You and Sarkus have this habit of thinking because you repeat something, I must accept it, and move on. We'll here's the thing. I don't agree with you. So either attempt to explain it in a another way, or act by you own standard and accept what I have repeated and move on.
I feel I must call you out on this, Jan.
What JamesR does, and what Sarkus does, and what most others do, is identify what they disagree with in your arguments and they explain why.
If you still disagree with them, with their arguments, then you need to do more than simply repeat what it is they disagree with.
Neither JamesR nor Sarkus actually do that.
They do explain, usually quite clearly in fact.
What you then do is simply ignore them, and ignore points you don't understand.
You don't seek clarification, you don't say that you don't understand.
You ignore them and avoid the issue.
From the other's position, if you ignore their explanation, if you subsequently avoid the issue, it is reasonable for them to assume that you have understood their position on the matter.
Yet you then later repeat your same position as if they never offered their explanations, their counter-arguments.
So they repeat them, to remind you, thinking that your previous avoidance was an implicit acceptance or at least understanding, given your lack of any counter at the time.
And now here you are accusing them of simply repeating their arguments.
Noone says that you must accept what they say, but if you disagree with them it is
you who needs to do more than simply repeat your assertions
You need to explain why you disagree with their counter-arguments, as they do.
You need to ask them to clarify anything you don't understand, as they do.
You don't simply ignore them and keep asserting the same things as if they have never offered a counter-argument which, unlike them, is what you do.