The qualification is fine with me.
It does voice one’s own opinion vs reading someone else’s mind.
Evidently some of the Rabid Clique RC’s are clueless about historical accuracy.
Evidently some of the Rabid Clique RC’s and many of the regular ones have little understanding of blasphemy and idolatry—particularly as it applies to Mary and their worshipped Institution.
Now if only the NYT would show the same evan handedness in an in depth report of the fallen angel alien UFO cattle mutilators.
We’d have a way to measure FR posters credulity.
But since when are slanderous opinions against an individual, named FReeper not considered "making it personal?" That is also against the rules.
Using the catch-all word "evidently" before a personal assault does not make it any less of a personal assault. It gives an opinion, just like saying...
"I think you're a rapist" gives an opinion, but one which we are cautioned not to repeat on the religion forum because it is "making it personal."
We haven't been given free rein on the forum to voice our opinions if they are "personally assaultive of another FReeper by name. Or else I could say, "It is my opinion that so-and-so is a lunatic and a felon."
That's not permitted. In fact, using "evidently" is even worse because it declares there is evidence to back up the personal slander.
Evidently, so-and-so is a murderer. Evidently, so-and-so eats children for breakfast. Evidently, so-and-so is insane.
This kind of strange leeway isn't going to work.