MennoNet.com

i read a posting about a slimy website, and i just had to wonder
in your opinion, what does it take for you to consider a website to be slimy?

I'm not sure about which posting where you saw it but I would consider a website "slimy" if it promoted pornography, addictions, and carnal sins.

lesterb wrote:Try this (at your own risk).

Lead us not into temptation!

Explicit material, political idolatry, passive aggressiveness, gossip, blatant and unrepentant rudeness, falsity, etc.
Just to name a few....

Just hang around for a bit. Usually when Justme comes up with something like this, she's got an axe to grind or something to get off her chest, or ...

From the title I expected this to be a follow-up to the can of worms thread.

ohio jones wrote:From the title I expected this to be a follow-up to the can of worms thread.

Easy there. Seems lately my threads turn into all-out flame wars!!

steve-in-kville wrote:

ohio jones wrote:From the title I expected this to be a follow-up to the can of worms thread.

Easy there. Seems lately my threads turn into all-out flame wars!!

I think you are well respected here - OJ is making a joke about the surface texture of worms.



But vigorous discussion shouldn't surprise people on an Internet forum ;->

justme wrote:i read a posting about a slimy website, and i just had to wonder
in your opinion, what does it take for you to consider a website to be slimy?

The internet filter on my laptop seems to consider this particular thread to be "slimy."

Makes me curious what exactly it sees that makes it think that...