I don't mind; I'm mainly curious as to whether their ideas are self-consistent, more than anything else. Any coherent system of beliefs has to be either aligned with experimental evidence (perhaps with unconventional terminology), independent of experimental evidence (i.e., unfalsifiable), contrary to experimental evidence, or self-contradictory. It's an interesting exercise to tease out which one it is, yet often unsuccessful, if the other person gets tired of your incessant questions. (In the worst case, they simply refuse to let their beliefs cohere at all, falling back to unexplainable mysteries that it's your fault for not already understanding.)
Well, I'm afraid you beg the charity of your readers' minds when you post ideas contrary to popular belief on a public forum. If begging others' charity is something to be avoided, then the alternative is to keep your ideas to yourself.
"Rational discourse" is the demand of people who cannot grok and need it explained within their epistemology. It is pointless, for they bring no conviction but disbelief and biases; and it is endless because it gives them not food for thought but "rations for argument", which is all their lazy intellect desires.
