You're quite possibly right in this instance, but I am afraid I have a significant sequence of Bailey choices that have convinced me to be suspicious 
But rather than be negative let me focus on the positive: I continue to be fascinated that the older, unknown Daniel Browne translator frequently strikes me as best. And he's not that far in time from the Creech translation that I find to be almost unusable. So there's something fascinating to me about that 1743 version.
Lucretius Book Five:
Brown 1743: "Indeed, when we are once born, we should strive (whoever he be) to preserve our life, so long as we find an engaging pleasure in our being...."
Munro 1886: "Whoever has been born must want to continue in life, so long as fond pleasure shall keep him...."
Bailey 1921: "For whosoever has been born must needs wish to abide in life, so long as enticing pleasure shall hold him."
My comment:
Once again I find the 1743 edition more in tune with what I think the meaning should be if viewed in accord with the sweep of the philosophy ("engaging" is a positive word).
Munro's "keep" probably will strike some as odd language but it's probably accurate if we look back to older usages of keep (I remember the hymn phrase "The Lord bless you and keep you...." which does not seem to have a negative connotation).
But Bailey's "hold" has almost a Buddhist sound to it and I would accordingly reject that implication as negative. I would probably add this to my personal list of examples from Bailey where his choice of words reflects poorly on his assessment of Epicurean philosophy.
Does pleasure "hold" us, or does it provide the very goal and reason for living? If Bailey agreed personally with the latter option I don't think he would have used the word "hold" - if he didn't like "engage" and wanted to follow Munro's direction then "keep" or even "sustain" would have been a better choice.
Yeah I thought about not using the "rabble" word but I couldn't remember the "hoi polloi"! Actually neither term fits my target, because I don't mean to say anything demeaning about those who innocently misconstrue. My focus is on the strictly philosophical debate i referenced earlier, in with "pleasure" is the more technical term and "living pleasurably" is the more colloquial description. (I was thinking there was a passage about "the crowd" but couldn't put my finger on it.)
The EpicureanFriends server at Discord is located here. At Discord Cassius Amicus's user name is Cassius Amicus#7026
Cassius Amicus account accessible through the Fediverse, which is an open source open standards platform designed to provide an alternative to such closed corporate services as Twitter and Facebook. As a member of the Fediverse, the Cassius Amicus account can be followed by many Mastodon web and mobile applications, especially including Fedilab.
Edit: As of 11/20/22 the Fediverse address is https://social.vivaldi.net/@cassiusamicus
Possibly one of the best sources for Epicurean philosophy "memes" and other Epicurean philosophy graphics to share on social media is here in our "Gallery."
Access the gallery here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/
The gallery is organized by Category here: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/gallery/index.php?album-list/
The affective circumplex
OK we're going to need some definitions soon!
may try to use the single word "pleasure" to mischaracterize the philosophy as Cyrenaic hedonism.
What is this "may" stuff? Two thousand years of it and you can bet your life the misrepresentation / confusion will last another two thousand years too! I'm afraid this is something we just have to live with and do our best to avoid, but not by watering down the true philosophy. 
When, therefore, we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality, as is supposed by some who are either ignorant or disagree with us or do not understand,
More seriously you are of course right, but the issue that takes precedence (at least in my mind, and in many circumstances) is that clarity and the benefit of ourselves and our friends trumps everything else, regardless of what the "rabble" choose to believe!
VS 29. For I would certainly prefer, as I study Nature, to announce frankly what is beneficial to all people, even if none agrees with me, rather than to compromise with common opinions, and thus reap the frequent praise of the many.
nothing inherently inconsistent with Epicurus's philosophy to wanting to have a calm mind and a pain free body.
Absolutely agreed that there is nothing inconsistent about that, the issue would be that of being strictly rigorous in identifying the goal - the "end of nature," rather than getting sidetracked on lesser issues that are only part of the goal, like some people tend to do when they focus on the means rather than the end.
As for the distinction between "living pleasurably" and "pleasure" I think that the issue revolves around the context in which you're discussing the issue. If you're in a strictly philosophic debate you reduce things down to as essential and clear a concept as possible, so you end up expressing it like Torquatus did with his formulation:
I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil.
When we start talking about "living pleasurably" we're getting in the details of exactly what pleasures we're pursuing in a particular moment. When we talk about "pleasure" it sounds like we're at that higher level of identifying our ultimate goal (such as "virtue" vs "piety" vs "reason" vs "wisdom" vs "pleasure")
Both perspectives are valid and should not be seen to be at war with each other, or that one needs to replace the other.
EpicureanFriends account at Matrix.org
Update 2-6-22: This account is still there, but I am not signing in very often. I have cooled off toward Matrix for a variety of reasons, mainly that they too seem to be getting a lot of mysterious funding that no doubt has strings attached. They are open source and the security may be there if you run your own server, but at this point they don't make it easy to do that and so using the matrix.org main server probably subjects you to unwanted vulnerabilities.
Cassius Amicus account at Pixelfed.
The Odysee (formerly Lbry.tv) account for Cassius Amicus is here.
Cassius Amicus / NewEpicurean account at Youtube
Cassius Amicus at Instragram
The Cassius Amicus page at Gab.com (established long ago but not regularly used) is here.
The Cassius Amicus page at Minds.com (established long ago but not regularly used) is here.
The primary Reddit thread on Epicurean philosophy is here.
