Kevin_Lowe said:
I'm guessing English is your second language, in which case fair enough. Normally we'd say "I will never again post elsewhere" to indicate that we have done so in the past but will not do so in the future. "I will never post elsewhere" would more normally be used to state that we have never done so in the past and will not do so in the future.
English for me is a second language, or could be the third.
I don’t know if what you say on this use of “will” of English language is true. I know there is a use of “would” for actions occurring habitually, in some way expected to occur in the past and in the present, but I didn’t know of a possible use of “will” to indicate something which belongs only to the
past and not related to the present. I know “will” is a future tense (by my knowledge) and I think in the terms by which in Italian a future tense only relates to what will happen in the future. A past tense can never express a relation with anything that took place in the past. “I will never go to Rome” doesn’t mean “I have never been in Rome”. There is no relation between the two statements.
Maybe what you say of English is true, but by now I believe there are specific reasons to distrust grammar lectures performed by Kevin Lowe, you’ll understand the reason reading below.
My positions on most topics of the Kevin question list are known already, by the readers of PMF with whom I discussed. I’ll probably comment again on these points, but just one thing to be made clear: I do not consider Kevin Lowe as an interlocutor, and I won’t engage in a discussion with him, I think it would be worthless until he lacks what I feel as a minimum standard.
Kevin Lowe, in particular I would consider you as a potential interlocutor only if you dismiss this previous position of yours, concerning the writing by Raffaele Sollecito:
Kevin_Lowe said:
I think that claiming that he was definitely claiming to have touched Meredith's hand with the knife is well beyond what can be supported.
Perhaps I've encountered more university student writing than you have? That sort of mangled writing is all too common amongst people that age, even those who have made it into tertiary education.
In any case, reality is not decided by opinion poll and my opinion is not up for a vote by forum participants. I haven't seen a single decent argument for assuming Raffaele meant Meredith except "that's the last pronoun he used, so if he was writing correctly that's what he had to have meant". Knowing that Raffaele couldn't write correctly if his life depended on it, I favour the interpretation of his ambiguous text that actually makes some sense.
I think a discussion with me is worth only in case are able to conclude, after reading the text, that “Meredith” is the only possible meaning and the text is univocal, with no possibility of a writer’s mistake between the “Amanda” and “Meredith”, independently from the writing skills of the author. You ought to draw the conclusion that there is no possibility the author meant “Amanda” in the aforementioned text. I have compelling arguments to support this but I am not providing them here, you have to be able to see them alone and decide by yourself there is an unequivocal answer.
This is a minimum requirement for me to consider it worth to exchange an opinion with you.
I also thinlk yous hould apologize - to Meredith's memory - for having denied the offence included in Sollecito's writing.
If you are not able to state this certainty that Raffaele didn't make any confusion in the text, that the match to the pronoun in the sentence is unequivocal (as it would be even if it was any other wrong pronoun in the same sentence), and that the text cannot be interpreted as anything different than the lie of Raffaele pricking Meredith's hand as we know, in that case, I think, discussing and putting questions to me would be worthless, also because you wouldn’t understand the answers.
I want to make clear: you show a capability of fair and rational assessment on several general topics, so I don't believe you're dull, but it seems to me this happens only on topics where you don’t invest, ideologically or emotionally or in other way. Anywhere you invested your logic, you seem to start following a kind of faith or a need to satisfy an unconscious ego so that you appear to me totally blinded to the shades and implications of reality, maybe by your very axioms. But so that you start focusing only ona a personal scope of your own, so to perceive - or fail to perceive - aspects of reality and build something crooked to serve a belief. You don't lack a dialectic or rethoric capability, you lack a kind of humilty, which undermines the meaning of discussion.
*
Readers here know my opinion on the case is that of a “guilter”, so not in the stream of most of this forum. I am not fit in most conversations also because, to me, the basic facts of the case appear different, and maybe also the basic conditions for the reasoning, I say this because I notice most my objections would be at the root level about the ground on which reasoning is built. And maybe would follow different method, including also different facts.
Halkides and RoseMontague have addressed topics about which we will be talking.
the black guy did it. 
