Uhhh, JSM2? Read the following quote: "Again, =we= asked for one thing and got another. The fact that =we= asked for something is not in most places considered 'whining, or bitching'" I added the = = to bring your attention to the fact that you kinda set yourself up as a target, as you are claiming in your verbiage that you are some sort of spokesman for 'the group' that was uncomfortable with some of the banner ads, and like it or not, -are- partly responsible as a group for the course that the PTB took (and I think that Jack's point is that anyone with half a frontal lobe would have been able to guess that 'Rosity, being a business, would have taken the cheapest way out). And before you try and claim you didn't, consider this. You have a group of 100,000 people. A literal handful step forward and make a complaint, and use that all inclusive 'we'. If the rest of the group behind them don't speak up, then the only assumption that can be drawn is that they agree with the handful. And that the one speaking in 'we's' is the spokesman. And for several posts, you have been talking using 'we', as if you -are- some kind of spokesman for a group. I am not a part of that 'we'. So far as I've been able to determine, there were no 'real' women in any of those banner ads; just Poser meshes. So unless the model in question was Dina (no longer brokered here), Natalia, or one of DAZ's meshes morphed or modified in some way, there was no representation of genitalia to display. And little stars over the nipple area meets the legal requirements in Tennessee. As for poses that can 'only' be used for sexual situations....I'd like to meet that pose. Most of my work uses 'those' poses, because with a little tweaking here and there, you get excellent and dynamic fighting poses, everyday poses, pratfall poses, crawling through the dark poses, etc. Just as dancing, fighting, arguing etc poses can be easily tweaked to be some of the most explicit postures you can imagine. I have no sympathy for the few who complained about their kids walking in on them and being embarassed by racy banner ads. There are more than enough freeware and 'included in our package' retail software versions that -no one- has any excuse save laziness for not using one. And every one that I checked out required at most 4 clicks to enable or disable. Most only need 2. Not exactly registry hacking, is it? This particular ruling has no immediate effect on me, as I use an ad blocker always; I have a partial-complex siezure condition, and far too many of the little nuisances insist on strobing. Frankly, -I- had a far more legitimate concern than embarassment; that strobing could trigger a siezure, which could have injured me physically. I protected -myself-, instead of jumping up and down and waving the ADA in the air. Took a lot less time and energy, and didn't infringe on others. What concerns -me- is the very poor precedent that this sets. It would take over 1,000 separate people complaining to approach a 1% dissatisfaction rate. The actual number (barring a flood of emails and IM's; could the mods give us a rough percentage of the -actual- complaints on this?)is considerably less than .1%. That gives the next 'group' who wants, for an easy example, EloronceDark's bondage gear sets simply gone from 'Their Family Oriented Site' (which is utter BS, since you have to be of age or have a signed parental permission slip, the last time I looked) which shouldn't carry =anything= of 'that' nature a precedent (=Excellent= sets, btw, EloD. Have them all.... :P ). Namely that the complaints of a fraction of a percent of the membership should have sway entirely out of proportion to what it should have. The precedent is set. Remember who set it when it comes back and bites you.