So does the linked article still have the Davinci work that caused the contorversy to begin with? Thats been my point all along, Thunder was the one that said the article had been removed. I just went with the flow on that one. MY pont is if you remove a Davinci, then you can't call this an art site, and if you're going to remove a Davinci because of a complaint about nudity then perhaps the PTB shouldn't use Davinci's name to sell their wares.If he's good enough to exploit, his work is good enough to leave standing. If his work isn't good enough to view, then DON'T exploit his NAME! The "Great Masters" promotion is a farce and the subject of quite a bit of snickering amongst those I hang with.
So once again, if complaints are met with the pulling of master works, I hearby complain about the whole stupid promotion. End it. And while you're at it pull down the gallery. If Davinci isn't good enough to grace this site then exactly WHAT IS? We're not talking about porn showing women shagging themselves, we're not talking about pics of aborted fetuses. We're talking about DAVINCI for gods sake.