> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article

Sure, but if they explicitly say they haven't read it, then make a wrong assumption about it, surely you can call them out

I don't see any rule supporting that conclusion.

That's not how it works, there's no rule stating you can't do it.

I don't see any rule allowing you to comment on whether any rules support a conclusion.

> It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :)

That lack of a written guideline does not make it okay or a good idea to comment on the article based only on the headline like the GP did. Fine if you're responding to other people on other topics, but positing a straw man argument against your imagination of the article's contents without reading it, the comment will be rightly downvoted.

The guideline you posted is not the inverse, the guideline you posted is suggesting it's best to not make assumptions. Posting about the article content without viewing it is making assumptions.

It's not insinuating if it was already stated by the person you're responding to. Notice also how in the example there is a question "Did you read the article?", in the comment you reply to there is also a question, but neither of them insinuates something (well, the second maybe insinuates that the user is doing something against the rules, but I can't really see any rule explicitly ruling that out)