Skip to comments.Since Regular FR Is Down, Could Someone Go To Backup Site And Tell Them How To Get In Here?
Posted on 09/14/2008 7:31:30 PM PDT by icwhatudo
FR is down when trying to enter thru www.freerepublic.com
Could someone with a yahoo ID go to the backup site and let everyone know how to get here to the beta site?
I got here using:
(Excerpt) Read more at groups.yahoo.com ...
I just got in via the reg. site, back?
Someone did that. I read it. My breathing is getting back to normal.
I guess I missed the excitement.
No problems logging on the regular way for me. Been OK for me all day (which seems rare lately - I usually have some problem)
I’ve been having trouble too.
Yahoo is how I found the beta url.
I was locked out out for hours.
Just when I ask, it looks like its fixed-lol
It’s on there .. that’s how I found it.
I also posted at www.freedominion.com .. in our FR guest room.
Couple folks are there, too.
Anyone know if the regular site is back for good yet?
Or are we to post at the beta site?
yep, just came back up.
Had problems last 45 minutes or so
I was subjected to unfiltered democrat party media talking points and was suffering from the symptoms of acute FreeRepublic withdrawal include tingling down your leg, the growth of hair plugs, and escalating condescension and stupidity.
BAWAHAHA...as soon as I saw the link I RUSHED in!! For a while there I thought I would “loose” it! ;-)
What is going on with this site this evening?I’ve been rying to get in for three hours.
Is Free Republic being attacked or are they performing maintainance on the site.
OMG...I can stop crying of laughter...my kids think I lost it!!! BAWHAHHAHAH..I gotta borrow that one!! That’s the funniest pic of the RATS I’ve seen in quite sometime!!
Oops...meant CAN’T...gosh that’s funny!
I had trouble for several hours—sometimes I couldn’t get to the site at all, at other times it would eventually take me to the site but all I could read was the initial blurbs for each thread, and couldn’t open the threads (I could get to the places articles were taken from, but couldn’t read the comments by FReepers).
At first I could get to the site and to read the comments, even to make a comment.
but after that, no deal. My Safari said no can read FR, lol.
I was about to go a little nutty without FR for a bit.
Am I addicted or what? :<D
Internet Addiction Guide
John M. Grohol, Psy.D.
A resource for objective, useful information about Internet addiction, a theorized disorder.
What is Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD)?
What "Internet addiction disorder" (IAD) is still difficult to define at this time. Much of the original research was based upon the weakest type of research methodology, namely exploratory surveys with no clear hypothesis or rationale backing them. Coming from an atheoretical approach has some benefits, but also is not typically recognized as being a strong way to approach a new disorder. More recent research has expanded upon the original surveys and anecdotal case study reports. However, as I will illustrate below later, even these studies don't support the conclusions the authors claim.
The original research into this disorder began with exploratory surveys, which cannot establish causal relationships between specific behaviors and their cause. While surveys can help establish descriptions of how people feel about themselves and their behaviors, they cannot draw conclusions about whether a specific technology, such as the Internet, has actually caused those behaviors. Those conclusions that are drawn are purely speculative and subjective made by the researchers themselves. Researchers have a name for this logical fallacy, ignoring a common cause. It's one of the oldest fallacies in science, and one still regularly perpetrated in psychological research today.
Do some people have problems with spending too much time online? Sure they do. Some people also spend too much time reading, watching television, and working, and ignore family, friendships, and social activities. But do we have TV addiction disorder, book addiction, and work addiction being suggested as legitimate mental disorders in the same category as schizophrenia and depression? I think not. It's the tendency of some mental health professionals and researchers to want to label everything they see as potentially harmful with a new diagnostic category. Unfortunately, this causes more harm than it helps people. (The road to "discovering" IAD is filled with many logical fallacies, not the least of which is the confusion between cause and effect.)
What most people online who think they are addicted are probably suffering from is the desire to not want to deal with other problems in their lives. Those problems may be a mental disorder (depression, anxiety, etc.), a serious health problem or disability, or a relationship problem. It is no different than turning on the TV so you won't have to talk to your spouse, or going "out with the boys" for a few drinks so you don't have to spend time at home. Nothing is different except the modality.
What some very few people who spend time online without any other problems present may suffer from is compulsive over-use. Compulsive behaviors, however, are already covered by existing diagnostic categories and treatment would be similar. It's not the technology (whether it be the Internet, a book, the telephone, or the television) that is important or addicting -- it's the behavior. And behaviors are easily treatable by traditional cognitive-behavior techniques in psychotherapy.
Case studies, the alternative to surveys used for many conclusions drawn about online overuse, are just as problematic. How can we really draw any reasonable conclusions about millions of people online based upon one or two case studies? Yet media stories, and some researchers, covering this issue usually use a case study to help "illustrate" the problem. All a case study does is influence our emotional reactions to the issue; it does nothing to help us further understand the actual problem and the many potential explanations for it. Case studies on an issue like this are usually a red flag that help frame the issue in an emotional light, leaving hard, scientific data out of the picture. It is a common diversionary tactic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.