Yeah... and DaVinci was a homosexual who had to argue for his life against conviction when he was caught en flagrante (conviction for a second offense would mean burning to death on a grill in the public square... a new definition to hot-crossed buns... not fun). There is a charming notation in his workbooks where he talks of the acquisition of a pretty 14-year-old boy! He made great art. He was a genius. However, he didn't do it on the Internet where there are laws about what can be shown. Bringing up a legion of famous painters of the past is NOT going to change the rules governing Internet commerce today. According to the TOS, no genitals can be displayed on figures which appear to be under the age of 18. What part of NO is so hard to understand????? That includes babies and toddlers and humanoids... not just fairies (this is not a war against winged folk! but adding wings is no excuse for breaking the rule repeatedly). The descriptions of nudity include sheer cloth... if you can see the crack of the crotch or the color of the nipples it isn't covered enough, and needs the nudity flag. If you can tell that it is a little boy or a little girl, it probably needs more coverage. If it is posed provocatively, it will also be pulled. So, yes, paintings in churches such as the Madonna nursing a naked-with-penis-showing baby Jesus would be pulled from this website... no matter how holy, reverent, or well-painted. Some of these images get refused as postage stamps, too... because various communities enforce even tougher decency standards. Saying "so-and-so does it" or "it is allowed at such-and-such a site" is totally irrelevant. It is not allowed here. Someone who has had a number of warnings (this is not a sudden or unforeseen event), even leading to banning, and still is shrilly rousing the rabble, directly or through surrogates, might want to consider thinking about community and disruption... or consider why she wants so badly to place her images where they are not allowed? She can take them to FairieWylde or some other site where naked kids can run freely and where the audience of viewers appreciate them. Or she can work to replace conservative people in government. Or she can write to the organizations which govern the banks and ask them to open the rulings. Any of those choices will do some good. She might also consider the idea that Renderosity's policies are affected by the laws of the State of Tennessee, the laws of the ISP/webhosts, the laws of the FCC (or how many other agencies get involved,) and the laws of PayPal and CitiBank and Visa and all the others who facilitate the transactions. Does she really want to bring down the entire site because Visa froze the accounts? PayPal has been known to act against other sites... this is not an idle threat on their behalf! Or maybe she'd prefer to have Ashcroft and several irate Congressmen cobble together even stiffer anti-child-pornography rules? If 20 people rise to her defense, she might feel vindicated... but if the community as a whole is damaged, what price such shallow victory? This stuff tends to snowball. The pendulum will swing (I remember the Summer of Love and the feeling that we could change the world). Carolly