It's a very valid point you bring up
I would like to way in on this as a retired federal employee and one of the 24 million who have had their ID stolen. even through OPM (the feds) have said they have no info that was stolen was used I an living proof that my social security number was used to open 4 different lines of credit using me name. if I post my picture and these crooks figure it out where will I stand?
will you who want to see my picture help me get my ID back????
I prefer to rename faceless!!
and I hope this thread get DELETED
Even the request is confusing.
Why would you want someone else's picture showing up on a post?
What if the person whose picture showed up disagreed with what the poster wrote.
I think what PineCreek probably meant was for the "members on line now" area, not actual posts. (When he says "that screen", I think he means members on line area)
If I had to guess, my money is that this is one of those things the software can't do (presumably Rich may chime in at some point to confirm/deny).
As wonderful as computers are, every piece of software cannot do everything anybody ever thought it would be "neat" to do. There are underlying methods that don't necessarily allow everything that "seems" simple.
-Dave
Dave45681
I'm not a rocket scientist here , but I interrupt it the same way you do.
"members on line now"
Oh well, ya can tell it's summer.
Larry
I read it too quickly too.
Makes a tiny little bit more sense that way.
But I just plain disagree because that equals avatars over content.
Its about the trains first. The social aspect is a side bonus.
Maybe member A ends up posting three times the photo content of member B who has an avatar photo?
Bump member A to the bottom?
? 
In the "who's online" portion. Each persons preferred way of sorting differs, and so I understand why you might want to sort them visually by group that way.
I don't remember if they are listed by alphabetical order, or log in time now ???, but I know I hope for alphabetical listings when I search a group of written items.
If the avatars were allowed to be owned originals of engines or cars etc, I'd say sure "I don't care".
(I want a trade off! 
)
Maybe I'm shy.
Maybe I'm famous
Maybe I'm ugly
Maybe I can take a selfie because I have elephantitis in my thumb, and it covers the lens.
Photophobia?
Maybe I just don't own a camera because I'd rather buy trains with my little bits of excess cash.(me, two days ago
)
When I joined, I luckily had a few cameras abandoned at holidays because people got new ones, or I wouldn't have had one to be bothered with for photos at all.
Two days ago I just spent the first money on a camera since the Cannon AL-1 was released in 82.
Only a "Craigslist Special" this time. The only reason was I bought it was to share some things with folks here.
I don't take photos for keepsakes. Never did except vacation scenery with the AL-1.
I'm happy to share many things here, but my mug shown by "demand" wont be one of them .
I wouldn't join any forum with required avatars, and public name disclosure. Even in a closed, member only type forum.
Sorry, I think its a real bad idea. But maybe I am missing something .
Its social strengths would need to seriously outweigh the risk to even consider it.
Can you at least expand more on how it somehow is a "feature" worth that risk?
