The warning was a little too mild. But the picture no worse than what is seen on some prime time shows, day-time soaps and much less that on most of the HBO series that are so popular. For those offended at work -- your employer could set up a filter to protect you from your inability to keep from clicking on links you should not be viewing on company time. Perhaps the warnings should have been more clear (adult content ahead?). But how many clicked after truly considering it must be an adult site (the name, the number of times he warned you). For many, the multiple warnings were what intrigued them enough to click. And so much less offensive than the "hey, check this out" or "you must see this" links that keep getting sent (we have people call the help desk to shadow them, showing explicitly porn on their screens, reached from clicking such emails, then complain about receiving such email at work ... duh! don't click if you don't have some personal message indicating what it is about). In this case, the messages said: possibly offensive, naked people (multiple, not just one) using salsa (have any of you tried salsa this way? ... obviously something novel going on and it involves naked people). and "knuckle-draggers only" -- a true clue that the content is going to be sexually explicit (or offensive to women, prudes or involve something resembling naked twister). and the web site name, clearly displayed: boners.com. -----Original Message----- From: Jim DeLillo I have to agree about the warning. I think we would all have found a chuckle if it was simply a naked (or nekkid) person in the shape of a chile Or a chile in the shape of a nekkid (my spell checker suggests necked, naked, nicked or nuked) person :-). I was very surprised (though not offended) to see such a sexually explicit scene. So the warning, though well intended, missed its mark. A warning such as is found on a porn opening page would have been more appropriate.