Rick, please quote me exactly where I said I was offended by that picture. I can guarantee you that I've NEVER said that I was offended by the Kate Winslet picture. So stop putting words in my mouth, it makes you look foolish. Furthermore, for all you know I absolutely love porn and porn websites. I don't, but the fact remains that you don't know anything about me. So you really should not talk about me at all. The urge to call you all sorts of names is very strong... but... I... will... resist.... You seem to be so blinded by your zeal for whatever the heck it is that you're standing up for that you missed my point entirely. It's not even about porn. It's about what the sites we link to provide. Here's a non-porn example: Let's say there's www.billybobsfishingworld.com. Now, let's further say that www.billybobsfishingworld.com exists to sell fishing information to people who like to fish. However, the only way to get that information is to put in a credit card because www.billybobsfishingworld.com is a pay site whose primary commodity is itself. My position (and again, so that you can cool your jets -- it has nothing to do with porn) is that we should be very hesitant to link to pay sites in articles where the purpose of the site is to be a pay site. So in this example in the article for the world renowned fisherman [[Billy Bob]] we would not link to his "official site" since it's just a way for Billy Bob to make more money and is not a way for our readers to find out more about the actual topic of the article, namely Billy Bob. We need not drive traffic for Billy Bob; he can buy that himself. Of course it goes without saying that if there is substantial information freely provided about Billy Bob at www.billybobsfishingworld.com then that is a different story and then we should link away. And yes, I do recognize that this would probably have to be implemented on a case by case basis. -Kevin