Sad to say, your hosts are somewhat backwards when it comes to the tech end of blogging. It's probably why we use a free service such as Blogger, with its very simple tools for layout and editing. (Just added - a new video upload feature to embed clips.)
Contrast with James Lileks, whose site is (appropriately) a smorgasbord of multimedia content: scans, stills, video, sound clips - pretty much all of it the work of his two hands. It's clear we're still in the stalls while others are whipping merrily around the track.
That's why I had no idea that it was relatively simple to blog for pay. SarahK has been doing it for a few months now, and had she never chosen to mention it, who could tell? There's an occasional link at the bottom of certain of her posts, that's all - an opportunity for her to earn a little walking-around money while the folks on the other end of that link get a steady stream of visitors, making it an attractive site for advertising and services.
(Seriously - I'm a dolt. They were calling it the "information superhighway" for so long I forgot how simple it would be to stick billboards everywhere.)
Sarah does, however, make it clear that she does some of her blogging for pay. I think it rules. I'm glad this squabble died down by the time I saw it (since I lurk at CTG from time to time and hate to see any of my invisible friends at odds). I vote that the Queen of the Infidels continues to cook up that yummy Internet goodness. (Gluten free, of course.) If other people subsidize the fun, so much the better.
(BTW - see the comments on the original post. Bless you all, I'd forgotten what it looked like to see people resolve differences maturely. No joke - my heart is smiling.)