User talk:Lightoftheworld

Shock
You'll get a shock if you see what the "neutral" administrator has done to Lauder-Frost's article. Its a disgrace. No two words about it. It's clear there is no control. Just thought I'd tell you. Thank you for your note. Sussexman 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. I'll look. Just had an email about it from old collegue in Essex. Lightoftheworld 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a message for you on my Talk Page. I telephoned JS and had a chat. He gave me your address as well as GLF's. I thought I'd break the ice and phone the latter. His wife said he's in the USA at the moment, so that rather finished that. She said her stepdaughter (who is unpolitical) had received a couple of phone calls about the vandalism on his Wikipedia article so maybe it was her who responded. But she was just a child in L-F's heyday so would know nothing. My mother is ill and I mst go to Cambridge tonight. So I may not be able to have much input into this continuion debate. I see your excellent contribution but I'm inclined to say delete. I'll write. Regards. Sussexman 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Your help in telling the truth in the deletions pages is much appreciated. 81.131.91.205 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Lightoftheworld 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats
Per our policy on legal threats, you are blocked from editing Wikipedia until your threatened legal action against Wikipedia or its editors, such as that expressed here, is concluded or withdrawn. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Was this user or indeed any user actually personally making a legal threat against another or were they making them aware of their precarious legal position? There is a difference. I shall leave a message on the blocker's page. Sussexman 18:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

The template is not truthful, as it would appear that he has been blocked by just one person: Blanning. Can't help thinking its a power thing with these people. 86.129.79.148 17:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it. This is the third person I've found who is blocked for merely citing UK law. Maybe these people think they are above reproach? 195.194.75.209 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Fascinating - more blocks
That yet another individual (User:Paul Marchment) has been banned on trumped up unproveable charges of supporting Gregory Lauder-Frost, when an examination of everything he has said on GLF's Talk page demonstrates absolute incisive balance. There is not a scrap of evidence to show that these people supported GLF in principle only that (like User:Sussexman) he felt that clear attempts were being made to abuse UK laws. Does everyone who supports UK legislation end up being banned here? 213.122.89.216 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)