if the newsletters were written by paul sure i would be fine with labeling them paul's you have a source for that note that i don't deny the facts but rather dispute it follows logically that these are his newsletters it is also a question of semiotics when i hear paul's newsletters i picture him sitting over his typewriter cranking out the latest issue or at least paul actively editing and overseeing the publication i do not picture an operation sixty miles away with ghostwriters publishing a newsletter under his name while paul is busy delivering babies elsewhere claiming we know it is paul's newsletter is misleading