On 7/18/2022 at 5:39 AM, Rhubarb said:
You are referring to a post that was over a year old and was using, even then, an out of date version (1.71). One had a problem with LAN configuration and the other had a tracker problem. Neither of the two came back to report that the fault still existed
That **doesn't** answer my point.
You stated, quote "No-one else seems to have the problem."
And yet, when I googled this issue, those were LITERALLY the threads that google found which is what brought me to this forum in the first place.
I don't know why you are CONSTANTLY living in denialism when, in fact, you are EXPLICITLY told that the BitComet client **has problems** **with connectivity**, which IS this issue.
If you want to live in denial whereby you are literally told, **explicitly** that the BitComet client has a problem, and you want to **ignore** the data, as you have already shown that that's your *modi operandi*, that's your business. But it is patently and **explicitly** false to say that no one else has issues with said BitComet client.
A simple search on your own forums for this taxonomy of issue reveals **multiple** threads talking about connectivity issues with said BitComet client and you have repeatedly try to make excuses for them rather than actually trying to fix or solve said issues.
This **is** the reality and the truth of the situation.
In fact, I *found* the expert/advanced mode with no help and no thanks to you.
Again, you're clearly **not** interested in fixing the problem nor solving the issue.
Every one of those threads is denial, denial, denial.
And at least in one of those three additional threads that I have cited, your response to the report of an issue is LITERALLY identical to your response here:
(paraphrase) "If this was an issue, there would be lots of "me too" threads about it." As if that's supposed to be some kind of a metric for you to hit before you would actually do something about it.
On 7/18/2022 at 5:39 AM, Rhubarb said:
and the other to an intermittent connection - NOT ping times
I have again, **explicitly** TOLD you about the BitComet client CAUSING intermittent connection issues [here](/topic/12802501-bitcomet-causing-excessive-ping-times/?do=findComment&comment=84885).
And the reason why I KNOW that the BitComet client is the root cause of the problem is provided in the ping data that you have **continued to ignore** rather than analyze/process [here](/topic/12802501-bitcomet-causing-excessive-ping-times/?do=findComment&comment=84872) and [here](/topic/12802501-bitcomet-causing-excessive-ping-times/?do=findComment&comment=84885). And I KNOW that you have been ignoring the data because the forums here provides a download counter for how many times the attachments have been downloaded and I KNOW for a **fact** that you have download the second ping time file **ZERO times**.
In other words, given the sum of all of the data and the evidence that I have presented to you, the data and analytics and information that this forum provides, also further provides additional data/evidence which confirms my hypothesis that once again, you are more interested in bitching about reports of problems (as shown above) rather than actually **fixing** it. Prove me wrong.
You can't.
On 7/18/2022 at 5:39 AM, Rhubarb said:
The number of BC users is over 100,000 - not half a dozen so it is obvious that BitComet is NOT the problem - the problem is in your settings. A 'me too' thread normally is well into double figures and all close together in dates and using the same version - not a handful from over a year ago using a different version.
Your claim is that a "me too" thread **doesn't exist**.
And as I have proved, it most certainly **does** exist.
Your denialism doesn't change that fact.
Think about it: how the f*** do you think that I found out that the BitComet client was causing a problem in the first place?
I measure the ping times continuously in order to be able to define and measure and analyze (which are the first three steps in [six sigma statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma#Methodologies)) in order to be able to not only conclusively and repeatedly demonstrate that the BitComet client is the cause of the problem, but also the nature and the severity of the problem.
You have attempted to argue or make excuses for the BitComet client behaviour quite literally for the past month now, by arguing that using the client will increase network load. But when I interrogated you as to whether you should **expect** an almost **122x** increase, you have **repeatedly and continuously refused** to answer this question, and rather, chose to ignore it.
You can b**** all you want about this report of this problem with the BitComet client just like you did in the other thread where you similarly complained about the **lack** of "me too" threads, as if that's supposed to be some kind of a metric that you are **actually** aiming for before you'll actually work on addressing problem. What's your threshold? 1,000 me-too threads? 10,000? 100,000???
You again, claim that the BitComet client is **not** the problem, and yet, based on the data that you have **never bothered to look at**, it definitively and conclusively shows that the Bitcomet client **is** the problem.
You claim that the Bitcomet Client is **not** the problem. How would you even know that if you've **never** bothered to look at the data?
And I can also further prove that the BitComet client **is** the problem because ever since I posted this thread and your **refusal** to actually try and help solve the problem (given the fact that you don't even recognise that it's a problem in the first place), I've stopped using the BitComet client completely and I've been using something else instead and so far, I've had **zero** dropped or missed calls/meetings as a result of running my new Bittorrent client that **isn't** the BitComet client.
That tells me that this issue **is** caused by the BitComet client, which again, you have **contiuously refused to acknowledge that there's even a problem**, despite the fact that MULTIPLE people have **told** you about it.
Your claim was that the "me too" threads **don't exist**.
And as I have proven, **they most certainly exist.**
And instead of fixing the issue, you spend your time **bitching** about the existence of those threads or try and argue how these are related/connected when that's literally **how** I found this forum via a google search of the same, in the first place. (which, oh by the way, if you search these forums for **ping times**, that's how I found those other threads as well). Even your own forum system tells you that there's a problem because you can **literally** run a search against the term "ping times" and those are the threads that **your own forum** will report back in the search results. How do you think I found those other threads?
On 7/18/2022 at 5:39 AM, Rhubarb said:
Oh and if you are tossing round 'rank' - mine is 2466
The point of the rank is to show that I have been a long time user of the BitComet client, but clearly, you don't give a f*** about that.
Like I said, the conclusion that I am left to draw here are:
1) You have no interest in helping people fix the problems that they are experiencing with the BitComet client.
2) You continue to deny and argue against data that you refuse to download, and analyze anyways whilst citing all sorts of logical fallacies ranging from *ad hominem* attacks to* **strawman* logical fallacies, to your employment of the ancedotal logical fallacy, etc., etc. etc.
3) You argue that the increase in traffic is to be expected. When asked if the increase should be on the order of about 2.08 magnitude increase (i.e. almost 122x, you have refused to answer that question).
4) You have NEVER bothered to download the data that has been provided to you in order for you to actually look at, and investigate to try and help resolve this problem.
5) You can't explain how the BitComet client actually connects to the DHT network and/or if that may play a role in why these connectivity issues exist.
6) No thanks to you, I was the one who was able to find how to put the BitComet client into the advanced/expert mode, and to enable verbose logging so that maybe, there might be additional connection diagnostic information that would be echoed into the logs so that I can try and send that to you to help me figure out what's going on with the BitComet client. But once again, you're not interested in actually helping people fix the problems with the BitComet client. You are, instead, only interested in bitching about people who report bugs about the BitComet client, as you have **explicitly** demonstrated above.
7) You argue: "if this was a problem with Bitcomet, this thread would be full of 'me too' posts. " and yet, I have LITERALLY proven to you of the existence of said "me too" threads, and the type of a response is LITERALLY identical to the response that you gave here:
/topic/12801842-bitcomet-makes-my-internet-packet-loss/?do=embed&comment=83388&embedComment=83388&embedDo=findComment" style=“height:298px;max-width:502px;”>
So, given the above, the natural conclusion that I can draw, based on the data that has been presented is that the BitComet client has gone to s*** and should be decommissioned immediately.
It's f****** garbage software, and what's even worse, is that the support that you've "given"/"provided" is what **actually** makes it worse cuz you **clearly** don't give a f*** if people are using the BitComet client or not.
If you want to piss away your user base like that, that's fine.
If you want to piss off your users so that people will no longer want to use the BitComet client anymore in favour of something else that's better, or at least have better support -- that's fine.
Again, then what the f*** are you doing here if that's the case (if you're just here to b****, rather than offer any, meaningful help/assistance cuz you clearly don't give a f*** about trying to fix problems. So what the f*** **are** you here for besides just to b**** and practice your denialism?)