Skip to main content

Facebook meltdown

My facebook page appears broken. I keep getting friend requests, but when I hit add friend, nothing happens. I cannot respond to friend requests, my inbox page is blank, when I hit friend labels (in "lists")I have set up they all show empty. There appears to be no way to report such problems. Anyone got an idea?


Anonymous said…
Doesn't philosophy give you an answer? :D
Hi Stephen. My name is Warren Riley and I live in Ontario, Canada. My wife told me about your conundrum and I thought I'd help you solve it. Here is my email address and email me first before we start. I want to know if your "Home" page works correctly. If so, we can "Chat" as I ask and tell you what to do while we are on line in Facebook. Of course, we will have to become "friends" to do so, but that will help me to extrapolate your situation ( also an exercise).
Often there are no solutions in Facebook, also if a question is asked to Facebook, you never receive a reply.

So, if a time that is convenient for you to correspond through email first, please let me know and I'll be on line for you.
There will be quite a few things to do to fix your problem and I'll be happy to help.

After we chat through Facebook, we can then establish what next about your "Add Friend" situation and your "Inbox" re: no messages when there are some. Hope to hear from you soon.
Regards from Canada.
Warren Riley email:
Stephen, as a second thought, when was the last time you "defrgmented" your computer and also "Removed Cache" and "Removed Cookies"? If your computer files are scattered all over the place, you will have problems with sites loading information correctly and making it almost impossible to read technical info and data packages correctly. May I suggest you do this first before we message on line? Also, after "defraging" and removing "Cache" and "Cookies", try Facebook again. While doing this, please do not remove anything else. You might be asked for your passwords again and if so that's okay. Just tell the site to "Remember" again. That's no problem. If it's still the same then we'll go to Facebook and use some intelligent and backdoor tricks to get it up and running.
Paul P. Mealing said…

When I tried to log in I got this message:

Account unavailable

Your account is temporarily unavailable due to site maintenance. It should be available again within a few hours. We apologise for the inconvenience.

However, I got in through a link via an email from a 'friend' on Facebook, but then it won't let me reply and it shows my 'Wall' as blank, though my 'Info' is still there.

I think Facebook has a problem.

Regards, Paul.
Unknown said…
You probably set up a fan page due to the policy of facebook to limit friends on personal account
Stephen Law said…
Thanks - here's the weird thing, after a couple of weeks of being broken, this morning it works fine (though it asked me to manually sign in which it does not normally). Possibly this is a coincidence or it might be because I sent a "suggestion" suggesting they fix the bloody thing. Anyway thanks for the kind offers of help. You might try same thing Paul...
Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

I just logged in and it was fine - a bit clunky, but it worked and didn't kick me out, and my 'Wall' is back.

So there was something up that we'll probably never know about.

Regards, Paul.
Anonymous said…
Well, I was rather hoping to find you on Twitter....

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o