In this case, Paul C unwisely decided to question Coram Deo and me on biblical doctrine. Sidenote - it's never advisable for a skeptic to challenge a Calvinist like Coram Deo on such grounds, and I don't recommend doing so with me either.
So, let's get on with it.
Paul C said:
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."
Paul C might later object and say "No, I was discussing whether I'm a sinner a la Christian theology."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.
Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.
Why should I believe Rho's additional information? After all he might be lying or confused.
I like my interpretation just fine, and since Rho might be lying or confused can you think of any non-circular reason why I should give more credence or weight to an external authority over my own personal autonomous authority?
What if I think I know best?