Ricky, define nudity as you interpret it, if you would. here in Columbus, OH it's perfectly legal for a woman to go toppless in public. an ordinance was passed by the city to specifically permit this. my point is that while it's "legal" in that sense of the word...that doesn't mean it's "approved" of by the religious leaders of the community. (at least that they'll admit to. lol) but it also is NOT their right to tell me that i can't stand on a street corner and watch the bare breasted women stroll by...just as they can't tell you to turn your head to avoid seeing bare chested men stroll past. (you see, when you vacation in exciting downtown Columbus, i'll meet you on the corner of Broad and High. never a dull moment here you understand. lmao) the standards, as i'm sure you'll agree, are QUITE different when compared to what the law will allow on the 'net. simply do a search on "nude" and you'll get 1000's of hits on Google. no one can tell me there aren't nude web sites originating from Nashville. nor can they tell me there aren't pornographic sites in Nashville. so it all goes back to the original statements...it was a purely arbitrary decision which caused the removal of Gerhard's image. it has nothing to do with what's allowed in Nashville or Berlin or Tunisia... it has everything to do with one person's very subjective reading of the TOS. i also strongly feel it's a simplistic cop-out (no Identguy i'm not talking about you or Frank now. lol) for Misha to say in effect "i was just doing what i was told". THAT particular argument was blown away starting with the Nurenburg trials if i remember correctly. it's a matter of free will...Misha made a conscious decision and took concrete actions to have the image removed. i feel he should at least accept the responsibility for doing this and not try to blame the TOS. the TOS allows for rather liberal interpretation of it's clauses in my view.