Yes, Arcadia you are right.  However, in the 2nd thumbnail, the area of her breast that contains the naughty bits is by far cropped off-screen, which is a tactic used by many in the galleries.  Here are some examples:

(Thumbnail images renamed and rehosted on my website to protect the innocent, but the actual thumbs remains unchanged, except in the case of the 3rd the initials were blacked out).

Is it the mere fact that there are some fingers curling around into view that makes mine objectionable?

I just want to make clear that I'm not asking this b/c I want my thumbnail restored, or that I feel slighted (this was nearly a year ago).  At this point, I'm trying to understand what makes the 2nd of my thumbnails inappropriate.  (We have established that the first is not b/c a hand is not clothing.)

As for the wording, yes there was a form letter.  The quoted bit was appended at the end in red, I assume to make it easier to find.  I can post the letter in its entireity.  I keep all my site mail.

Actually, she does have clothing on, and the reason stated for its removal was not lack of clothing.  It was exactly as I have quoted, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail." (additionally, the reason stated for the 2nd thumbnail was "still too much boob").

I can pull other thumbnails from other of the site's galleries (after the thumbnail rule) that show more, in some cases also "nude" by your definition Acadia, (no clothing showing, only a hand or an image crop to hide the naughty bits).  If you'd like, I can go get them for you and post them here to show how arbitrary the enforcement of the rules has been.

In any case, this is now tangential to the point of my original post.  The rules have been clarified for me.

Don't mistake the intent of this, my thumbnail was pulled ages ago.  I'm just making a comparision in the interest that the rules are applied fairly to all.

This image is from the original front page article showing the required clothed areas for the "new" thumbnail policy:

However, the actual description in the rules only states:
No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. 
No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.

Here is a comparison of a thumbnail I've had pulled in the past for, and I quote, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail."

Any amount of boob was too much for the specific moderator at the time.  Here's another iteration that was also rejected for the same reason:

It ended up having to be changed to a headshot.  That thumbnail in the marketplace shows more boob than either of the two thumbnail iterations I have presented, and both pictures unarguably expose far more than the guideline image.  But I will admit, according to a narrow interpretation of the rules, only nipple & areola expposure is prohibited.

So, still I ask, why the different standard?

First, I found this info on Corel's support site on Error 1920 if you haven't tried it:

The following procedure should stop the 1920 error from happening

1. Make sure no other applications are running.
2. Open the Windows Task Manager by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Delete on your keyboard.
3. Click onto the Processes tab and look for PSIService.exe*.
4. Highlight PSIService.exe and click the End Process button. Say yes to the prompt.
5. Now try to install the program or push the retry button to complete the existing installation.  

*If you do not see PSIService.exe, check the box near the bottom of the Task Manager window that says "Show processes from all users", then look again.

If that doesn't work, I have to wonder if this is being caused by Windows Defender.  Is Windows Defender (or some other program that protects system services) running in the background?  It's enabled by default in Vista (and an optional download for XP, it's basically MS's anti-spyware software.  I've had it catch some things that others like Spybot and Ad-Aware missed in the past so it's not all bad.).

To check:  Type Windows Defender into the Start Menu.  If it's off, a little box will pop up asking if you want to turn Windows Defender on.  If the actual program comes up, click on Tools, then Options and scroll all the way down to the bottom and uncheck "Use Windows Defender".  Try your update again (as administrator of course).  I'd recommend to turn it back on once you're done.

If you're still not having luck, you should try Corel again...and again...and again.  Until they answer you (assuming that you have a legitimately purchased copy).  Call them if e-mail or whatever form-based support you've previously tried isn't working.

Well look what I Just got in my mail from Rendo' for Valentine's Day:

For a limited time receive ** 14%** ** off** of all purchases of $14.00 or more!!

I guess they love me, but not as much as the new customers ;)

Here are a couple of causes and solutions for problems mentioned in the past few days in this thread:

Problem: Poser auto-run installer won't work.  It asks for "Elevated" credentials.

Cause: The Poser auto-run does not properly request administrative credentials when launching the installer.  Is this Vista's fault?  No, it's e-frontier's fault.  It's not as if Vista betas and RTMs had not been available for nearly a year at the time fo Poser 7's release.

Solution: Jumpstartme2 found one of them.  Open the CD and run the installer directly.  Another option is to right-click the auto-run program and run it as administrator.  Simple!

Problem: My program said it wrote files into its Program Files Directory, but they're not there!

Cause: "Program Files" (and the Windows directory among a few others) are now restricted locations.  Administrative access is needed to write to them.  Instead of just failing, programs without administrative access will have their file writes silently re-directed to X:UsersAppDataLocalVirtualStoreProgram Files. 

Solution:  When you're in that directory, you should notice a button labled "Compatibility Files".  Click on it, and you'll find your missing files.
Alternate Solution: If you encouter a program that has this problem, run it as administrator.  You can set this permanently by right-clicking on the shortcut (or actual exe), going to the compatibility tab and selecting "Run as Administrator".  (It's highly likely that Gill's problem with PSP updating can be solved in this manner, either by applying it to PSP itself or the updater program if it's separate.)
Alternate Solution 2: Touched on by Gill already, installing the program to another location will alleviate the problem.  I use "Legacy Program Files".

A lot of the issues with Vista have simple fixes like this.  The security changes in Vista are not to stop you from doing as you like with your computer, they're to stop poorly written and malicious software from doing bad things to your computer.  If someone doesn't want those extra layers of security, you can turn them off (turn off UAC, change ownership rights & privileges on Program Files, etc.), and they'll be right back to where they were with XP.  If turning them off is not something that a person can figure out how to do (either on their own or through a little research on the web), then odds are that person is one of those who needs the new security features the most.

People are quite fast to criticize MS for "nannying" them, but what they fail to realize is that the same types of security precautions are in place in just about every modern OS out there (which may handle the issue more or less elegantly), from MacOS to the Linux versions mentioned in the previous post.  Frankly, it's ridiculous that it has taken MS this long to (nearly) properly institute these features.  Instead of getting on a soap box proclaiming that Microsoft is stealing their "rights" to do whatever they wish with their computer, they might try researching the issues they're having.  They might find that the issues aren't such a big deal after all, and they've really been preaching under righteous indignation fueled by impatience and misinformation and the popularity of bashing Microsoft.  I mean take a look at the laundry list of problems and bugs that Leopard had following its release.  Yet Apple gets a pass because, well they're the industry and popular darling at the moment.

Tongue-in-cheek or not, you made V2 look absolutely smashing!

Ever have any luck w/ PSP, Gill?

Sorry, I lied I'm not done. :(

I wanted to come back and apologize for my last response.  I let your previous post get to me, and honestly there was no ill intent from the get-go.  I think that's why it bothered me because you assumed I was your typical Renderosity forum troll.

You're busy, I'm busy, we're all busy.  Everybody's tired.  I enjoy your art and your products.  In short, I am sorry if my previous question(s) seemed passive agressive to you because they were not intended to be so.

There, I swear, I'm done with this thread.

Have a great night!

The vendors almost all have a 1-5 star rating that is given by pricewatch users.  IIRC, you can click on the star ratings themselves to see a breakdown with comments (and responses by the vendor) from each person who left feedback.

All this from asking a simple question "why?" from someone who enjoys your art and products?

The only passive aggressiveness I see in here is your last response.  If you're so offended by a question or two, maybe you shouldn't post on a message board where they can be posted!  Sheesh!

Don't worry, you can consider me done with this thread.

Don't mistake a question for a complaint.  First post ever and it's to respond to my idle musings while waiting for a render to spin?  Wow!  Cool!

In other idle speculation, isn't this the kind of post better served by the Jobs/Resumes forum?  It's a job, and it certainly requires a resume.

But if you aren't coming back to the site repeatedly, you aren't viewing the ads that try to tempt you to buy things!  It's not all just bandwidth & server speed you know, your eyeballs and where they're looking are important! ;)

Jokes aside, I think this would be a fairly nifty feature.

If you think that's the way you've got to go about your "hiring", that's completely your prerogative.  No, it doesn't bother me.  It's just too bad for you, because I (or someone like me) could've been the best beta tester you ever had! ;)

Well now, if every merchant requires prior testing experience, how does one ever get experience in the first place?  You have no idea that I'm a bad tester just because I've never tested with someone before.  Additionally, how do you know that other merchants "trained" people in the way that you want them trained?

That said, good luck to you in finding a tester that suits your needs!  Your stuff is always quite awesome.