I don't really know. Maybe n00b's detailed grass texture (look a few pages back) as main background with a <div> / <table> (I recommend a div) containg the actual page and a less "busy" background. It could even be the "blurry" grass texture.

It doesn't contain a doctype specification. It has no META tags (content type, content style type). It doesn't use styles, which makes the HTML code bloated and the page bigger in size (which doesn't matter now, but will make the site slower when it will eventually get more and more content). It's a total mess for the eyes (yes, there are people who view the source code of almost all sites they see ) which will also make it harder to update if you're not using a WYSIWYG editor. In other words, it doesn't keep up to the W3C guidelines or standards.

You're right, I didn't look closely enough.

Alright.

Looks way better. Good idea to change the HRs, too.

I was serious about the sans-serif. It's a lot easier for the eyes to read text written or rendered in a sans-serif font. (Verdana rocks for anything larger than 12px, use Tahoma when it's smaller). I don't like the links either, they could do with another color. Maybe you should make the color for visited links the same color as for normal links.