You're the only one who's repeating yourself over and over again (even in this very stream of discussion! Your two posts addressed at me say the exact same thing while completely disregarding anything I said).
They say similar things, yes. (The rather crucial difference being that the first was about posing a new question, and the second being about crafting a rebuttal). Consider that's because you added nothing with your second post also.
Vauxxy has gone through quite some effort to explain the lacks in your answer to you, and you, as you so aptly pointed out, felt the need to repeat yourself instead of actually progressing. Similarly, I explained to you why the exact opposite of what you thought is actually the case, but you made no use of that information and instead restated your assertion, throwing in an "In that case". Do you not see how useless this is?
It should be possible to construct a reply for which repetition is not a valid response: and to point out the flaws in said response if repetition is done. That simply hasn't happened. if you follow the discussion, it took quite a while for Vauxy to actually make his central point (that all distances are unreliable), and when asked for how and why that is the case, he changed the topic to what could only be the assertion that they're not reliable, and that I should measure the distances myself. I asked for two things before I did that (a reason to think it was necessary, and to think it was safe), I've yet to read a reply to that.
The alternative is that at least one of us is being unclear: after all, I know what I intend to say, you know what you intend to say, so any losses of clarity are going to be harder to notice given that we know how to fill in the gaps in our own statements. That's why pointing out flaws in statements is crucial, rather than just repeating a question you feel hasn't been answered. if the answer's unsatisfactory, you have to say
why, not just handwave and say it is.
After all, I could respond to anything with a complete non-sequitur, or copy an already-refuted rebuttal, and you'd be entirely within your rights to just repeat yourself because the question went thoroughly unanswered. From my perspective (and experience on the other site), Vauxy's done just that.
If I can offer some advice: If you think that repeating yourself will help, you're probably wrong. Most people here have reasonably good reading comprehension, and they probably heard you the first time. If you feel that your response doesn't add anything to the thread (by virtue of being a simple restatement, as you yourself noticed), don't post it. It helps nobody.
I'd agree in theory, less so in practice. If Vauxhall's serious about disagreement (which I have my doubts about, from my experiences with him on the other side), it may just be that I was unclear, or phrased something badly: in which case restatement to emphasize certain details, or re-express to answer a point explicitly, can be of use.