Sometimes you have to repeat yourself, because what you say is ignored. For example, I spent almost the entirety of a long post explaining why Jim's criteria of "total transparency and full accountability of action" for an organization that receives public funding were unfair: transparency doesn't mean what he seems to think, and accountability in such decisions is generally to a board of directors who act in the public's interest, not individual members of the public who might have a problem with a particular decision. (In this case, the board itself made the decision.) Beyond that, as I said, it's unclear what "total" transparency (of what?) and "full" accountability (to whom?) would even look like.

Jim dismissively replied: "My point about transparency and accountability is still valid I think."