This document tests your browser’s ability to display certain space characters that have long been used in print typography and should also be used onscreen:
All these space characters, and curiously many more, are found in the Unicode “Separator, Space” category.
The excerpts below are from pp. 153–154 of David Ehrenstein’s Open Secret: Gay Hollywood, 1928–2000 (Perennial, 2000). Look for the nested quotation marks.
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
 “Let me read what it says in Selleck vs. Globe,” says Peyser, picking up a raft of documents. “ ‘Plaintiff, who is the father of celebrity Tom Selleck, brought an action against the publisher of a magazine featuring items about celebrities in the entertainment world. The article complained of was called “Tom Selleck’s Love Secrets by His Father,” and contained a number of statements attributed to Tom Selleck’s father which disparaged and downgraded the romantic character and capability of his son.’ I guess that’s in the eye of the disparager.... So, in other words, there’s a presumption of harm. You don’t have to prove the actual damages. ‘The content of the article, viewed in conjunction with the headline, clearly conveyed the impression that Mr. Selleck Sr. had granted an interview to the defendant in which he divulged for public dissemination matters which his son revealed to him in confidence. Although some of the statements attributed to Selleck Sr. were innocuous, some were not. For example, Selleck Jr. is “ill at ease with women,” and he’s “just not the person they think he should be.” ’ Well, what does that mean?
“ ‘Some readers could construe these matters to be of the type Tom Selleck would be expected not to divulge since they damage Tom Selleck’s image as “TV’s sexiest leading man,” ’ Peyser’s reading continues. “ ‘Since Selleck Sr. is not a celebrity who would benefit by publicity, the article was subject to the inference that he was paid to divulge his son’s secrets to the Globe, thereby attributing to Selleck Sr. a Judas-like betrayal of his son.’ ”
Posted: 2006.07.16
You were here: Homepage → Web standards: Bookmarks and test files