Hi Cat,

I get what you're saying. I do. But if I may, just a few quick comments (because I like paying "devil's advocate" :-)

Thing One: there are guys here struggling to keep off pic lookering... and naming names is a morsel that can be a lure to go off on a binge.

Fair enough. However, my original post had both the name AND links to the tributes. The links contained more than enough information (including a few non-nude pictures) to satisfy anyone's curiosity about what had happened. [And, the tributes did not have ANY links to more questionable sites, and did NOT even mention that he appeared in naturist videos.] It could be argued that doing all that editing of the post (to hide the details) might have resulted in MORE temptation for others to search (in more risky places) to find out what had happened (and to who). The human race is curious by nature, and censoring things often has the opposite effect of what was intended.

Thing Two: the antis are just looking for any tiny reason to shut us down or bring bad press in our direction. Mentioning details of a boy who does have naked pics floating prolifically in the BL community just gives them ammunition.

If trying to avoid bad press is our goal, then maybe it would help to not have innocent posts about the death of a teenager edited to include easily searchable terms like "child porn". Just a thought.

I realize I'm probably "beating a dead horse" here, so I'll give it a rest for now :-)

I do understand what you're saying, though. [I'm just a bit ornery at the moment.]

Blessings,
Rainboy