A thank you note from Goncalo, on Moore's site ...

[Redblossom]

it is totally clear and simple, I offered my interpretation

Why would your interpretation to something totally clear be necessary?

Because it is OBVIOUS to all apart from minds like yours, it reallt is very very very simple, you do not have to convolute it and if you try you fail as you make yourself look foolish, but do carry on

[ferryman]

Because it is OBVIOUS to all apart from minds like yours, it reallt is very very very simple, you do not have to convolute it and if you try you fail as you make yourself look foolish, but do carry on

That which is obvious does not require interpretation.

It is, well, obvious ...

[AnneGuedes]

AND is followed by:

However freedom of expression is not an unlimited right. When the Portuguese................................................

Moustache what are you suggesting here ? That I didn't send the complete article the main errors in the google translation of which I corrected rapidly ?
From another source
A Constituição da República portuguesa, de 1976, prevê a liberdade de expressão
em seu artigo 37º, nos seguintes termos:
1. Todos têm o direito de exprimir e divulgar livremente o seu pensamento pela palavra, pe
la imagem ou por qualquer outro meio, bem como o direito de informar, de se informar e de ser informados, sem impedimentos nem discriminações.
2. O exercício destes direitos não pode ser impedido ou limitado por qualquer tipo ou forma de censura.
3. As infracções cometidas no exercício destes direitos ficam submetidas aos princípios gerais de direito criminal ou do ilícito de mera ordenação social, sendo a sua apreciação respectivamente da competência dos tribunais judiciais ou de entidade administrativa
independente, nos termos da lei.
4. A todas as pessoas, singulares ou colectivas, é assegurado, em condições de igualdade e
eficácia, o direito de resposta e de rectificação, bem como o direito a indemnização pelos danos sofridos.
http://www.fd.uc.pt/igc/pdf/papers/RaisaDuarteSilvaRibeiro.pdf

[Redblossom]

That which is obvious does not require interpretation.

It is, well, obvious ...

The only person wanting sinister interpretations is you

Twisting and misrepresenting simple things for your agenda is a speciality, a very poor one though, with nil results to date, otherwise if you had results you wouldnt  be peddling  the same oldarguments time  and time again hoping to get a different result, all your threads tryng to discredit mrs fenn the dogs mr grime etc have all been spectacular failures, granted though this is a  new one,  tryng continually to be creative is a good thing though i guess and god loves a trier
 

[AnneGuedes]

You're right, she is Mo Stache, it's typing automatism, the word being French.
btw she could be "he", but as his/her name makes me stupidly think of Mr Amaral ex..., I tend to imagine Mo Stache is "she".

[sadie]

I'd not noticed this before:

Thank You Note
4 Dec 2011
Dear friends,

My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I am a former Criminal Investigation Coordinator, and the author of the book “Maddie – The Truth about the Lie”, written with the purpose of contributing to the discovery of material truth and the performance of justice, and under the perspective of reinstating my reputation that was blackened in public.

This book was written under the use of my full rights, and stands as a technical opinion that is based on facts, indications and events that are part of the process that underlies the investigation into the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

In September this year, an injunction was granted without previously hearing the defendant, based on lies and abusive interpretations of the intentions that were behind the creation of said book.

In order to render the defence of my rights more difficult, a request for damages worth 1.200.000 euros was filed, followed by the arrest of rights and goods.

The strategy of those who continue to dirty us was simple: the man is silenced, and the path to influence attitudes and behaviours, through the manipulation of public opinion at their pleasure, is opened. A campaign to discredit and to misinform is under way, at the same time as they try to asphyxiate us financially, in order to win the case without having to go to trial.

We will not conform to the limitation of our fundamental rights, through unconstitutional judicial decisions that put the responsible exercise of free expression at stake.

I thank all those who over the last couple of years have supported me, and who have signed the public petitions over the last days, as well as those who, through financial effort towards the recently created fund and a demonstration of solidarity, have reinforced my belief in the defence of values that should shape modern and democratic societies, freedom of expression, the discovery of the truth and the performance of justice.

As far as I’m concerned, I commit myself to embody the hopes of all of you, and not to give up, despite the survival of my own family being at stake, but the defence of those values and principles is essential.

To all, a heartfelt thank you.

Portimão, 2009-12-03

Gonçalo Amaral


What is meant by the part I underline?

Sounds a bit sinister to me ...

Where has the underlining Gone?  Whooshed , removed?  Why?

Or am I blind?  

Or not understanding something?

 I think that quite possibly there never was an underlining but italicised font.  My mistake (and seemingly the mistake of the OP?)  Soz