moxxey wrote:

 and I agree the picture should have been removed .

Question: what was so special to that specific picture in comparison to the picture shown?

(see http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/t/28881.aspx?PageIndex=3)

Because it is still there!

i wouldn't call it the new avant as the avant had it's own playback source , vhs then dvd, until bno bring out a true successor to that amazing tv , count me out

what i want is a bv7 40 , that hides the wires and is c. £5-6k at the most

i just fail to see how anyone can justify the £9k the bv7/40 costs

PhilLondon wrote:

9 LEE wrote:

but i do think i owed it to B&O to at least discuss the image with the OP.

No you don't. You could have taken that decision independently, that could have made sense and in accordance with the new B&O friendly orientation of the site. If B&O had complained for a breach of copyright, that could have made sense as well. But asking B&O's point of view... :-( 

9 LEE wrote:

so what am i to do - tell B&O that 'Peter Bang' of 'no street. Stuer' posted them so it's ok?

Why does it matter WHO posted the picture. So if the person had used his real name/detail, you'd have given them to B&O!!!?!!!?!! Great! Wonderful!

Lee can you reassure us that you'd not reveal anyone's details unless you are legally obliged.

To be fair, I honestly believe Lee has the highest regard for personal security and truly wants site independance, however in this case he is dealing with a known "troublemaker", for want of a better word, who has been a member of the site several times before and it has ALWAYS ended in tears. He must lead a very sad life if he has to keep coming back here to try and cause mischief. (I may be wrong but I think there was something similar around the time of the BS5 launch).

I would happily support all of the points raised against the site, were it regarding a regular member - but in this particular case, where the guy has an axe to grind and has joined specifically to cause unrest.....................I don't think so.

Having provoked the argument, he's now laughing at us - I hope we've all been here long enough to see past his attempts at discrediting the site and it's administration, I personally would have deleted his member account before now.

 

Well put, Puncher.  🤒

Martin

Fom the second the BV10 picture was posed Lee was always going to be open to criticism.

I moderate a forum myself (nothing to do with B&O) and as soon as there is a whiff of controversy about a post  there is a likelihood of criticism if you take no action, and a near certainty of being criticised if you do.

I do not believe that the original post was made to provide the members of the forum with a 'sneak peek' of the BV10. The 'freedom of speech' arguments are a diversion.  The way that this has been followed up (i.e.going straight to a public post questioning Beoworld's independence) has convinced me that the post was made specifically to cause the controversy and make things difficult for Lee.

The moderators have my full support in deciding to remove it.

 

Simon

 

How to deceive the members of this forum?
Your completely out of line. I am not the “trouble maker” your presuming.

Beoworld has even a bigger problem the expected!

Surely if there are potential copyright or ownership issues with a photograph/ posting the site owner has to protect himself by removing the item if he thinks there may be a legal issue. Most national on-line papers, for example, moderate anything you submit before they put it online. It's unlikely that this was a private photograph of a BV10 out on a test drive, but if  taken in a location where photos were forbidden, or  lifted from official B&O brochures/ sources then Beoworld could have been in big big legal/ financial trouble.

In any case, I'm with the view that as enthusiasts we should be supporting any B&O official strategy to help them survive.

 

Graham

PhilLondon wrote:

9 LEE wrote:

but i do think i owed it to B&O to at least discuss the image with the OP.

No you don't. You could have taken that decision independently, that could have made sense and in accordance with the new B&O friendly orientation of the site. If B&O had complained for a breach of copyright, that could have made sense as well. But asking B&O's point of view... :-( 

9 LEE wrote:

so what am i to do - tell B&O that 'Peter Bang' of 'no street. Stuer' posted them so it's ok?

Why does it matter WHO posted the picture. So if the person had used his real name/detail, you'd have given them to B&O!!!?!!!?!! Great! Wonderful!

Lee can you reassure us that you'd not reveal anyone's details unless you are legally obliged.

 

 

PhilLondon - i suspect you've not re-read my original post, or indeed the other ones properly..  I never asked B&O's point of view, they approached me and asked me if i'd have a look at it and see if it had been posted with intent to spoil the launch.  I have never, and will never, divulge personal details on here - and i'm frankly disappointed that you had to even ask for my reassurance.

Should i then also type a letter of apology to Peter Bang and post it to 'no-street, stuer, dk, 11111, 222222222' as you think it's a real name and address that i should not have 'made public'?

Also, i did take the decision to removve the image independently. B&O did not ask me to remove it, they asked me to look at it and speak to the OP.  Unfortunately Peter Bang passed away in 1957 and John Edwards wasn't available to help me at such short notice, so i simply removed it.

The OP is getting exactly what he wants, and has been badgering me under another alias for the last week by PM offering 'information' and 'help', followed by a goading PM being smug about the hoo-hah he's created on this thread.

Lee

 

Sven_Peter wrote:

How to deceive the members of this forum? Your completely out of line. I am not the “trouble maker” your presuming. Beoworld has even a bigger problem the expected!

 

But why don't you use your real adress and email??

Lee, I'm behind you to 100 %.

As a member whos been around since beoworld Mk1, I like the new Beoworld. Even if we shall have a high ceiling in the forum, there still must be space left for the moderators to act. It's good we have a nice relation with B&O, but we shall of course stay independent.

Of course we shall post pictures of upcoming releases, even if they sometimes are just guesses, as long as it's not copyrighted pictures. To "steal" a picture from B&O and post is not OK. As an owner Lee is somehow responsible for what is posted here.

And if the reason to post is just to disturb and the poster hide behind a fake name, then just delete the post.