This is what I wrote: “Since you aren’t an evenhanded person when it comes to Catholic stuff, you think biased innunendo is “evenhanded.” You don’t have a clue.
This is my assessment of what Tsgt did with this article. He called it evenhanded. I said it was based on innuendo and not evenhanded. Based not on mindreading but on Tsgt’s record of posting these topics, I offered an explanation of why he might consider evenhanded what is not evenhanded.
That is not mindreading. That is fully within the FR rules for honest debate. I have been falsely accused of making it personal and mindreading. Tsgt has a record. We are free to have and express an opinion of a poster’s record. Part of critical, rational analysis in FR debate is to take into account the known and written biases of FR posters and the things they post. A given FR poster may not agree with my assessment of his record, but mindreading is not involved. Tsgt is equally free to express his or her opinion about my analysis based on my record.
Instead, I was accused of not discussing the merits when my first comment explicitly did discuss the merits and then Tsgt, instead of discussing the merits of my discussion of the merits, denounced me to you.
On this Religion Forum, telling another poster that he doesn't have a clue is not allowed because it is mind reading. It is flame baiting.
It would not have been "making it personal" if you had said "Evidently, you have no clue" because that would be expressing your mind, not reading his.