: Peace, War, and Reconstruction, Lessons from the past for seeking ways in the present”, Mr. Kittisak Prokati, professor at Thammasat University’s faculty of law, at one point discussed reports about parts of the military beginning to think about a coup d’état that there are occasionally coup movements, especially [by] military officers who are not satisfied with the government. Many times those officers came to consult and ask for legal advice from professors at Thamasat’s faculty of law, as well as those of other universities, in order to ask for advice as to how to conduct a coup d’état. Nobody agrees with that course of action.

[Translated by yours truly]

Leave it to Supreme Commander Gen. Ruengroj Mahasaranond to rebut that idiocy (Matichon, November 29):

“คิดอย่างนี้ประสาทแล้ว ถ้าใครจะทำการปฏิวัติคงจะไม่มานั่งปรึกษากันหรอก ไม่เข้าท่า เรื่องนี้ผมสามารถยืนยันได้เลยว่า เรื่องการปฏิวัติโดยทหารจะไม่มีอย่างแน่นอน ที่พูดกันไปเอามาจากไหนกันก็ไม่รู้”

“It’s deranged to think like this. If one wanted to stage a coup, they wouldn’t be sitting around consulting [professors]. This I can assure, there will certainly be no coup by the military. Where do people come up with this sort of talk?”

In the democracy-loving anti-Thaksin universe, that’s where.

But even the good professor is (now) denying he’s the source (same article, right after the general’s quote):

“กิตติศักดิ์”แจงข่าวคลาดเคลื่อน

ขณะที่นายกิตติศักดิ์ ปรกติ ชี้แจงว่า ข่าวที่ลงคลาดเคลื่อนจากความเป็นจริงเรื่องเกิดขึ้นเพราะมีผู้สื่อข่าวคนหนึ่งมาถามว่า เห็นด้วยหรือไม่ที่จะมีการถวายพระราชอำนาจคืน ได้ตอบไปว่าไม่เห็นด้วยเพราะไม่เป็นไปตามรัฐธรรมนูญ ซึ่งผู้สื่อข่าวคนดังกล่าวก็ถามอีกว่า ถ้ามีการล้มล้างรัฐบาลเห็นด้วยหรือไม่ ได้ตอบไปว่า ถ้าไม่เห็นด้วยกับรัฐบาล ก็ต้องดำเนินการตามรัฐธรรมนูญ เพราะการใช้กำลังล้มล้างรัฐบาลเป็นการกระทำที่ผิดกฎหมาย

นายกิตติศักดิ์กล่าวว่า ผู้สื่อข่าวคนดังกล่าวถามด้วยว่า มีคนมาถามเห็นด้วยกับการล้มล้างรัฐบาลหรือไม่ ได้ตอบไปว่า มีซึ่งคนถามมีทั้งพลเรือน ตำรวจ ทหาร แต่เป็นการถามเพียงความเห็นว่า เห็นด้วยหรือไม่ ซึ่งได้ตอบไปว่า ไม่เห็นด้วยและคิดว่า ไม่มีนักวิชาการคนไหนเห็นด้วย มิได้หมายความว่า เป็นการปรึกษาหารือว่าจะล้มล้างรัฐบาล

Kittisak explains that news was inaccurate

Meanwhile, Mr. Kittisak Prokati explains that the news report differed from the facts because there was a reporter who asked whether he agreed with returning the power to the monarchy, to which he replied no because it wouldn’t be according to the constitution. The same reporter asked again whether he agreed with toppling the government, to which he replied that if one disagrees with the government, one has to proceed according to the constitution. To use force to topple the government is illegal.

Mr. Kittasak then said the same reporter asked whether there were people who asked whether the disagreed with toppling the government, to which he replied the inquirers included civilians, police officers, and servicemen, but was only a question whether or not he agrees. He had replied that he didn’t agree and didn’t think any academic would. That does not mean that it was a consultation about toppling the government.

Thai reporters do twist quotes, stories, and realities from black to white on a regular basis, but so do Thai professors. Between them, it’s really tough to choose. Much more certain, however, is that all this coup talk is much ado about opportunistic rumor-mongering. That is why I tend not to comment on, and even not to follow, the “news” buzz of the day.

update Nine months later, all the winks and nods have finally paid off. Does the “academic” still maintain his principled stance? Nothing changes minds like success.

10:16 ▪ politics, media

« Sondhi Limthongkul in The Nation | Main | Recent comments page »

ติ ชม ผสมโรง [16]

1

Leonidas / Germany 30.11.05

You wrote:
Thai reporters do twist quotes, stories, and realities from black to white on a regular basis, but so do Thai professors. Between them, it’s really tough to choose.

Reporters and academics have a difficult job in Thailand. You know that. And if they make some mistakes, I’ll never mind.

But if you don’t know the real bad situation of this honest people look at Reportes without Borders then you will know.

2

JW 30.11.05

For the moment, I think I will give the good professor the benefit of the doubt (having had my words twisted by a journalist once before, I am not a huge fan of them, Post Staffer excluded)

If you look at the paraphrasing of Kittisak words in Matichon, he is talking generally and not a specific coup or specific instance. He doesn’t even say that anyone had come to him or anyone else recently about a coup that is taking place, he is just saying that generally (which I assume refers to the past) that the military do seek legal advice.

Surely, the question the journalist would want to ask next is ‘Are you aware of any military officer coming to legal academic about legal advice in regards to staging a coup at the present time?’

Now, to refute the idea that in the the 17 (or was it 19 ?) odd coups in Thailand that no military officer has ever consulted a legal academic, I think would be hard. Pridi, a lawyer was involved in the coup and drafting the constitution for the 1932 coup. Given that there needs to be some consitution put in place after a coup, it is certainly plausible that some consultations about the legal structure\constitution that will exist after the coup will actually take place before the coup (I doubt there would be long and lengthy consultations and there would be much advance notice).

The good professor should have clarified any answer he gave by giving specific historical examples and saying that he was not aware of any current discussions (he might have done this, but the journalist left this part out). Given his clear denial, me think that we need to hear from someone else who heard Kittisak speak at the conference to see if the lawyer was twisting the words.

3

post staffer 30.11.05

Naew Na ran something similar the other day. I left the link somewhere below, about 100 pages ago. My link is to MThai, which ran the story, and where you can find plenty of reader comment as well.

นักวิชาการปูด ทหารดอดหารือปฏิวัติ ยึดอำนาจทักษิณ

เหตุความขัดแย้งวุ่นวายหลายอย่างสะสมมานานภายในบ้านเมือง ที่ปะทุความรุนแรงขึ้นมากระทั่ง เกิดกระแสข่าวลืออาจมีการปฏิวัติยึดอำนาจของทหารในช่วงสัปดาห์ที่ผ่านมา ซึ่งแม้ว่ากองทัพและ รัฐบาลจะยืนยันอย่างหนักแน่นว่า จะไม่มีการเกิดเหตุดังกล่าวอย่างแน่นอน แต่ฝ่ายนักวิชาการก็ได้ ยืนยันถึงเรื่องดังกล่าวว่า มีนายทหารกลุ่มหนึ่งมาขอคำปรึกษาจากฝ่ายนักวิชาการ เพื่อก่อเหตุดังกล่าวจริง

นายกิตติศักดิ์ยังกล่าวถึงกระแสข่าวการเคลื่อนไหวก่อรัฐประหารเพื่อล้มล้างรัฐบาลว่า มี ขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวในเรื่องดังกล่าวอยู่จริง โดยเฉพาะทหารที่ไม่ชอบใจรัฐบาล มีหลายครั้งที่ ทหารเหล่านั้นมาหารือกับเพื่อนอาจารย์ในคณะนิติศาสตร์ของมหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ รวมทั้ง มหาวิทยาลัยต่างๆ เพื่อขอความเห็นและปรึกษาว่า จะอย่างไรที่จะไม่ให้ประชาชนลุกฮือ หากมี การก่อรัฐประหารยึดอำนาจรัฐบาล แต่ฝ่ายนักวิชาการก็ไม่มีใครเห็นด้วยกับเรื่องดังกล่าว จึงแนะ นำให้หยุดเคลื่อนไหว อย่างไรก็ตาม ทราบว่ายังมีการพูดคุยและเคลื่อนไหวในเรื่องนี้อย่างต่อเนื่อง

As I said earlier, according to Kittisak, the academics tell the soldiers that the public is not willing to stomach an insurrection, so presumably they go away downcast and disappointed. Sounds like nonsense to me, as I thought the military was unhappy mainly with Sonthi, not Thaksin.

http://webboard.mthai.com/5/2005-11-27/170474.html

4

post staffer 30.11.05

Like Tom, I like politicians who are smart enough to turn to science to back their claims. Today, PM Thaksin has turned to Google Earth to back his assertions that Lumpini Park can hold only 7000 people - a far cry from the tens of thousands the Thai media says have been turning up to watch Saint Sonthi.

This link to the Manager contains a great satellite shot of the park, courtesy of Google Earth.

Who cares if a mere pic from Google Earth proves nothing about the park’s holding capacity? It looks scientific, doesn’t it; persuasive enough to get on to the front page.

And the pic actually does make the park look rather small.

http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000165102

5

Tom Vamvanij 30.11.05

Post Staffer:

Yes, the picture is good, but there is no story. The only part that mentions “Google Earth” is that highly-misleading caption, which’s predictably sparked furor from some of the most conceited morons I’ve ever witnessed (and that’s saying something).

Here’s a better report.

If you don’t mind, let’s wait to discuss this in a proper post.

6

poststaffer 30.11.05

Sure, Tom. Samak said something similar yesterday, and I have posted on that already.

In the meantime, I would like to bring readers’ attention to something else which has been bugging me. Off-topic, in that it is unrelated to Sonthi, but on-topic in that one of this blog’s main missions has been to expose cant and hypocrisy in the Thai media, wherever it turns up.

I refer to crime reporters calling on the national police chief to revoke a new rule limiting press access to crime suspects and victims which was introduced last week.

The background, according to a Post story from the other day:

—The rule, which greatly upset the Crime Reporters and Photographers Association, was announced on Nov 16 to bar police from bringing suspects, criminals, and youth victims to press conferences in order to protect their rights to privacy.

Reporters are now banned from taking their photographs and only top senior police officers are now allowed to give interviews. The rule, which also prohibits the re-enactment of crime, can now only be selectively lifted if the case is seen to benefit the public

—

The rules change the way police treat suspects and victims in relation to the media, affording them more protection from publicity. It also brings suspects’ and victims’ rights more in line with accepted practice overseas.

But never mind the West. The changes are nothing less than what the constitution itself demands, according to the police chief.

In other words, the status quo where police parade suspects before the media is illegal.

So why is the media - normally the first to defend the charter from perceived attacks by the state - so upset about this particular change?

Self-interest, of course! You know the pics we are talking about - forlorn looking suspects sitting around a big table at police HQ with their tools of trade, panoply of weapons, drugs or whatever.

Even more dramatic are those pics that bring victim and accused together, where the victim obligingly points an angry finger at the alleged perpetrator.

And most exciting of all, if you’re a crime photographer, is where police, the accused, victim and onlookers all get together - a full cast, if you like - to stage a crime enactment.

Dramatic pics, which pull in viewers and sell newspapers. Never mind that all these arranged appearances and re-enactments are contrived: they give voyeurs a look at the heinous perpetrator of this or that foul deed, long before a jury has had a chance to convict him, or even before he has appeared in court.

They also save time for lazy crime photographers and reporters, who might otherwise - perish the thought - have to cover news properly, by turning up to crime scenes on time.

Change the rules, and a good little earner hits the dust. But rather than admit that flithy lucre is the real motive, the Crime Reporters and Photographers Association have come up with this crafty and lofty-sounding spin:

—

Voraphot Sida, a crime reporter for the mass circulation Thai Rath newspaper, is worried that the new rule would only lead to one-sided information being fed by police if damaged parties and suspects were not allowed to give interviews.

‘It would be more like publicising police work, and not giving news as defined by journalists,’ he said

—
What crock! K Voraphot seems to have forgotten that (even in Thailand) crime suspects are represented by lawyers, who are more than happy to put their client’s ‘side of the story’.

Where I come from, once a suspect has been arrested, journalists do not get access to that person, because he is now part of the justice system, which must run its course.

The next we see of him is when he makes his first court appearance, which is often the next day.

If the suspect was released on bail, photographers can get a pic outside court; if he spent the night in the police cells, reporters still get the chance to talk to his lawyer, or can hear from him in court, so they are still getting ‘both sides of the story’.

I suspect the sub-text here is that under Thailand’s ropy justice system, journalists can never be sure how fairly police have treated a suspect - they may coerce him into making a confession - but it’s still not enough to justify such blatant infringement of a suspect’s rights…you know, that old supposition under law that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

The journalists complain ‘balanced’ coverage is at risk if they cannot see the suspect on parade. Yet just how often do police parade suspects who insist on their innocence rather than admit their guilt?

I haven’t made a study of these things, but I would venture to say: rarely, if ever. The whole point of these arranged appearances (or so I have always thought) is to get suspects to admit their guilt before the cameras - just in case they change their minds later.

What about the suspect’s right not to incriminate himself? For that matter, what about a victim’s right to remain anonymous, which can be difficult in cases where he or she is related to the accused, whom poice have put on display?

Never thought I’d commend a human rights group on these pages, but I will here. The Union for Civil Liberty backs the police changes.

‘Police are doing the right thing. Limiting media access to crime suspects and victims is the best way to protect them from unfair public criticism and condemnation,’ said Pairoj Polphet, its secretary-general.

Mr Pairoj also lauded the police for scrapping the re-enactments of crimes, which usually ended up in violence with angry observers and the crime victims’ relatives attacking the suspects.

–

Hear, hear! In one recent case, if I recall correctly, police attempted to stage a re-enactment of a brutal assault, but had to retreat on both occasions after angry onlookers went on the attack.

In the same case, I think, angry crowds attacked a man whom they thought was the accused, but who turned out to be the victim’s father.

And just who tips off these angry villagers about when and where re-enactments will take place?

Despite all the bleating from crime photographers, I suspect the changes still do not go far enough. Re-enactments can still be held in certain cases; police will still hold their ‘news briefings’, though appearances by suspects will be limited.

—

‘We’ve long allowed press conferences with suspects and victims present, but from now on we’ll limit the practice. [Crime scene] re-enactments will be held only for important cases,’ said national police chief General Kowit Wattana.

—

We should not forget, though, that people’s rights under the constitution are at stake. Far more important than catering to shameless media self-interest, right?

—

Royal Thai Police spokesman Lt-General Achirawit Suphanphesat said publishing photographs of crime suspects and victims was in violation of their rights according to the constitution’s articles 33 and 34.

—

http://www.bangkokpost.com/291105_News/29Nov2005_news66.php

http://202.60.196.117/breaking/read.php?lang=en&newsid=96120

7

Tom Vamvanij 30.11.05

Leonidas:

But if you don’t know the real bad situation of this honest people look at Reportes without Borders then you will know.

I think it’s you, Leonidas, who doesn’t know the real situation regarding these dishonest people. I’ve written quite a bit about that, though not nearly enough. See these posts for example:

• Krugman in Bangkok
• Veera Prateepchaikul revisited
• Thirayuth Boonmee

If you can read Thai, see these also (these articles are still informative, although they’ve been scrapped from my book project):

• จับบุชได้เอ็นจีโอ
• ประวัติศาสตร์จะไม่ซ้ำ

And if you can’t read Thai, then you should be careful not to rush to judgement based on what you learn only second-, third-, or fourth-hand, shouldn’t you? I’m saying this constructively, as you’ve already shown yourself to be open to contrary facts and arguments by reading this blog.

Post staffer:

JW was all over the police’s new, and certainly improved, rules yesterday.

8

poststaffer 30.11.05

I am embarrassed to admit that I realised only today that Bangkok Pundit and JW are one and the same.

I have to register over there to get speaking rights. As I have said previously, these two blogs should really link to each other more often…I thought that is what bloggers were supposed to do.

9

JW 1.12.05

Apologies to Tom for the sidetrack.

I have to register over there to get speaking rights. As I have said previously, these two blogs should really link to each other more often…I thought that is what bloggers were supposed to do.

Umm… Ok, I didn’t realise that. I have now fixed it to allow anonymous comments. Hopefully, Manager readers won’t find me and start spamming me!

I can’t speak for Tom (although he has already linked to my blog in his comment above), but some of my more recent posts do link to Tom. Until recently it would be very difficult to link to anyone as there are very few (if any) Thai blogs which look at Thai politics.

On my blog, I have replied to your previous comment in a different thread with a post entitled About this Blog. It is probably best we discuss any points or suggestions your have about my blog in the comment sections there. I didn’t take any offence to your previous comments so don’t worry about not realizing that I, JW, and BangkokPundit are one the same.

Finally, Post Staffer, I do mean this nicely. I would suggest you start up your own blog. It is free to do so with Blogspot and Blogger. This is not to say you shouldn’t comment here, but dare I say there is a temptation to post off-topic and go on a tangent (yes, the irony of me going off-topic to tell you not to go off-topic hasn’t escaped me). The problem with going off-topic is that it does take the whole thread off-topic. Yes, the purpose of this blog is looking at the Thai media in general, but that is not the purpose of each individual thread. While it is sometimes a fine line on what is off-topic in regards to an individual thread, I do think that some of your comments, particularly in this thread, do go off-topic. Ultimately, it is Tom’s website and up to him to decide and I don’t consider myself the authority on what is or is not off-topic. The above is just my opinion.

I found I was starting to go off-topic and thought it was time to restart my blog. There are advantages to having your own blog as well as it gives you greater flexibility with images and editing your comments etc. I enjoy reading some of the articles you find as many of them I would never have found unless you had linked to them, but if the articles are off-topic then it is probably better to post them to your own blog. You can then post to your heart’s content.

One more thing, you almost had it the other day when you were wanting to quote someone (I think me). As I have also stared mystified at the screen wondering why some quotes wouldn’t work I thought I would point out the following. When quoting text, the b in “Bq.” must not be capitalised (ie if copying and pasting from MS Word, MS Word might have automatically capitalised the “B”, you must make change the “B” it make it lowercase: “b”). You must also have make sure there is a space between the “.” and the first letter of the first word you are quoting. For example, typing “bq.john” won’t work as there is no space between the “.” and the “j” in “john”, but if I remove the space AND put it on a new line I get

john

On linking to articles, you need to put quotes around the word you want to create a link and there should NOT be a space between the colon and the start of the URL. For example “Google”: http://www.google.com doesn’t work. If I removed the space it would look like Google. If you are copying and pasting from MS Word as well, make sure MS Word hasn’t converted the straight quotes to smart quotes. I suggest you change the auto-correct options in MS Word which can be done by going to
“Tools, Auto-Correct Options, Auto-Format as you Type” and then unchecking the box labeled “replace as you type smart quotes with straight quotes”.

End of this friendly public service announcement.

10

Tom Vamvanij 1.12.05

JW:

Many thanks for your friendly public service announcement. This sort of sidetrack is always encouraged.

PS. You have no excuse not to mark up your comments now, Post Staffer. Trust us, it’s a lot easier than doing what you’ve been doing.

11

post staffer 1.12.05

JW, you are so sweet! That kind of advice is just what a computer idiot like me needs.

Straight quotes…I assume they are ‘these’ ones, right? I am forever taking out the quotes that like like “this” from text because they look so ugly when they turn up in the blog.

However, being the fool on the computer that I am, I have a couple more questions, if you don’t mind.

On quotes, you tell me I should leave a space between the dot in bq. and the first letter of the next word (got that); but then you also tell me to put it on a new line (put what on a new line?)

Tom’s example seems to keep the bq. and the first word on the same line:

Mauris venenatis. Donec pulvinar turpis vitae pede. Fusce eget purus non tortor hendrerit aliquet. Quisque enim. Nullam non est eget magna mollis porttitor.

Finally, if I am linking to an article, do I put straight quotes or double quotes around the world that I want to invest with this magical link quality (hyperlink, to use the jargon)?

Your example “Google” uses double quotes (which I think you have referred to above as smart quotes).

The pair of you have been so patient with me, tolerating my ugly URLs and lumpy quotes over the last few months…thank you.

As for your advice on blogging, you are quite right, some of my posts are shamefully off-topic, and do read like blogs within someone else’s blog. One reason I have not gone elsewhere is that this blog looks so beautiful.

Tom is also a wonderful writer, but his blog - despite getting a prominent ranking on Google searches, as you say - is jut not getting the attention it deserves.

I don’t know why the blogging community here is so slow to develop. Judging by the huge numbers who visit thaivisa.com, people seem to prefer contributing to forums (I hate the word ‘fora’, sorry).

That’s a shame, because a blog can have so much more impact, given the fact the author can post pics, maps, and link to what people are saying as well. It carries his stamp as a writer much more authoritatively than does a post in a mere forum, where you are but one of a thousand voices, and it is hard to stand out.

Yes, you are right, I should start my own, especially as I am forever trawling the net for stuff to read. Bloggers can make a big impact in their own right, but bloggers who are also journalists (like that NZ guy Russell Brown I mentioned above), even moreso.

Unfair, perhaps, but we know a few tricks of the trade which other people don’t; and apart from that, most people - bloggers or not - can’t write!

That said, I suspect I won’t take that step any time soon, as I have too many books sitting here waiting to be read, which while over the last few weeks of contributing to Tom’s blog on the Thaksin/Sonthi clash I have neglected.

12

post staffer 1.12.05

Correcton: I am forever taking out the quotes that like like “this”

Make that first ‘like’ a ‘look’, please.

Tom, you are right, I have no excuse. But I shall wait for JW to answer my questions first.

13

Tom Vamvanij 1.12.05

Post Staffer:

On quotes, you tell me I should leave a space between the dot in bq. and the first letter of the next word (got that); but then you also tell me to put it on a new line (put what on a new line?)

Put the bq. and the rest of the block in a new paragraph, which means pressing enter twice.

Note that you need an extra period (bq..) to quote multiple paragraphs. (See demo.)

Finally, if I am linking to an article, do I put straight quotes or double quotes around the world that I want to invest with this magical link quality (hyperlink, to use the jargon)?

Your example “Google” uses double quotes (which I think you have referred to above as smart quotes).

Use straight double quotes, as in "Google":google.com (which gives you Google). Note that you don’t need to put in the http://, although it’ll cause no harm either.

The confusion arises from the code parser’s automatically turning staight quotes into curly (smart) quotes when they’re not being used to make hyperlinks. So "this quote" will look like “this quote”, which is actually quite nice.

Hope that’s clear.

14

JW 1.12.05

but if I remove the space AND put it on a new line

(put what on a new line?)

In regards to the “new line” perhaps I should have been clearer, you seem to have it above anyway, but what I meant by a new line is that you need to start a new paragraph BEFORE typing “bq.” . See even if I randomly start typing bq. john in the middle of a sentence without putting it on a new line/starting a new paragraph it won’t quote john as I need to bq. john on a different line to the text I have typed previously (my brain is telling me that I what I have said sounds convoluted, but I think you get the picture).

Yes, straight quotes and double quotes are the same - I am just using the MS Word terminology. Straight quotes are probably what you will see on a typewriter. Smart quotes are what happens when you use the double quotation marks here on Tom’s blog (they become curved inwards) when you are not using a link. Textile automatically turns straight quotes into smart quotes (if you check the Auto-correct options in MS Word you will see more clearly what I mean).

This doesn’t matter,¹ you just need to make sure there is no space between the colon and the beginning of the URL, and presto you have a hyperlink.

An example will probably be much easier to understand

‘Google’: http://www.google.com also doesn’t work as it is single quotes.

“Google”: http://www.google.com doesn’t work as there is a space between the colon and the beginning of the URL (you will know there is a space when viewing on preview if suddenly the words you have within double quotation marks are on on line and the URL is on the next line).

If I remove the space, Google

¹ The fact that Textile automatically turns straight quotes into smart quotes, even on preview, can create a slight problem if you have left a space between the colon and the beginning of the URL. Spotting the mistake on preview means you will have to (1) remove the space, but also (2) replace the smart quotes with straight quotes and then preview again.

Textile help page on links

15

post staffer 1.12.05

Well, I tried it out, and while I seem to be able to do the quotes OK, creating a hyperlink still gives me trouble, even though I am using straight double quotes, and leaving no space.

This is what I want to post. I want the word ‘‘music’’ to appear as a hyperlink. Here goes…

–

Thank you, folks. You explain very clearly, JW. You should be a journalist!

Today I am feeling stressed, so I am playing ธีร์ ไชยเดช on the com in the hope he will - to borrow a young’s friend’s terminology - chill me out.

Yes, damnit, I need to start a blog. The world needs to know the beauty this man’s ”music”:http://imusic.teenee.com/lyricinartist.php?artistid=36

Take a look at this:

มากไปหรือเปล่า
Artist: ธีร์ ไชยเดช
Album: After Brake
Label: Bakery Music

อาจจะมีเพียงแค่ครั้งเดียวที่เธอพอใจ ที่ฉันให้เธอเลิกรักเริ่มต้นใหม่
แต่ฉันคงไม่ใช่ ที่เธอเคยสนใจ ไม่ฃ้ำรอยแผลใจกันอีกที
แต่ไม่มีเพียงสักครั้งเดียวที่จะทำใจ ที่จะให้ฉันเลิกรักเริ่มต้นใหม่
ฉันคงไม่ใช่ แต่ฉันยังสนใจ จะฃ้ำรอยแผลใจไปนานๆ
อยากจะรอเธออย่างนี้ จะไม่มีใครสักคน ปล่อยให้ใจมันสับสนและเดียวดาย
อยากจะรักอยู่อย่างนี้ จะไม่มีใครเคียงกาย จะรอจนสุดท้ายของหายใจ
มากไปหรือเปล่า เศร้าไปหรือไร ที่จะมัดตัวมัดใจไปจนตาย
อยากจะรอเธออย่างนี้ จะไม่มีใครสักคน ปล่อยให้ใจมันสับสนและเดียวดาย
อยากจะรักอยู่อย่างนี้ จะไม่มีใครเคียงกาย จะรอจนสุดท้ายของหายใจ
*มากไปหรือเปล่า เศร้าไปหรือไร ที่จะมัดตัวมัดใจไป
จนตาย*

Wonderful.

**

See what I mean? I don’t have to change the quotes before I hit submit, as they still appear as straight quotes, even though they become curly quotes in the preview box.

This is why people my age can’t stand computers.

16

post staffer 1.12.05

Let me try again.

This is a link on the southern violence which might interest you, JW.

Damnit, Janet, it works!

To get the hyperlink to appear, I have to hold down the caps key and hit the single/double quotes key at the same time, rather than pressing the quote key twice as I have been doing.