good idea app - a lot of people have trouble with attaching images.
I never actually knew about the picture button 40 mentions. I always used the 'Link inline image'
(which I find very obscure use of language: I dont even know what 'inline' means here; and I'm not linking, I'm uploading 
)-tomos
I think that's intentional on mouser's side.
The forum is not really image host friendly as it might not scale well or the image might disappear. Also mass loading slows down too I think.
The image button is just there because it's a traditional toolbar template for most post editor so it's like killing two bird with one stone.
Those who know what they know still have what they want.
Those new to forums can apply the "recommended" way of doing the same function.
Inline means "inside" "line". It's the less powerful cousin of the word "embed" and the opposite of outline. It just means inside a bunch of letters, there's something inside like outline means outside a bunch of letters there are headers, sub-headers, chapters, etc. On occasions it can even be simply a synonym for inside depending on the knowledge of the reader on that particular function.
Embed would mean you can see the object once you inserted it as an attachment. Inline is like the red underline when you misspell a word. There's a "hint" to a greater feature (like [nobbc]) but no one really knows what it really all means unless you know what it should mean but at least it's inside of the text so it does not actually load anything and slow things down when editing.
Embedding an image would instantly show the image not only in the post editor but in the preview. See blog editors.
It's actually the word Link that makes things wrong IMO.
Not so confusing as to be unusable but whoever wrote it did not consider that the user sees the word attach and it should be
Set Inline Attachments or Set Attached Image InPost.
Not really clearer but truer to the meaning and not requiring the reader to split the dual meaning of web link versus any other link.
I will say though, how can you not understand inline but know [nobbc]?! That's like the mother of confusing and elusive and redundant bbc code.
