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.)